Reconciliation . . .
What do you think of this call for reconciliation between the GLBT and LDS communities?
I like the idea of it, but I’m not sure if the ‘requirements’ as written are parallel? I can’t decide.
Truthfully, I don’t know many members of the GLBT community (indeed my life is far too insular), but of those I do know, I can easily imagine most of them willing to sign this. However, I can think of very few members of the LDS community (outside of the blogs) who would be willing to sign. Do you agree? I wonder why I imagine such a difference in reactions? Is it the petition itself (it’s wording or structure or something). Or perhaps a difference in the cultures of the two communities? Or some of each or something else entirely?
Do you think it could be worded in such a way as to make at least some mainstream Mormons, or even church leaders (as addressed in the petition) willing to put their name to such an endeavor? It would be wonderful to see people publicly reaching out to rise above the ugliness that seems to get most of the attention in this debate. (Hint, Hint, please be measured and thoughtful and mindful of tone while engaging in the following discussion)
The petition implies that “it’s a slow process” and “understanding is evolving”. It presumes an end, and it seems to call for patience for the church to catch up. Signing it as an LDS member would be akin to agreeing with those assumptions.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 9:51 am
In other words, I wouldn’t - it would also mean agreeing to the accusations contained within it. The requirements don’t feel parallel because the accusations are not parallel. The petition presumes that the Church demonizes but other people are only too impatient.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Sorry, one more: It seems to me than the extension of an olive branch should not include a list of accustions and an implicit demand that the other side admit that the vast majority of fault was on their side.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 9:54 am
so how about something constructive, how would you reach out, what would you sign?
Comment by fMhLisa — June 18, 2009 @ 10:07 am
I don’t think reconciliation is possible until the Church is willing to admit to its errors. At the very least, if it is not willing to consider the idea that they may have been wrong in how they’ve treated homosexuals, they would need to admit that they’ve been wrong in their pursuit of legal coercion to force their moral beliefs on the homosexual community.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Not like that.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Take away those accusations and the seeming desire to force the Church to hold most of the fault, I’m not sure what the petition is even trying to accomplish.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 10:18 am
If true reconcilliation is desired it would help if this letter addressed some of the mistakes the gay community has made in relation to the church, and asked for forgiveness for those mistakes. It feels more than a little one-sided to me in who needs to be asking for forgiveness and who gets to be magnanimous.
Comment by gomez — June 18, 2009 @ 10:27 am
Considering this part of it, that the church needs to stop
it sounds that reconciliation includes the church changing its position that acting on homosexuality is a sin. I can see changes like Derek pointed out (changing how homosexuals are treated and using legal means), but I am not sure the church is going to change its position that acting on homosexuality is a sin.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 10:29 am
I agree with the petition requesting that politics and practices be adjusted so that we make sure we are treating those of the GLBT community with true Christlike love, but changes in the policies tend to be governed by revelation. Doctrine will not change. It may be added to by revelation, but it does not change and should not be apologized for retro-actively as the petition requests.
The request for the LDS church to go back and change everything that may offend those who are GLBT is a very vague and broad request. Some people are offended by our very doctrine that the Plan of Salvation indicates that marriage between men and women, specifically, is ordained of God. Should we presume to tell the Brethren that they have got it wrong and that things must be changed in our time and not in the Lord’s. It seem to me that is very much like asking the KIngdom of God be built to Man’s specifications and not to God’s.
I would love to see greater understanding between LDS Church members and the GLBT community. There are several friendships I felt I had to walk a tightrope to maintain during the Prop 8 confrontation.
I LOVE my GLBT friends and associates, but there needs to be a mutual understanding. We should understand that the GLBT community are children of God who do not believe the same as we do, but it DOES NOT make them worthless or evil human beings because they deal with something many people can not even imagine. Christlike Love should reign.
The GLBT community should realize that the LDS Church is not a church of ignorant Hate-mongers for clinging to doctrines that have been set forth by the men we believe to be the oracles of God.
I do not believe in blind obedience, but there is still a set order. Any personal revelation we receive needs to be used to govern our individual lives and to effect change in people’s attitudes if we believe it is needed, but we can not tell the Lord how His Kingdom is to be built. If you do not believe the prophet is God’s oracle, then why try to get the Church to change what they are doing?
I am all for understanding, but a little understanding in return would go a long way to build bridges.
Comment by Libby S — June 18, 2009 @ 10:29 am
In response to #4, I would sign something that calls for understanding. Reconciliation of fellow human beings, but there is no way to reconcile what I believe with what the GLBT community requests that I believe. I would gladly re-write a petition. Maybe I should.
Comment by Libby S — June 18, 2009 @ 10:32 am
Knowing how these types of things have worked in the past, if they truly want reconciliation then I think they need to find a way to grant the Church a blank slate from which to start. It’s going to be enough of a battle to just get things changed for future GLBT’s to have more understanding, without also trying to redress the wrongs. It’s a whole lot easier to subtly change policy if you don’t have to lose face by copping to all the mistakes.
I’m not saying that it’s right or fair, but the Mountain Meadows families just got their apology a couple years ago. I don’t think anyone wants to wait that long for any action to occur.
Comment by reese — June 18, 2009 @ 10:32 am
I don’t see that this will do any good for several reasons. Here are just a couple. The church will not want to appear to be bowing to pressure. There is an article in Newsweek this week that also states just that in regards to what the church would do if Prop 8 comes to California again.
Another reason is that the church never apologizes or admits to error. I am not agreeing or disagreeing here just stating what I have seen in my 50 plus years. Case in point is Priesthood being extended to all worthy males.
We profess that Modern Day prophets are like ancient prophets but in fact they are not. Ancient Prophets seemed sometimes had a few “warts”. Modern prophets don’t.
Comment by cyclingred — June 18, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Either you believe the words of living prophets or you don’t. Asking prophets of the Lord to change church doctrine isn’t productive, because it is not even reasonable. Either you believe what the church teaches or you don’t. Now, asking to be treated with kindness, respect, love, charity, is absolutely reasonable and productive. I know that there are many people who have been hurt and ostracized by members of the church because of their homosexuality and I hurt for those people. Would that every person, inside or outside of the church, could be treated with the love, respect, and kindness that they deserved as a well loved child of our Heavenly Father.
Comment by Katheryn — June 18, 2009 @ 10:36 am
The source of all Truth (Wikipedia) says:
If anything like this would happen with the LGBT community and the church, it would be AFTER the church changed policies, as a tool toward healing.
If policies towards practicing homosexuals changes (not likely in our lifetimes), and a large minority of the church membership starts to see the current policies as a “mistake,” the church will never admit fault. The church is never at fault for any of its mistakes. It just moves on and pretends they didn’t happen.
Comment by Ann — June 18, 2009 @ 10:39 am
The idea that doctrine “never changes” is a dubious one. Or at least, while it may be technically true, what constitutes doctrine is a difficult thing to define. Many within the Church thought that Brigham Young’s declaration that blacks would not be granted the priesthood until the millennium was doctrine. That concept was obviously subject to change.
How do we know that the concept that homosexuality is unnatural and that homosexual relationships are sinful is not the same sort of thing?
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 10:40 am
#13 of course Modern prophets have a few warts, but those are up to the Lord address. Remember what happens to those in the old testament who try to point our the warts of ancient prophets . . .
Comment by Libby S — June 18, 2009 @ 10:44 am
That is because modern prophets always trump those behind them besides that statement of Brigham Young’s was not in the cannon. Nor is there scriptural basis for it. This is not the case with a homosexual lifestyle.
Comment by Libby S — June 18, 2009 @ 10:45 am
I’m extremely sympathetic to the GLBT community, so much so that I have angered some friends and family members as we discuss Prop 8 and related issues. However, even I recognize that this letter is offensively one-sided. It glosses over the attacks–verbal, personal, and physical–that many opponents of Prop 8 made on LDS members while going into details about the offenses of the LDS church. It entirely omits the fact that the LDS leadership has repeatedly admonished its members to treat homosexuals with love, respect, and openness, repudiating violence or anger toward them.
Additionally, it hints at asking the church to change its doctrine, a request that could only be made by people who do not understand that LDS people believe that doctrine is not within man’s control to change; it is up to God. This aspect alone indicates that the authors of this letter–and I don’t know to what extent they actually represent the gay community–do not have a basic enough understanding of the LDS church or its people to begin seeking a reconciliation.
I’m not sure that this is a genuine attempt at reconciliation. The writer was clearly intelligent, which makes me think that he or she cannot possibly be unaware of how uneven and imbalanced this document is. Even the URL–ldsapology.org–is such a huge rhetorical gaffe that I cannot believe the author would have missed it if reconciliation had indeed been his or her intention.
I won’t go so far as to say that this document was intended to alienate LDS members, but it was certainly not intended to gain reconciliation with them. It seems likely that it was not intended to speak TO LDS members at all, but rather to speak ABOUT them when they–as anyone could have predicted–largely rejected it.
