Post # 62
If marriage were only a religeous institution, and there were no civil aspects, then there would be no laws governing it, and you would not need a marriage license. Any church is welcome to refuse to grant their sacrament of marriage to any type of couple – as an example, the Catholic church has fairly strict rules about who they will and will not marry, and under what circumstances, and where. Nobody argues with their right to impose these restrictions. The question is whether the religeous viewpoint of a particular church should be imposed on people who don’t practice that religeon, via the laws of this country. And the laws of this country absolutely don’t track with historical definitions of marriage. Otherwise polygamy would be legal, and you would essentially be your husband’s property once married. Obviously the legal definition of marriage evolves over time – allowing marriages once illegal (e.g., inter-racial marriage) and disallowing marriages once common practice (e.g., a man marrying his wife’s sister upon the death of her husband, resulting in a polygamous union).
If the point of marriage to you is only the religeous aspects, and not the associated civil rights, I absolutely encourage you to forego the marriage license. However, I’m sure that’s not your intent.
Ryan, I agree that arguing on the internet is fairly useless. However, as you pointed out before, we have a moral obligation to speak up for those who are persecuted and who are victims of discrimination. I don’t particularly believe there is any way to convince a bigot to change, but I also believe that blatantly prejudiced statements, as well as clearly flawed logic, shouldn’t be allowed to stand without response. The best response, I’m sure, has already been made:
Matthew 7:5 – Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Post # 63
Just one more thing, and then I think I am done with this — I may not have convinced anyone, but I have attempted to speak the truth:
Ryan, I should have been more specific in my earlier post about Jesus saying that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. I mentioned the distinction between moral law, and social/ceremonial law. I believe that things like the slavery lawa and the food prohibitions would fall under the social/ceremonial law, and are no longer vaild today (not to mention Peter’s dream recorded in Acts, making all foods clean). However, the laws governing human sexuality are in the moral category. Therefore, I believe that Jesus would uphold them, and Paul (a man who Jesus allowed to visit heaven before death) says several times that homosexual practice is a sin.
And yes, I believe that Jesus is forgiving. But I believe that the forgiveness of God means nothing without His justice as well, and that those who do not repent do not receive the forgiveness. Those who live in an unrepentant homosexual lifestyle are, in fact, in sin.
Thanks for the fairmindedness, everyone. I appreciate the fact that you all (attempted) to criticize my statements and not my character or my faith. I pray that we will all become more enlightened and more in line with the character of Christ.
EDIT: Suzanno and I posted at the same time.. just curious as how I am a hypocrite? Thanks.
Post # 64
Elizzard points out that the memo I showed her only involves putting money and resources to the general cause, not prop 8 specifically. Regardless, I stand by the idea that church and state should be seperate and that this involvement with memos and coalitions blurs that line.
Post # 65
Thank you Doctorgirl, however that is still partly incorrect. The yet-to-be verified "memo" shows the Church putting thought and energy into the general cause against same-sex marriage, not money.
NO MONEY was donated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the Yes on 8 campaign, or to any political campaign preserving traditional marriage that I know of.
I’m not here to debate whether or not the Church’s involvement with Proposition 8 is cause for it’s tex empetion status to be repealed. I’m no legal expert! However I do not appreciate unverified and false claims against my Church.
Post # 66
I am a hypocrite, as are you, as is everyone who speaks against their neighbor’s sin while they themselves are sinners. And we are all sinners. Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone. We are all hypocrites.
I do not accept that slavery was not a moral sin.How is it not a moral judgement whether you consider another human being inferior or property? Chattel slavery is a moral issue just as removing homosexual rights.
Post # 67
I voted no — and I must say that I do not understand how we can change our CA Constitution by a simple majority vote. It should have been a 2/3 vote to begin with.
I was raised mormon, and I remember when the Morman church said that Blacks had dark skin because they were "evil" (not the exact words) — and then in the 1980’s retracted this belief to control public relations. Beliefs can be wrong.
A simple majority should not have control over others. The "moral majority" has no right to place their laws on who I love, my body, or my mind. Believe what you want to believe — as long as you don’t impose them on others.
I am apalled, ashamed, and dissapointed in California right now.
Post # 68
- Wedding: March 2021 - Ritz Carlton, Marina Del Rey
To get back to the original question, yes I am very sad about what happened in California, Florida, Arkansas, and Arizona. I will be donating money and intellectual resources to the challenge against Prop. 8 — efforts are already underway to mount legal challenges against it, under both the CA and the federal Constitution. The legal challenge that seems to have most traction right now is the one mounted by the Nat’l Coalition for Lesbian Rights. In a nutshell, their argument is that Prop. 8 is not an amendment to the CA constitution, but rather a revision, and therefore could not have been approved in a simple ballot initiative. According to the CA constitution, an amendment may be accomplished by a simple majority vote, but a revision must begin in the legislature and then go to the voters. I’m not an expert on the CA Constitution, though I do teach constitutional law, and I do think this is a reasonable argument to make. Until this gets resolved, my hope is that the court hearing the case will issue a stay on the amendment taking effect.
I don’t want to take part in any ad hominem attacks, and I hope those of us who support marriage equality will take the passion and sadness we have and channel it toward helping an organization like NCLR. You can donate here: http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=donor_giftcontactinfo
Post # 69
Two arguments I really don’t think hold water:
1) I don’t see how what Jesus believed or didn’t believe should have any impact on the laws of this country. That should only impact the religious discourse, which should be separate.
2) Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t make it right. Slavery, women being seen as property, Jews not being allowed to own property, etc. etc.
Now let’s repeal Prop 8!!
Post # 70
I saw an interview with a person who voted yes on Prop 8 on the local news… the voter said he was ok with gays being married but drew the line at having his kids being taught that it was ok for gays to marry. What a hypocrit. There are few things more disgusting than false tolerance.
I voted no on 8 and do believe one day it will be overturned.
I’ve yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not religion-based. Maybe there is one in this thread… I haven’t read all the posts yet, but will. I would really be interested in such an argument that is logical and well thought out.
Post # 71
- Wedding: March 2021 - Ritz Carlton, Marina Del Rey
@ tbitties: There is a left argument against same-sex marriage. A number of queer theorists, i.e. Janet Halley (a law professor at Harvard), argue that gays and lesbians ought not expend their political capital fighting for same-sex marriage for a few reasons: 1) Same-sex marriage is an invitation for the state to regulate GLBT relationships, and we ought to be trying to get the state to get out of the business of regulating private relationships, not the other way around. 2) Relatedly, we shouldn’t try to get recognition and equal access to benefits, etc., via the vehicle of marriage. Instead, we should focus our efforts on disentangling benefits from marriage altogether. This would help all types of relationships and people, not just those who want to (or have the resources) to get married. 3) On a more theoretical level, marriage is an inherently heteronormative institution, and our ability to challenge heteronormativity in all its forms will be undermined if we get co-opted into wanting what straights have.
I actually find the first two rationales to be very compelling. But at the same time, I don’t think the government is going to get out of the marriage business anytime soon. Until that day comes, I believe in equal access to marriage by all.
Post # 72
@hotcocoa: I sat here last night trying to come up with a post that eloquently explained some of the legal/theoretical issues at stake here (my fiance is a lawyer and taught me, among other things, about the consitutional revision distinction)…and gave up. So thank you, THANK YOU for doing it for me! I think that the most productive way to discuss gay marriage is by doing so from a theoretical, informed perspective that is based in an in-depth understanding of the law. Sadly, uninformed opinions – no matter how fervently stated – hardly ever sway anyone.
Post # 73
As per usual, I am beyond envious of your hot style AND your ability to make complex theoretical concepts palatable for all. You are in the right field, sister.
I have a few honest questions for December but am writing them on the board (vs. PM) because I would love for anyone else to chime in. I would really like to be open-minded about your view(s). I am genuinely seeking answers and absolutely DO NOT mean for these to come off as snarky, rhetorical questions.
1. If there were a law banning a child back-talking or disrespecting its parents, would you vote to pass it? What if there was a proposition to outlaw the act of openly coveting? (Which my comment to hotcocoa would directly violate- haha.)
2. What do you think about marriage ceremonies which are entirely secular and make no mention of God? Should they be allowed?
3. As per the book of Malachi, God "hates divorce." Is divorce something that you would vote to ban?
4. Would you feel differently if the same rights (in regard to taxes, visitation and estate rights, etc.) were give to same sex couples but it was not called "marriage"?
5. If you were a financial advisor (or a teacher or a business owner) and your services were needed for someone who was an alcoholic? an atheist? an unwed mother? a user of foul language?, would you want to withhold your services because they practice things with which you "fundamentally disagree"?
Again, I am not looking to be obnoxious or leading. You are obviously in no way compelled to respond, but I would love your insight. And in the name of not fueling the fire of snarkiness or deviating from the expressed thread topic, please feel free to send me a personal message if you feel more comfortable.
Post # 74
I did a little bit more research and found the following "fact vs. fiction" list. A number of sources have this information, and it’s true that most of them are against Prop 8. Still, these are facts as stated in California State law, and are intended to debunk some of the myths that have come out of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign (and that have popped up on this very thread, unfortunately). Nothing on this list is an opinion statement – the law backs up every assertion made. The original version of this list is longer and more biased, but I tried to edit it down to the topics that have come up on this thread. I underlined the two statements that pertain most directly to the discussion we’ve been having.
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
- Fact: The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
From Wiglet: Those of you concerned that the legalization of gay marriage would expose your church to risk of lawsuit are incorrect. So long as the church’s policy is anti-gay marriage, any minister of that church is within his or her rights to refuse to marry a gay couple.
Fiction: If Prop 8 isn’t passed, people can be sued over personal beliefs.
- Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
From Wiglet: in other words, December, if you refuse to work with a gay couple BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY, you’re already in trubs. Whether or not they’re married makes no difference.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, California parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
- Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Post # 75
Since this was a pretty hot topic, thought I’d just add that there is a good article in the New York Times today about the mormon effort to pass prop 8, for those who are interested
Post # 76
The Church of Latter-Day Saints is on record with the SF Gate as contributing $2864.21 in favor of proposition 8. http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=98349467568358
While it is entirely possible that this was donations specifically made by churchgoers and not taken out of the funds in any way, or it is entirely possible that the SFGate is just another liberal news rag and they are faking contributions to drum up hatred for the Mormon church, its there, on the record, that yes, the church itself, not just its members, gave money.
For any more information on specific churches which supported or opposed Prop 8, check out http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?Search.