Comment by Heidi — June 18, 2009 @ 10:48 am
fmhLisa, in the OP you ask if the “requirements” are parallel. I don’t see that the GLBT community has ANY requirements in this petition. I see that they acknowledge that issues of sexuality are “complex.” Therefore, the church should do a, b, and c. I totally agree with this:
but I’m not sure how the GLBT is supposed to do that, other than
That’s pretty vague, especially in light of the fact that the Church’s “requirements” are pretty specific.
Another note: I’m not sure compromise is possible, and not because of my intransigence. I think gay and lesbian couples should absolutely have all the same rights as straight couples. That’s not enough, though, for many, because it’s not called “marriage.” I think the issue of gays (and women) in the military, especially in combat, is more complex than “just do it.” (Note: I didn’t say I was opposed to it, just that it’s complex.) I don’t think that the church should be asked, even nicely, to reconsider the doctrine of eternal marriage.
I do think that everyone should be nice, magnanimous, and forgiving. On both sides.
Comment by Molly — June 18, 2009 @ 10:52 am
I think I can agree with “For Church leaders, reconciliation requires examining ways in which official statements, rhetoric, policy and practice have been injurious to gays and lesbians and their families and friends; have caused unnecessary pain and suffering, rejection, psychological and spiritual damage and even death.” I think we should be aware of how all our statements come across to those outside of the majority in an effort to become more Christlike. I don’t think we should change our positions, but I adamantly agree that we should not cause “unnecessary pain and suffering”.
When I think of scriptural condemnation of homosexuality, I think of it in context, right along with condemnations bestiality, incest, adultery, and fornication. I think the scriptures are clearly against all of those.
To me, the letter has a strange combination of helpless victimhood and agressiveness in forcing the church to change.
I don’t know. I just don’t know.
Comment by kew — June 18, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Sorry but no.
The church leadership was actively and vigorously involved in the taking away of their rights. The GLBT community reacted, some justly and others not. Not going to happen unless one group gives, and that group is going to have to be church because every 6 year old knows the “They started it!” rule.
Molly, I don’t think gays want the church to change their eternal marriage doctrine, they just want the right to have their own marriage, much like we mormons enjoy our own marriages which are separate from everyone else’s.
Comment by ronito — June 18, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Ronito, the statement says:
That sounds like a nice “your official church policy of supporting only heterosexual marriage in your temples has been injurious to us. You need to examine it.” Also, I stated my support for equal rights, but it seems the GLBT community won’t accept this compromise. How about we call “civil unions”
Comment by Molly — June 18, 2009 @ 11:27 am
re: 18
If the current prophet can always trump previous prophets, that kind of explodes the theory that doctrine can’t change.
Many people considered the statement of BY (and many other historical church leaders) as canon. As to scripture, there is precious little scriptural basis for the injunction against homosexual relationships; it is mostly extrapolation and conjecture.
re: 20
No, homosexual couples do not have the same rights. Moreover, words matter: if you say that their relationship is equal but cannot be called marriage, you are de facto making it unequal: separate but equal does not work. Lastly, there are other faiths and organizations which are willing to formalize homosexual relationships as marriage. To deny them that right in order to make sure they live up to our beliefs is to violate freedom of conscience.
As to those who think this reconciliation petition is rather one-sided, you are correct that both sides should treat the other with respect. The homosexual community should respect the fact that the Church believes its position on homosexuality is divinely inspired, and has a right to make moral judgments on any sort of behavior (though that right stops short of using the law to force that judgment on people outside of their faith). The thing is, most in the homosexual community already do that. Our frequent commenter Lorain is an excellent example. She has repeatedly said that she no interest in forcing doctrinal changes on the LDS Church. She has been extremely respectful in how she addresses our faith. I think most homosexuals are naturally inclined to do the same.
The reason we saw such anger coming from many in that community over the last year (or few years) is not because the homosexual community is hateful or anti-religion (many, like Lorain, are very religious), but because the LDS Church (along with many other conservative Evangelical faiths and the Catholic Church) were not respecting their rights. We were trying to force our moral beliefs on them and their religions. They saw constant harassment in the paranoid way people described the “gay agenda” and how it was trying to “subvert the family” and “destroy religion” and “destroy America.” They were being vilified (more by the evangelical community, and certainly not this time by the leaders of the LDS Chuch, but certainly by very many of the members within the LDS faith). This does not justify their hateful responses, but I think we should be more understanding about it. If we (the various religions which have fought so hard over the past several years to violate their rights) were more respectful, they would be more respectful. It has to start with the side which has started the demonization: Us. If we stop making them hate us so much with our abuse, our derision, our snide comments, our self-righteous condemnations, and most of all our betrayal of the freedoms we claim to uphold, we can have dialogue and reconciliation.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 11:32 am
However much other posters may not wish to force the church to change doctrine, this petition definitely does.
Since gay people are not monolithic anymore than any group of people are, I prefer to examine this petition on its own merits and not excuse it because of the behavior of someone else unconnected to it.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Derek, I never said gays did have the same rights. I said I supported equal rights. And I agree that words matter, which is why I don’t support marriage being extended to gays and lesbians, although I do support all other rights being extended. You may see this as separate-but-unequal, I see it as proof that compromise is impossible, which is highly frustrating to me. I’m willing to offer everything but the word. Too many see this as evidence of my hatred of gays. It’s not! It’s a belief that marriage is a word that means something specific.
Comment by Molly — June 18, 2009 @ 11:45 am
re: 25
You are correct that this petition goes too far in making what appears to be a doctrinal change. They would be smart to edit that out. I should have specified that I was talking about the general issue of reconciliation and the issue of mutual respect rather than the specific terms of this petition. As I said before, making internal changes respecting how we deal with homosexuals and homosexuality, and acknowledging prior mistakes, is a precondition to any meaningful reconciliation. Until that happens, any petition like this is pointless.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 11:47 am
re: 26
You honestly don’t believe some legal rights are being reserved specifically for the term “marriage?
What about other faiths which believe it is God’s will that homosexuals be allowed to marry? Why deny them the right of conscience to grant that to members of their congregation? Who are we to decide for anyone but ourselves what the word “marriage” means?
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 11:50 am
An olive branch that demands the other side admit to all or most of the fault is not an olive branch. It is certainly something, but not that.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 11:54 am
the petition would like to force it’s values on the church and make the church stop forcing it’s values on others…huh
Comment by britt — June 18, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Derek 28, as an individual or group, I don’t believe I have the right to define a term for everyone, but as a community, we have to define terms for our community. Take “rape” for example - there has to be a specific meaning assigned to the word. Someone can’t just say, “Well, I think rape means that she fights and screams and tries to claw his eyes out. Otherwise it is not rape”.
It seems to me that in the case of Prop 8 and CA, that is what they did: have the community of CA vote on what it wants “marriage” to mean for CA.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
I think one of the largest problems of the petition is that it also overgeneralizes, making Mormons and the Church out to be monolithic, which neither the Church nor the LGBT community are. Many of the problems they state, such as the actions of “reorientation”, were (as I understand it, correct me if I’m wrong) the actions taken by specific authorities in specific instances, and should be addressed in the manner the church proscribes: talk to the offending party (presumably the bishop who made the call), if they refuse to deal with it talk to their immediate authority (stake president) and so up the ranks, on an individual and not public level, even to the first presidency if it’s absolutely necessary. Asking for public apologies is not the way the Church operates (except in specific instances: D&C 42:88-92), because as much as it seems like a good idea we all know that when someone’s faults are made public they are judged.
If people have problems with official Church-wide policies, like specific doctrines, then I could see the need to address the Church as a whole. But it seems in some sense, with the wording of the statement, that they want to indict the entire Church for individual instances of homophobia and misconduct.
I believe the official policy of the Church is trying hard to be loving and accepting of homosexuality and homosexual tendencies as it can be while still maintaining its doctrine that homosexual activity is a sin. Who knows if that will change; that’s also not our call.
I like the idea of this petition, but I DO think it is one-sided and problematic in what it asks for. I wouldn’t sign it as is. I would sign a petition or join some sort of group or organization that seeks to reconcile LGBT people and Mormons on an individual level, addressing specific instances of homophobia or expressing mutual goodwill and the desire to communicate on both sides. I know that my LGBT friends and I don’t always see eye to eye, but we manage to discuss it very amiably and understand each others’ positions much better because we can talk about it. And I love them, because they are amazing people, often dealing with amazing hardships. The thing I think is so sad about much of the intolerance on both sides is that we are, both rather marginalized groups, are lashing out at each other, when we probably understand each others’ plight rather better than a lot of other people. I think we have a lot to learn from them, and they from us, if we just talk.
End rant
Comment by Christian — June 18, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
P.S. I meant who knows if the doctrine will change, and that not being our call. Though, I suppose, if you wanted to pray about it, thus asking the person in charge of determining doctrine, and petition for change that way, I think that could be legit.
Comment by Christian — June 18, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Derek #5 -
Saved me the trouble of writing it out. Thanks, dude.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
“…if we just talk” I would change to “if we just listen.”
Human mortals are so limited. I think God is bigger than anyone knows.
Comment by hero — June 18, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
These questions are so hard…
Do they deserve to be treated in a Christ like manner? Yes.
Do they have the right to petition the Church? Yes.
Would I sign the petition? I’ve read it twice, and while I do see the need for respect and acceptance on both sides, the ultimate goal of GLBT is full acceptance. Until the Church allows gays to go on missons, marry in the Temple and have children sealed to them, they won’t be happy. No matter how a petition would be worded, a change in doctrine concerning the acceptance of gay marriage and gay rights within the Church is not going to happen.
I respect the Gay Community on their personal choices. They deserve to be treated fairly, they deserve to have their relationships recognized by law, and to live without persecution. But I really doubt that God would change his laws because we felt he was being unfair.
Comment by Kathy — June 18, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
It’s surprising to me that in all my reading both in mainstream and on the Internet I haven’t seen anyone articulate what I believe is the actual reason the Church had to make this stance and had to get involved and ensure Proposition 8 passed.
I am gay and was raised Mormon my entire life. Served a mission honorably and merely “evolved” into what I am. I was neither “in” nor “out”, I merely evolved into what my sexuality WAS from the beginning and that’s homosexual. I was never conflicted, never felt guilt, never felt like I was living a lie… I just didn’t have anything within reach to explore my true nature while growing up. When I was old enough, and mature enough, I did and am now at full reconciliation with myself.
Back to my point however. The Church had not choice but to be involved in the manner that it did. Is it offensive? Absolutely. Is it unfortunate that now every member has to live with the consequences of perception in the world because of the actions of a few? Absolutely. Do you need to suck it up and either own it or abandon it? Absolutely.
I think that “reconciliation” is not an option. Using doctrine phraseology, “divine intervention” or “inspiration” is the only choice.
If you believe the Church is true, the only form of truth in any religion in these latter days, then you must believe in the cannon of both written and living/oral scripture. Not parts of it, not pieces of it. All of it. As it has been interpreted for members.
We have all heard some pretty amazing conversion stories in our lives, have we not? Ones which bring us to tears, ones which evoke what we’ve been conditioned to associate with the validity and truthfulness of the message and the Church.
One of the core and fundamental edicts of the Church… the “true” Church mind you, is that it applies to any and everyone. Not some people. All people. A Church can’t claim to be “the only true and living Church” if it doesn’t apply or provide a path for any and everyone to become members.
Imagine if California’s Proposition 8 had failed to pass and that same-sex marriage was legal. Not civil unions… marriage.
Imagine 10 years from now and picture this story. Two men, raised with good morals in families that accepted and loved them.
Both raised in non-Christian families and both gay… both moved to California to peruse their careers. The met… fell in love and legally married. They eventually adopted two children and celebrated their 8th year wedding anniversary. One day, two missionaries knocked on their door and were invited in to share their message. A message neither of these two individuals had ever heard before. The message resonated with them… it spoke to something they’ve been lacking in the lives before. They felt it was true.
As of this very moment. The “Church” in both written and oral doctrine would not apply to these two people and their family. They are legally married to one another. Are chaste, monogamous, honest, giving, loving, fathers of two which are all the criteria ripe for conversion. They are however one other thing… gay. This simple fact means they are outside the “truthfulness” of Church.
As of today, what would the Church have these missionaries instruct this couple to do to become members? A couple who had never been presented with the “truth” before and so very much found it fit what they had been missing all of their lives? Would they have them dissolve their marriage? Split their family? Become celibate to one another in order to be baptized?
These are very real threats to a Church which purports to be the “only true Church” on Earth, does it not? A Church with universal applicability to all mankind. The administration of the Church can not be faced with that VERY REAL situation because as of today… it shakes the very validity of the doctrine. For this reason, and this reason only the Church had no choice but to prevent (or attempt to prevent) the legalization of same-sex “marriage” because it is not yet ready to face the fact it may be only part true and not all true. How many times have we all heard that the Church is the ONLY true Church… and that everyone else has
There is a very real difference between what’s right and what is true. Something that most members don’t understand. Truth is eternal, it’s very simple and it’s not complicated. It’s the “be” attitudes in essence. The Church adheres to a phenomenal number of truths but its practices of what it believes are “right” are not always consistent with truths.
Was the Church true the day before and the day after African Americans were allowed to have the priesthood?
Was the Church true the day before and the day after it practiced polygamy?
Is the Church true in the “before” of its beliefs of same-sex marriage?
It’s “right” in all three of those examples both before and after, but some of those “rights” are not directly related to “truths”. It’s not an eternal “truth” that African Americans were allowed to have the priesthood one day but not another. That was merely a machination of a modern Church trying to be true. Race is now irrelevant. It’s neither “right” nor “true” to believe otherwise.
Polygamy was a machination of a Church trying to be true. In eternal principles and truths, it may be irrelevant.
Anti same-sex marriage or the mere concept of homosexuality is a machination of a modern Church believing it’s both right and true.
The only reconciliation that can happen is between the machination of the current Church claiming it’s right in their opposition and selling it as truth. When they understand the irrelevance that homosexuality is with respect to eternal truths then and only then… will the truth be aligned with what’s right.
Comment by Scott — June 18, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
re: 31
Yes, Stephanie, as a community, we have a right to define terms for our community. And for our community (ie, the LDS Church) we have a right to decide for ourselves what the definition for marriage will be within the Church. We do not have the right to decide that for any other community without violating their freedom of conscience.
In comparing the situation to rape, you are comparing apples and oranges. Rape is sexual activity with another person without their consent. In other words, rape is a violation of their right to determine what happens to their “property” (their own body).
The relationships which homosexuals would like to formalize as marriage are consensual relationships. They would like that marriage to be performed by organizations which consensually accept the morality of those relationships (religious or fraternal). Not to allow those organizations that right to decide for themselves if those relationships are divinely sanctioned is to deny them their freedom of conscience. Not a legitimate comparison.
re: 32
A well accepted part of repentance within the LDS faith is the idea that you must ask forgiveness and make restitution to the person whom you have injured. The Church itself should be an exemplar of the principles of the Gospel; therefore, the Church should absolutely publicly seek forgiveness to the many people who have been harmed by the policies of the Church.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Heidi #19 -
I have never done anything to harm the LDS Church, either as a corporate entity, as a local establishment, or to individual members. I, as a gay person, really and truly have nothing to apologize for or to seek reconciliation with the church for. The fact is, it is the Mormon Church which has harmed ME and MY family, not the other way around. And this is true of (guesstimating here) probably at least 95% of all GLBT people.
To suggest that we, as GLBT individuals, have anything to make amends for to the LDS Church, is rather short-sighted and insulting, really. And I mean this in a much more loving tone than it probably sounds.
The fact that a few individuals, here and there, have behaved badly, does not make ALL GLBT persons at fault in the failure of relationship between the Mormon Church and the GLBT community. Community leaders have never advocated violence against LDS Churches or individuals. They have urged tolerance and non-violence. And even if they HAD incited violence, it would still not carry the weight of corporate actions taken against the LGBT community by the leadership of the LDS Church, because the LGBT community HAS no elected officials. Anyone who acts in “leadership” of the LGBT community is essentially a self-appointed spokesperson. I don’t have to listen to them. I’ve never agreed that they are MY leader, my president, my prophet. I have not chosen baptism into an organization or vowed obedience to a principle authority or hierarchy of authority. Therefore I (and a multitude of other GLBT persons) am not responsible for the actions of a handful of misbehaving idiots who can’t control their tempers.
Can you see that there is a vast difference between a very few violent actions taken by badly-behaved individuals who happen to be gay vs. a massive corporate action taken by a monolithic power structure to encourage the removal of civil rights from an entire group of citizens?
If you expect the GLBT community at large to admit to some kind of “wrongdoing” against the LDS Church, I think you may need to rethink this situation a bit.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Would not sign.
Comment by Erin — June 18, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
re: 39
Very well stated, Lorian. Not to mention the fact that the actions of those gays who have been angry and hateful would never have happened were they not so often barraged with cruel and demeaning jokes, sneers, condemnations and other attacks by very many people who identify with the religious community (including many LDS members). No I’m in no way suggesting that everyone who have supported the various violations of freedom in the past few years are homophobes. But there is undeniably a very vocal homophobic presence within the LDS Church and the conservative Christian groups with whom we’ve aligned on this issue.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Derek 38 - I wasn’t comparing rape to homosexuality at all. I was making the point that a community can decide for itself what a word means. The citizens of California have the right to decide for themselves what “marriage” means. I can see an argument for the church infringing and people from outside of California inferfering, but ultimately, the citizens of California can define terms for themselves.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
re: 42
In saying that both could be arbitrarily defined by government, you equated them in regards to the government’s role. You were ignoring crucial distinctions between rape and marriage, namely that one is a violent act violating the liberty of others, and the other is a consensual act based on the right to follow one’s internal belief system as long as it does not interfere with the liberty of others. Thus neither should be subject to arbitrary government definition (society should not be able to vote that certain forcible sexual practices do not qualify as rape, for example). The sole role of government in either case should be to protect individual liberties, which means taking opposite actions for either: preventing the former (rape) and protecting the latter (marriage based on one’s conscience).
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Scott #37 - I agree with much of what you say, here, but I must disagree with the continuation of the conflation of civil marriage with religious marriage.
Mormons, like Catholics, are in an excellent position to clearly understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, and the fact that the two are separate and distinct entities.
A Roman Catholic couple can, like any couple, go to city hall, obtain a marriage license, and be married before a Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Court. They are then civilly married in the eyes of the law. But their church would not consider them married at all. If they went to a priest, he would tell them that they needed to go through the Sacrament of Marriage in order to be considered married in the eyes of the Church.
An LDS couple, likewise, could go to city hall, obtain a marriage license, and be married before a Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Court. But this would not mean that they were eternally married in the church’s eyes. They would need to be sealed in the Temple in order for the Church’s doctrine of eternal marriage to apply to them.
Thus, the gay couple in your example, Scott, is not eternally married in the eyes of the Church, and there is no real conflict involved, from a religious perspective. There is, of course, a TERRIBLE conflict involved from a human, and moral, perspective, in terms of them being expected to split up, tear apart their family, abandon their children, in order to obtain “righteousness” in the sight of the Church, but this has absolutely nothing to do with their civil marriage. The situation would be just as complicated and horrible and morally bankrupt if they had a civil union, or were simply living together in a committed relationship, raising their children together, and were converted by missionaries and expected by the church to renounce their relationship and family.
Civil marriage is not religious marriage. We need to get past this confusion before we can move forward with the issue of making sure that all citizens of this country are treated equally under the law.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Okay, derek, let’s start over because obviously you are trying to make my comment into something it’s not. You said:
To function as a society, we need terms that we agree on that apply to everyone. We can’t just go around deciding what we think words mean and then expecting (particularly legally) that everyone else has to go along with what we decide. So, “marriage” has to mean one particular thing for a society. You have people in the camp that marriage means one man and one woman making a commitment, and people in the camp that marriage means two people of any sex in love making a commitment. Well, how does a society decide? Contrary to what you said, that it could be arbitrarily defined by government, the people of California decided to take a vote on what they want the word “marriage” to mean. That’s the extent of my whole argument: words matter, and communities need to decide for themselves what they mean.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Derek #43 - Great post.
When we attempt to define terms regarding homosexual relationships by making comparisons with how the government treats criminal actions, we are working from a basis of thought in which homosexual acts are the equivalent of criminal acts.
I understand why people take this knee-jerk approach. Since it has only been in the past decade that we gay people were declared, finally, not criminals for making love with our spouses in our own homes, perhaps a bit of confusion is forgivable. Comparisons have been made between legalities of rape, incest, bestiality, and, yes, polygamy, with homosexuality for a very long time.
But the fact is, we have reached a point where we can understand that there is and should be nothing intrinsically illegal about same-gender sexual relationships between consenting adult persons. We recognize that same-gender couples are just as capable of forming loving, monogamous, supportive relationships as are opposite-gendered couples, and that such pairings offer the same benefits to society of mutual support and caring for one another in sickness and old age. We recognize (at least, our psychological professionals recognize — some of the general public lag behind) that same-gender parents raise healthy, well-adjusted children equally as well as do opposite-gendered parents, and therefore society has (or should have) no investment in inhibiting their ability to become parents, and reaps the same benefits from them for which it rewards opposite-gendered parents.
There is, in short, no reason for society to withhold the benefits of marriage from same-gendered couples.
Churches, on the other hand, have their own criteria for handing out their religious blessings or sacraments. They are entitled to such. If a church does not wish to grant the sacrament of baptism to a gay person, they can withhold it. The gay person cannot sue them in court and demand that he be baptized. The same is true of religious sacraments of marriage, Temple Sealings, etc. If a church declares that it will not grant Sacramental Marriage, or Temple Sealing, to a gay couple, there is (and should be) no recourse. The gay couple cannot go to civil court and sue the church for a sacramental marriage, or sue to obtain a Temple Sealing, even if the couple has obtained a civil marriage.
Holding a civil marriage license does not entitle a couple to be married in a church. Churches can and do refuse to marry couples every day. The Roman Catholic Church will not marry a previously divorced person. It will not marry a couple who are not either of them Roman Catholics. It will not marry a couple who will not agree to raise their children in the church.
Civil marriage and Religious or Sacramental marriage are two entirely separate things.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Whoops, I strayed badly from my point. Sorry. I can only beg forgiveness because my twins are having a playdate and keep interrupting my train of thought with questions about My Little Ponies and chips and swimming…
My point was that it is understandable that people think “criminal” when they think of gay. They have been taught to do so. But being gay is not criminal, and drawing legal comparisons working with concepts related to criminal behaviors is not fruitful, and is insulting to gay people. Bad enough that the law treated us as criminals for so long, without continuing that discriminatory treatment now that the law has finally caught up with the truth.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
Okay, Lorian, really, it’s not necessary to keep harping on my example like I was trying to say something between the lines. I could have used any number of terms - what defines an “adult” for legal alcohol consumption, what defines a “commercial” transaction for tax purposes. My point was that words need to have an agreed-upon meaning for everyone, particularly when the involve legal issues. And now that I’ve said that like 5 times I’ll just shut up.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
No, I am not trying to make your comments something they are not. I’m trying to show you the meaning of your words, their consequences. You brought up rape and used it as an analogy of how government can and should define words. I’m showing you how that is not a valid comparison.
The people of California (who are ultimately “the government,” or the body from which the government derives its power) voted to arbitrarily decide what marriage means. That does not make it ethically or morally right. If we were truly living up to the principle of freedom of conscience, a guiding principle of the Constitution, then society wouldn’t decide by vote on matters of conscience. Society would decide by letting each individual or group decide for themselves. Each individual or group could use persuasion alone to spread their definition. In a sense, you could say that on issues of conscience, there should be a free market, not a democracy. Because it is on religious/conscience matters that a free market is most important. To allow marriage to be defined by popular vote, without consideration of individual rights, is to condone tyranny of the majority.
If you believe that marriage can be defined by popular vote, then you must accept the legitimacy of the idea that government could ban miscogenation, or marriage with infertile people, or marriage over the age of fifty–or temple marriages. If someone got the necessary signatures for such a proposition, and then got enough people to vote in favor of that proposition, would you be so sanguine about using popular vote to decide the definition?
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Stephanie #45
Very true. But having “marriage” mean one thing for a society does not equate to having “marriage” mean the same thing to every church within that society. Society’s definition of “marriage” is already a great deal broader than the definition embraced by individual religious groups within society.
A Roman Catholic Church would not recognize the validity of the marriages of most of the people posting on this thread. And the LDS Church would probably not consider most people married in the Roman Catholic Church to be “eternally married” unless they had converted and sealed in the Temple.
Society does not, and should not, decide who is eligible for civil marriage based upon the sacramental marriage restrictions of any one religion. What if the government decided not to grant civil marriage licenses to anyone who had been previously married and divorced? There would be a great many people, even in the LDS Church, who would no longer be allowed to get married, or sealed in the Temple, based upon the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. Should the Roman Catholic Church have the right to dictate to the rest of society who is and is not allowed to marry, based upon its own internal beliefs and teachings?
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Derek #49
Derek, if you were single and I was straight, I would so propose to you.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
No, “marriage” still has to have some common meaning. If that meaning is “any combination of persons who want to make a commitment”, which means that marriage means just the commitment and union, then fine. But, traditionally that is not what our society decided it meant. So, what we are seeing now is legal means of re-defining the term since some people don’t agree with the current definition as it is canonized into law.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Lorian #44
That was most insightful. I hadn’t even come at it from that perspective. Thanks for your analogy. I’m sure back in the day prior to African Americans receiving full fellowship into the Church many argued that allowing such a thing is contrary to God’s will. Contrary to what the plan was for those type of individuals.
The same arguments are being used on this topic and it’s false causation. Civil marriage between consenting adults doesn’t threaten religious marriage in the least just as the color of ones skin doesn’t threaten or diminish the validity of the Priesthood for those of a different race.
Using this same-sex “marriage” as the only arguing point to dismissing homosexuality is the easiest course of action. Recognizing its irrelevance in achieving happiness is much more a difficult matter to reconcile.
Can you imagine sitting down with someone who was African American and face to face saying… because of the color of yours skin, you don’t have the same potential in life as I do. We couldn’t fathom that in today’s society (I couldn’t at least).
The Church doesn’t want to have those type of face-to-face interactions and Proposition 8 was the easiest course of action to avoid it. The problem is… it’s not going away. Opposition or not… it’s going to come knocking again and again and again.
Comment by Scott — June 18, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Lorian, good point about the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. I am talking specifically about civil marriage. As a society, for the purpose of associating rights and protections with the union of marriage, we need to agree what it means. We can’t arbitrarily decide.
Look, I’m not arguing that we need to leave civil marriage as defined as one man and one woman. I am arguing that it has to have one meaning for everyone.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Lorian, I do remember a few gay rights websites “outing” supporters of Prop 8 and encouraging people to protest them by no longer eating at their establishments, boycotting their businesses etc. They advertised these peoples names and places of work or living, possibly putting their lives in danger. I know personally of one man who was forced to resign his job in Hollywood because he supported it.
I actually did not support Prop 8 and am very much in support of equal marriage rights for homosexuals, but I did see things going on afterward that I did not approve of. People shouldn’t have lost their jobs over this.
That might not have been you, but there were gay rights groups who were involved in bullying tactics like that. If the church should apologize, certainly those organized groups involved in such behaviors should apologize as well.
Comment by Roxanna — June 18, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
re: 52
Requiring a communal definition of civil marriage would be a lot less necessary if we were less concerned with social engineering through giving certain rights and privileges to marriage. But I’ll concede that yes, there does need to be some baseline definition of marriage recognized by the community. If that definition does not need to take into account freedom of conscience, which you seem to be implying, Stephanie, I’ll ask again: Are you willing to accept as valid a law excluding temple sealings from the definition of marriage if the community votes that way?
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
I liked what Scott in #37 had to say #37.
Don’t hate me for this thought …. wouldn’t it be great if women had the priestesshood, then when two of our lesbian sisters joined the church they wouldn’t need to rely on their Home Teachers.
Make it a worthwhile Thursday.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — June 18, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Derek, honest question: In Vermont, the definition of marriage changed due to the legislature. How is that not government arbitrarily deciding what marriage means?
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Derek, I must have missed that question, but I’ve said before on this website that my preference is government civil unions that grant rights/protections for everyone and to remove the word “marriage” from anything legal. So, yes, I am okay with temple sealings being different from civil unions.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
No scratch that; I don’t concede the point. Why does there need to be a uniform concept of marriage? What should it matter to me whether my neighbor in his faith considers his polyamorous relationship to be marriage? Or what does it impact me if the new Church down the street only allows left handed people to marry? If there is no material impact (the material realm being the only one for which the government has any responsibility), then government should not be involved. They should be free to decide for themselves what relationships are divinely sanctioned. If conservatives believe that government is ill-equipped to intrude upon economic matters, they should understand that it has absolutely no capacity to be involved in matters of conscience! It should indiscriminately give the same rights to any sort of cohabitation/sexual/reproductive/economic living arrangements (or no specific rights at all), and allow individuals/voluntary organizations to decide what qualifies as marriage.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Stephanie #54, I agree. Civil marriage must have a single meaning for our nation. That’s why our current situation in which a gay couple is legally married in Massachusetts, and then, when they vacation in Florida, they are legal strangers, is untenable.
This same situation existed prior to the Loving v. Virginia decision, in 1967. Interracial couples could marry in some states, but not in others. An interracial couple in Virginia, Mildred and Richard Loving, were married in 1958 in Washington DC, where such marriages were legal. At home in Virginia, however, their marriage violated the state’s antimiscegenation law, and was considered invalid.
The USSC declared in Loving that marriage is, itself, a civil right, and that states must show good cause for denying it to their citizens. Race was no longer to be considered good cause.
Having some citizens able to marry in one state, but then to have their marriages arbitrarily denied and invalidated when they travel to other states flies in the face of the very purpose of the 1st Amendment’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires all states (and the federal government) to honor the public actions of all the other states, such as marriages, adoptions, divorces, etc.
You agree that we are discussing civil marriage, not religious marriage, so therefore I would assume that you would agree that the religious teachings or beliefs of the LDS Church, and/or other religious groups, should have no particular bearing upon how we determine who is or is not qualified to engage in the contract of civil marriage.
The way we decide who does or does not have a particular civil right is not by religious belief, nor by majority rules. The assumption is made in this country that EACH of us is entitled to ALL of the same civil rights as all of our fellow citizens UNLESS it can be demonstrated that society has good cause for denying us that right, based upon a demonstrable harm which will come to society or to our fellow citizens if we are granted the exercise of that right.
Thus, a sister and brother are not allowed to marry, because of the distinct potential for serious harm to come to their offspring due to issues of consanguinity (not just because it’s “gross” or because “the Bible says it’s wrong). In the same way, adults are not permitted to marry children because children do not have the capability of giving informed consent to such a transaction, and are highly likely to be harmed by it.
There is no corresponding incidence of demonstrable harm in allowing same-gender couples to marry. It does not harm society. it does not harm the couple. it does not harm other citizens. It does not harm the couple’s children. The fact that some people find it “icky” and that some people believe that the Bible teaches against it (others disagree, by the way) are meaningless arguments and have no bearing on whether or not to grant gay couples the full and free exercise of their civil right to marry one another.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Marriage is between a man and woman. Two men and two women are against everything that is natural. Procreation is one of the most important things and that can not be done by two men or two women. The church should stand firm and so should we! I would never sign something like that. I do believe the GLBT community can live how they want to live. That goes for anyone else. I am entitled to my opinion and NO ONE has the right to force me to change that opinion. Just how I will not force anyone to change their, but they (and I) can freely share that opinion.
Comment by Justme — June 18, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Is there a group out there for those of us who believe in civil unions for all? I would love to get involved with a group that has that goal in mind.
Comment by Roxanna — June 18, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Roxanna #55 — Anyone who donates to a political campaign in California above a specific dollar amount, does so as a matter of public record. This is not “outing.” They agreed to have their donation be a matter of public record by making it in the first place. No crime was committed.
As for boycotting those who donated, how is this wrong? If a business in your community gives money to a cause against which you feel strongly, are you committing a grave wrong by refusing to spend your money there? I cannot imagine why it would be wrong for me to withhold my money from businesses in my community which would then use my money to cause harm to my family.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
Derek #60 - I really don’t see much difference in our positions.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Roxanna #63, I’d be fine with civil unions for all, and marriage as something granted by religious organizations according to their own rules.
Under such a policy, you and I would both have full access to the same civil rights AND we would both be able to marry our respective spouses in the religous institution of our choice (since there are many churches who will marry gay couples).
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
re: 51
Thanks, Lorian.
re: 58
This is government acknowledging freedom of conscience, acknowledging that they don’t have a role in deciding what marriage means, and allowing others to decide for themselves. Government can only be accused of interfering with right to define marriage if it either a) restricts that definition, or b) requires everyone to accept a given restriction. Since the Vermont law neither restricts that definition, nor forces others to accept any given definition (ie, it does not require religious faiths to begin performing homosexual marriages), it is not “deciding what marriage means.”
Re: 59
I agree with you on that, but that isn’t what I meant. You are supportive of laws, passed by popular vote, which deny certain civil benefits granted by government to people in homosexual relationships (marriage). If a similar law were passed by popular vote denying the civil benefits associated with marriage to people sealed in the temple–just like Prop 8 did for homosexual marriage–would you accept that as legitimate?
(and yes, I recognize that Prop 8 grandfathered in prior homosexual marriages, and we can assume this law would do the same for temple marriages).
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Lorian, #64, it may not be illegal, but it is clear intimidation.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
I apologize if I am overly impassioned.
At first glance, this reminds of battered women going to their husbands, and apologizing for whatever slight that justified him beating the crap out of her.
Gay people were not attacking the Church. Yet the church sought to attack gay people. In the name of protecting the family, they sought to destroy mine. And I am the one to apologize because they beat me?
California is a pluralistic and secular state. Mormons are free to believe whatever they want, but those beliefs should not be used to deprive me or others of fundamental rights.
When do we get to vote on your marriage? Many fundamentalist Christians believe Mormonism is a satanistic cult. In the name of morality and their theology and where they have a simple majority, should they vote to take away your civil marriage and your fundamental rights.
Gay people should not go crawling to the Mormon church begging for them to be nice. They should stand up and Demand the Church recognize them as human.
I do apologize, if in my comments anyone feels personally attacked. I do believe, as D&C 42:45, we should learn to live together in love.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Well the instances I saw went beyond their names being a matter of public record. I’m talking about websites specifically saying “This person supported Prop 8 and they work at this job at this location, lets get them fired” That is an organized witch hunt IMO and I think it is very wrong. It would be the same as companies forcing resignations on Repubs or Dems or anyone else based on their political ideology.
Comment by Roxanna — June 18, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
JustMe #62. If gay couples should be allowed to live however they choose, then why should they be denied the same civil rights as their fellow citizens? More to the point, though, why should their CHILDREN be denied the same civil rights as their fellow citizens’ children? Because that is the net effect of denying civil marriage to gay couples. Gay couples have children just like anyone else (despite your claim that reproduction is what distinguishes gay couples from straight). But our children are not entitled to the same civil rights and protections as the children of our straight friends, despite the fact that we pay just as much (and often more) in taxes as they do.
And if reproductivity is to be the measure by which civil marriage rights are to be determined, then the infertile must be denied civil marriage, and the civil marriages of those who remain intentionally or unintentionally childless after a reasonable period has pass, must be automatically annulled. We cannot go granting rights willy-nilly to those who are unqualified to receive them because of their reproductive status, right?
Not to mention the fact that, reproductive or not, committed, monogamous relationships benefit society because of the mutual care-giving and long-term provision of partners for one another through old age, illness and after death. There is no innate distinction between same-gender couples and opposite-gender couples which mitigates the benefits of their long-term, committed relationships to society.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
I did a brief search and couldn’t find any organizations devoted to the cause of civil unions. Maybe I’ll start one…
Comment by Roxanna — June 18, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
re: 65
The difference is that you are willing to allow certain relationships to be denied certain civil benefits simply because the majority says so; which majority made their decision largely–if not entirely–based on their religious belief, no meaningful objective reason to the contrary having been given. I am unwilling to accept the use of law to enforce one’s moral beliefs upon others where there is no material harm done.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Man, Stephanie. You sure do have a way of getting people to pick at you.
Anyway, I tend to fall with Lorian and Derek on this one. I get your point, Stephanie, that there should be some communal definition for a word (though I agree with Derek’s position in #60). I think it’s important, however, to come to a definition that makes sense and is fairly representative of all people it affects. Thus, you need to look at the reason for a particular definition. What makes the one-man one-woman definition of marriage problematic is that it always come down to one of two things - religion or homophobia (the “ick” factor). Neither of these two things is valid.
People often try to claim that their opposition isn’t religious. But everything comes back to it. The only thing people are left with is that “marriage” is a word that already has meaning, and we should leave it alone, which is a very, very weak argument in the face of human need and compassion.
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Geez, people, slow down!
By the time I read all the new comments, and then refresh the page to post, I have 10 more minutes of reading to do!
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Mary, #57
Honestly, I don’t care… my beliefs are so much more evolved than those taught within the walls of the LDS Church. At least I like to think so.
Like it has been said above, I’m most offended that a religious institution dictated to those who weren’t its adherents who can and can not enter into marriage in California after the courts had already decided gender of the two who desired to marry was irrelevant.
Knowing the full extent of the LDS Church’s involvement in Prop 8 has made me ashamed. In all my life I’ve never seen the LDS Church “inflict” its views on others. Persuade? Yes. Inflict? No.
This was an infliction and for THAT there needs to be an apology. The Church doesn’t have to accept, they don’t have to welcome, they don’t have to change doctrine but they can’t inflict themselves on others who want nothing to do with them and their definitions of right and wrong, good and bad, saint and sinner.
It’s that sentiment that I used to tell my parents I am now ashamed to admit my upbringing. I can’t take pride in being affiliated with an organization or religion who has inflicted their views on others. Even in light of all the positive things it has provided me.
The LDS Church doesn’t need to accept homosexuals, they don’t need to like them. They don’t need to let them in their club. They are NOT, however, allowed to inflict their beliefs/definition of marriage through public legislation to the masses.
I like Derek’s question to to Stephanie…
Mormons have been persecuted throughout their history for their desire to believe independent of what society tells them.
Only ONCE did they back down from their pursuit of religious independence when they withdrew from the practice of polygamy in order to get statehood. And now look… they are doing the very same thing to people who want nothing to do with them or their definitions of anything.
Why not put a Proposition on the ballot that injects into a State’s constitution that marriage is defined as between one man, and one women EXCEPT if you are Mormon.
Comment by Scott — June 18, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Plenty of Christian and LDS groups boycott individuals and businesses who they feel are harmful to the community, or who promote agendas which the Christians feel are inappropriate. Nothing wrong with that. And nothing wrong with any other group, such as homosexual advocacy groups, doing the same. Seems like the chickens coming home to roost.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
re: 75
Okay, I’ll make it easier, Natalie…I’ve got to go do some chores anyway…Off for now.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Stephanie #68 - I’m not aware of anyone who has suffered physical harm as a result of the publishing of their name on Prop 8 donor lists. I’ve searched quite extensively for such a report, and cannot find a single one. If any do exist, however, I would agree that it would be a terrible thing. The lists published, however, were published with a goal of making it easier for people to boycott businesses and services provided by Prop 8 donors, which is an activity I would consider quite legitimate and honorable. I did not see any published Prop 8 donor lists which urged anyone to commit any illegal action, including violence, against the donors listed, nor, as I said, have I read any news reports of such incidents occurring.
If people donated to a proposition which would strip civil rights from black people or Jews, I expect they would be quite offended and feel intimidated by having their names and addresses published, too. But I would not feel particularly sympathetic towards them.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Roxanna #70, can you please link me to a website where the stated goal was to cause people to lose their jobs? I know that people’s places of business were listed, because that IS part of the public record. But as I said, boycotting business where one’s dollars are likely to be spent on causes which would cause harm to oneself and one’s family is quite a legitimate choice.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Re. 70 & 77
I am ALL ABOUT boycotts, and even participated in an in-depth way with a boycott of one hotel in So. Cali whose owners had given tons of money to prop 8. I think using economic actions to create a more just world is very appropriate.
However, I do think that people certainly got out of line with targeting the well-being of particular individuals in the way Roxanna described. People’s lives were genuinely in danger in a situation where emotions are as peaked as this. I’m not saying that the LGBT community hasn’t been persecuted and threatened and reviled in much the same way for a much longer period of time. They most certainly have. However, I think oppressed groups need to be extremely careful about becoming the next oppressors once they’ve achieved their liberation (think Israelites in Canaan). I’m all about fighting and taking power forcefully, but I think personal intimidation and threats are a sad, sad way to go about it.
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Natalie -
Good post!!!
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Re. 79 - As long as those lists did not contain personal contact information (home address and number), I agree. But I know that people’s personal information was researched and published in some instances. No one needs to know a business owner’s home address to stop using their store.
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
JustMe.
Boy are you going to be mad when you hear about the scientific studies about homosexual animals in nature that came out this week.
Comment by ronito — June 18, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Someone sent me an invitation a couple days ago to sign the petition, but the version that he sent me differs from the one on the website. I thought that the one he sent me was much better because the website version is terribly one-sided. The website version is missing this very important paragraph that makes it a little more balanced. Otherwise I don’t think it’s *true* reconciliation.
For gays and lesbians and their family members and friends, reconciliation requires a willingness to examine their own lives and thoughtfully consider ways in which they have characterized all Church members based on the actions of a few or in which their words, actions, and other behaviors may have unfairly misjudged the motives of the Church and its leaders. Reconciliation also means rejecting hostility and violence as means of expression or redress.”
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — June 18, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Lorian, my internet browser seems to be stalled and isn’t letting me search. The specific instances I am thinking of included a Mormon woman who owned a small Mexican food restaurant in LA. They posted all of this information about her. No it was not her home address, but considering it was a tiny restaurant that she owned and ran, she was there most of the time.
Here is a link to story about a man who lost his job over it http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/26/entertainment/et-raddonresigns26 if you read the story it is clear that it went beyond protesting, he was being harrassed.
I totally support boycotting businesses, but these are just a couple of examples of where I think it became personal and was taken too far.
Comment by Roxanna — June 18, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Not 30 minutes ago I got duped into donating for a cause on Facebook. Something about Kellogg’s matching all dollars contributed to feed hungry families and children. A legitimate 501c(3) organization.
They got $100 out of me. Do I mind people knowing I support feeding hungry people? Not in the least.
If you are embarrassed or feel threatened by the fact that you are exposed for what you believe in and directly or indirectly contribute to, that might make SOME people think more or less of you, then I’d re-evaluate who you affiliate yourself with.
Facebook does a good job of trying to get you to invite your friends into supporting and donating money to the cause you donated to. In a viral way. It makes me feel good when my friends echo my sentiment, join and hopefully donate resources to the same cause I believe in. At the end of the day, I feel good about what I choose to participate in and what those causes represent and do FOR people. Not what they prevent people FROM doing.
If you feel uncomfortable about people knowing what your religion stands for and what it participates in. Get out from underneath it.
If you don’t… then continue to invite your friends and family to support you in preventing marriage across this country from individuals. You have to live with yourself, not me. What the Church did was viral. Same as what Facebook did to me and what I’m going to try and propagate with my “friends”.
The difference is, I’m not ashamed or embarrassed or in any way uncomfortable with what that viral spread can or will do now or in the future.
I’m not afraid of being “exposed” for feeding the hungry. If you think “exposure” of what you believe in is something that makes you uncomfortable… figure out why cause you are probably on the wrong side of the fence.
Comment by Scott — June 18, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
I’ll respond to the post rather than continue the conversation of the comments (as I’m too lazy to read them all).
I would not sign it because I think it’s a pretty thinly-veiled attempt to emphasize the Church’s supposed wrongdoings with regard to homosexuality and damage it has allegedly inflicted upon homosexuals. The site did not read at all like an actual olive branch. It seems like a request for an apology and not one that I’m entirely convinced the Church owes anyone. The URL is “lds apology” and the text calls on the Church to apologize, for crying out loud. It’s all prefaced with a beautiful quote about forgiveness being a requirement for understanding. However, the text immediately start talking about the Church’s need to apologize. Even if the Church does need to apologize, (I’m not personally convinced that the Church needs to apologize for any of its official actions) conditioning forgiveness on a formal apology will lead only to conditional understanding. (At least that’s pretty much what the scriptures say about forgiveness.)
Comment by Zachary Noyce — June 18, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Okay, I went back and started to read the comments on this and now wish that I hadn’t bothered. I see this has devolved into another Prop 8 debate. *yawn*
This didn’t look like it was even supposed to be a discussion about gay marriage, but rather reconciliation. I guess by 80 some-odd comments I should have known we’d be to the best hits. If only we could integrate Heavenly Mother, women and the priesthood, breastfeeding, and different-libido-ed partners into this discussion….
Comment by Zachary Noyce — June 18, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Roxanna #86 - If you support boycotting of businesses, then I have a difficult time understanding your objections to the two examples you gave. I read a great deal about them, as well.
The taco shop you referenced was patronized heavily by members of the gay community. The woman in question was not the owner but was the manager, and, I believe, may have been a relative of the owner. Why would the gay community wish to patronize an establishment whose manager donated to a cause which directly and intentionally harmed them and their families? I don’t understand why people find this so very shocking. It is sad, certainly, that the establishment suffered losses because of the actions of its manager, but, to hark back to my previous comment, if she had donated to a cause which would deprive black citizens of civil rights would she be shocked if black patrons boycotted the restaurant and it suffered financial losses? I cannot imagine why this is so shocking to people.
As to the man who RESIGNED (he wasn’t fired) from his job in a musical theater in Northern California after his many gay colleagues and friends found that he had donated to a cause which directly harmed them and their families, and expressed their anger and hurt to him… wow, I have trouble understanding why we would need to go any further into the issue than that.
This man made his own employment situation untenable by publicly advocating for a cause which harmed his colleagues and friends with whom he worked. If he had worked in a business where a large percentage of his co-workers and friends were black, and he donated to a propisition sponsored by the KKK, would the outcome have likely been different? Should it have been? Would anyone be shocked to find that he became uncomfortable with the level of outrage expressed by his colleagues and therefore resigned his position?
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
I don’t think the vast majority of members could or would ever sign anything that could in any way , however slightly, be critical of the institutional hierarchy of the Church. Loyalty is a paramount value. Public disagreement with Church leaders is seen as apostasy.
I would like to say that an individual gay member is no threat to the power structure of the church. Yet the Church, with it’s theology of dehumanizing gay people,( and because power in a hierarchy flows top down), can cause vast emotional, psychological, and spiritual harm. In order to be listened to and understood, petitions such as this must exist to give voice to the voiceless.
There are gay kids sitting quietly in your pews, learning to loath and hate themselves for simply existing.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Zachary #89, I’m not sure how you could think that a discussion of the wrongs committed by the LDS Church (as an institutional body) against GLBT persons could possibly not involve the subjects of gay marriage and prop 8.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Suzanne #91 - Great post.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
I don’t think the Church has a whole has anything to apologize for at all. I suspect there are some individuals within who do (doesn’t everyone?), but not for upholding church doctrine, not for opposing gay marriage, and not for sticking to revealed truths about gender and the plan of salvation.
This looks like “Change what you believe, apologize for ever believing it, and we’ll try to forgive for believing it.”
Whatever.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
In #90, 2nd paragraph, the intended word was “proposition.” Please pardon the typos.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Lorian, I get what you are saying and agree with you to a certain extent. People should be allowed to boycott certainly, but I guess I just imagine large faceless nameless institutions. The taco shop situation seems like it could have been quite dangerous.
I’m a bit baffled by you though, I am totally willing to say that I think the church was wrong and should apologize. I think lots of members were wrong and were spreading misinformation. You really can’t just sit back and look at some of these situations and say, “okay, maybe they took that too far?” I just don’t get it. I just don’t think there is any way that you could convince me that the gay community was perfect in this situation. Many people and organizations behaved wrongly and those people should apologize (on both sides of the issue).
The article I linked to was about a guy who lived in LA (in my brothers ward) and worked for a film festival, not a theatre. Also, it went beyond a few colleagues sending e-mails expressing dissapointment, his e-mail and phone # became available to non employees and he was being harrassed.
Comment by Roxanna — June 18, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Katie - #94 - Not at all, from my perspective, anyway. I do not believe that the LDS Church, or any church, needs to apologize for its internal beliefs or teachings, except insofar as it determines it has harmed its own membership. I’m certainly not looking for an apology from the LDS Church for teaching that my partner and I do not have access to Temple Sealing and Eternal Marriage (which are not part of my beliefs, in any case), just as I’m not looking for any apologies from the Roman Catholic Church for not allowing us to have a Sacramental Marriage in their church.
Where the LDS Church has wronged me, however, and it has done so as both a corporate entity, and through instigating harmful behaviors against my family from individual church members, is by interfering in the legislative process to remove my civil rights, by forcing the state to reflect the religious beliefs of the church in its civil legislation.
For that, the LDS Church, and those of its members who followed its directives regarding Prop 8, do owe me and my family a huge apology. Not, mind you, that I’m going to sit around holding my breath waiting for one.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
I agree Lorian. DH and I were disgusted by some of the misinformation some of our loved ones in SoCal were spreading to win people over to their side. Granted, they didn’t think it was misinformation, but they were ridiculously stubborn when we tried to convince them otherwise.
Comment by Roxanna — June 18, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Anyone every hear of Prohibition? With a lot of work by the Christian Temperance movement, it was written into the US Constitution. Strange that there was not a backlash against any religion over that. It did become a very overlooked law, though.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Roxanna #96, Ah, you are referring to the man who worked for the Sundance Film Festival.
That is very similar to the man who worked in the musical theater. The Sundance Film Festival is a venue for films produced by small, independent filmmakers, many of whom are gay, and many of which films are gay-themed. The festival is frequented by a huge number of glbt people, and is dependent upon them for its continuation. The idea that someone who made his living from an activity which caters to the gay community would be shocked to find himself at odds with its patrons after, once again, publicly advocating a cause which caused them direct harm, just baffles me. You’d have to be awfully naive to think you could advocate that a whole group of people lose their right to marry, and then expect to work in a venue which caters to that group. And then blame the people against whom you’ve practiced discrimination for responding to you with anger and outrage.
No one should cause physical harm or property damage to anyone else for their political views, no matter how offensive. But expression of anger and outrage is quite appropriate when someone discriminates against and harms you and your family.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Mike, #99 — You are apparently quite confused. Prohibtion was repealed. Not just ignored. It was repealed. That’s about as big a backlash as I can imagine.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Mike H
Prohibition applied to everyone. It didn’t state everyone can drink alcohol except people with red hair. Christian were not working to enact an amendment that did not apply to themselves.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
I really appreciate Scott’s comment.
Comment by Mneptune — June 18, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Boycotts have been used by many groups. As a gay person, I will not spend my money in a place, that will use that money to discriminate against me.
The vast reaction against the passage was in most cases appropriate. I thoroughly can believe, that individuals in their pain may have lashed out in inappropriate ways. I believe in peaceful protest and the gay people I know do also.
And this inappropriate conduct goes both ways, for instance a few weeks ago someone ripped down my No on 8 sign(I put up another) and egged my wife’s car.
I firmly favor civil discourse and civil disobedience.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Long time reader, first time poster! I just wish people within the Mormon community could step back from themselves for a moment and observe their attitudes and actions. I am from California, born and raised and proud of it. I’ve been raised in the church, and have had my ups and downs with it. But a few years ago, I became fully active and dedicated to the gospel. Later I became engaged, and with plans to be married in the temple, lived through a tumultuous few months when Prop 8 became the topic du jour-not just around the community, but from the pulpit. I was exasperated. I am and will remain a staunch supporter of gay rights. Despite my efforts to refrain from engaging angrily with ward members on the topic, I found myself called into the bishops office. He addressed my refusal to participate in Family Home Evenings dedicated to make calls to random households to garner support for Prop 8. He asked me about my “membership” (on Facebook, naturally) in a “group” made of LDS member who oppose Prop 8. He told me that because of my beliefs, people in my own ward, whom I have known for years, were questioning my worthiness to enter the temple.
Lucky for me, my Bishop was a loving and caring man. He told me that my beliefs are just that, and I alone will answer for them, and by the dictates of my conscience will I act and take responsibility. He encouraged me to continue to ponder, pray, and keep an open mind.
I now live in Idaho with my husband, temporarily as we finish our college degrees at BYUI. I I thought that the opposition I faced in CA was rough, I had no idea what I was getting myself in for here. People in class make distasteful jokes about homosexuality as teachers simply laugh. The school newspaper makes insensitive remarks about “guys wearing tight jeans not acting their gender”. Prop 8 is discussed by people who have never set foot in CA, yet assume the authority to decry the “violent” acts of the LGBT community against the poor Mormons who acted and voted to stifle what they consider to be basic civil rights.
I am so sick and tired of people in my religion acting as if they are so persecuted and bemoaning their treatment in times past and currently, especially by those “gays”. I, as a straight individual, considered worthy by my Lord and my leaders to hold a temple recommend, have been made to feel immoral, strange, disobedient, and fraudulent. I keep my opinions close to my chest to not offend or rile others up. But do they care if they are insensitive to me? More importantly, do they have any thought for the stranger seated next to them in class who may have a gay brother? What about the girl on the other side of them who secretly struggles with homosexual feelings?
I think the church officials have the right to promote their doctrine, as do the members. But we all have the responsibility to demand respect, kindness, and sensitivity from ourselves, our families, and those in our wards and communities whom we may help influence. Until LDS leaders strongly and clearly express that intolerance is unacceptable, and parents make it clear to their children that it is never OK to stop loving people because of their sexual orientation, there is no point in discussing policies or doctrines. Members of the LGBT community that I saw were initially understanding or dismissive of the LDS community-until they were insulted and treated as a bug that needed to be squashed. It is the problem of individuals in both communities that have lead to violence and hate mongering. Until leaders of the church can be the first to step up and demand that members of the church stop acting in offensive ways, members of the LGBT will not stop being offended.
Sorry so long, guys.
Comment by Whitney — June 18, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Roxanna #98 - I know what you mean. I went to some of my LDS neighbors’ homes when they put their Prop 8 signs out on their lawns, and stood at their doors and had long, patient conversations with some of them. I left letters for those I could not talk to personally, with a bit about my family and kids and how Prop 8 would affect us, personally, and giving my phone number and email address. A few contacted me and I conversed with them, as well.
Every one of those people repeated to me the lies which were being disseminated about how gay marriage would hurt them. Not one listened to me when I explained what those lies were and the truth of the issues. They just shrugged and told me that they preferred to believe what their church authorities were telling them, and that there was nothing I could say which would change their minds or have any meaning for them. When I tried to explain to them how my children were deprived of equal civil rights because I am denied equal civil marriage, some of them told me I should have thought of that before having children.
Sometimes religion makes people very callous.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Whitney #105 - Beautiful post. Thank you so much.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Derek, I can see how you would deduce that from what I’ve said in this thread, but that assumes there is no alternative. The existence of domestic partnerships in CA doesn’t make it that cut and dry because they grant the same state benefits as marriage (federal is a different issue, as Lorian pointed out).
I think this is an excellent point by Suzanne. No, I don’t believe that civil union and fundamental rights should be up for vote. I think we need one term for legally recognized unions with their attendant benefits. If two people of the same sex want to commit to each other and have a family, fine. They should be protected the same as a heterosexual couple. But, do I personally want the term for all unions to be “marriage”? No. I have a strong affinity for the word “marriage”, and I feel it represents one man and one woman. So, while I would not like it pushed on me that marriage means something different than that, I also don’t want to push on someone else that it means only what I want it to. So, that’s why I would prefer to remove the word from the legal system and just go with civil unions.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
#105, Whitney,
Great comment. I share your frustration 100%.
#106, Lorian,
Seriously?! People said that to your face?! It just makes me sad that people would be so unwilling to listen to a neighbor, right in front of them, whose family they see and interact with.
And for them to talk about how gay marriage would “harm” them, after hearing you describe the actual harm caused to you by Prop. 8. That’s just unbelievable. Unbelievable.
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Incidentally, a couple more thoughts about the prohibition comparison.
As Suzanne pointed out, prohibition restricted the rights of EVERYONE to purchase alcohol, not just a single group based upon a physical characteristic. Had it targeted Irish people or Native Americans or any of the other groups who have been stereotyped as likely to have drinking problems, I doubt it would have passed at all.
As it was, it did pass, but was repealed because it had some serious flaws which were not considered prior to its passage. It differs, also, from gay marriage bans in that, as ill-considered as it was (it established and incentivized some of the worst black-marketeering criminal organizations in our nation’s history to that date), still its rationale was based, not strictly upon religious beliefs and proscriptions, but rather on issues of demonstrable harm to the community, such as the damages caused by those who act under the influence of alcohol to commit crimes and violence in the community and against family members. On that basis, it can reasonably be argued that the state has a realistic interest in regulating its availability and consumption. And on that basis, the state continues to regulate its availability and consumpt. But out-and-out prohibition was found to be more of a harm that the consumption of alcohol, itself.
The difference here, of course, is that there IS NO demonstrable harm to the community, society at large, individuals or families from allowing same-gender-oriented persons to form loving, committed bonds, incentivizing those bonds by way of the same methods we as a society incentivize the bonds of opposite-gendered couples, and granted such couples full civil rights due them as citizens of this society.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
I knew it was repealed, but many ignored it as well. The Joe Kennedy family did Gin running.
But, were there any marches after it was approved?
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Stephanie #108, just curious, do you think Joseph Smith and Emma were married? You define it as one man and one woman, and that your feelings are strong on that small definition. Since there were multiple women in Joseph and Emma’s marriage (it was called a plural marriage), I’m just wondering if you would define that JS lived in adultery or fornication. Just wondering how you get around that with the term of “marriage.” Also, what about the marriages of some of the Qo12 who are married to more than one woman currently in the temple? Or are you saying marriage is only a civil thing, and that your definition of religious marriage does not have to fit the “one man married to one woman”? In that case, can gays and lesbians be religiously married and you’re fully OK with it? Even in your own faith?
Traditional marriage, both religious and civil, throughout the world and in the foundations of Western religion, has most often included plural marriage as part of that definition. People who advocate strict monogamy are in the minority when faced with the whole history of the human population on the earth.
Comment by ThinkingDifferently — June 18, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Or maybe what I would like to see is “marriage” be a word reserved for religious unions to distinguish it from the civil. Then, religions can decide for themselves what they want to consider marriage, and like derek pointed out, it doesn’t really matter that one would define it differently from another. And, culturally, we can decide what it means for our society.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that CA’s Prop 8 was a symbolic cultural vote more than anything. Considering that it didn’t really grant or deny rights other than being called “married”, it is largely a cultural statement, and I am not sure that voting is the proper way to accomplish that.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Natalie #109 - Thank you. Yes, I’ve been told to my face many times that I should have thought better of it before having children if my being gay would mean that my children would not be protected by the same rights as their own children. It’s perfectly acceptable to them to discriminate against my children because I am gay. They believe that, because I am gay, it is my fault that they discriminate against my children, and they are therefore relieved of all responsibility for that discrimination.
Standing on corners at No on 8 rallies with my children was a revealing experience, as well. People in cars with Christian bumper stickers would drive by, flipping us off and screaming “f***ing faggots!” out the window, oblivious to the fact that they were screaming at a family with two little children standing there. Fortunately, my kids have never heard those words and didn’t know what they meant. But we didn’t keep them at the rallies for very long. We didn’t dare.
One really special memory is of the man who drove by several times, teaching his little child of perhaps 6 years, to flip us off as he drove by.
Working outside the polls on voting day was an experience, as well. I organized the No on 8 poll workers for my area. We stood at the 100 foot legal limit from the polling entrance, with full cooperation with the polling-place manager. I was there from 6:30am that morning until the polls closed that night, without a break or a meal. I was told, to my face, that I am an abomination, that my children should be taken away, that I will burn in hell, that I should go back to Sodom and Gomorrah, where I belong. I was cursed and sneered at and treated with despicable contempt. At times I feared for my safety. My wife brought our children out to visit me for a while, but I sent them home after just a few minutes, because I didn’t want them exposed to that kind of behavior.
Do I have much sympathy for Prop 8 donors who have received angry emails or letters? Not especially. I don’t wish them ill, nor do I wish to see them harmed. But feel sorry for them? No, not really.
My donations to No on 8 were public record, too. I’m proud of that and proud to be associated with a just cause. I welcome discussions with those who disagree with me. And, of course, I didn’t harm anyone or take away anyone’s civil rights, or hurt anyone’s kids by donating to No on 8.
And I can’t remember ever calling anyone an abomination.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Mike #111 - I don’t know if there were marches after prohibition was passed. I know there was a lot of anger. But that’s really neither here nor there. Did you read the other posts Suzanne and I wrote addressing the differences?
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
#112, I think my #113 (posted at the same time as you) largely answers your questions.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
#116 - yes, it does. Thanks!
Comment by ThinkingDifferently — June 18, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Yes, I did. I am having trouble keeping up with the posts since they are being added very fast.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Re Prohibition Protests, for Mike:
http://www.summercore.com/cp4/LBChun.html
Here’s a link to a photo of a prohibition protest:
http://www.vintage-photo-store.com/p190/WE-WANT-BEER–Vintage-photo-NJ-prohibition-protest/product_info.html
And here is actual video footage of a huge prohibition protest at Faneuil Hall in Boston, MA, in 1929, with famous speakers and overflow crowds standing outside the Hall (wait through a brief ad for the Discovery Channel):
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/14867-1929-protesting-prohibition-video.htm
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Mike
You mean posting on the internet isn’t your day job?
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
#113, Stephanie,
I agree completely. Make all marriages civil unions, and make “marriage” a religious word only, with no civil benefits attached to it whatsoever, and let each individual and each religion decide for itself who to “marry”.
I also have to commend you on having a genuinely open mind. I see you being thoughtful and willing to concede points more than anyone else on here. I really respect that, and hope I learn from it.
#114, Lorian,
Aaaaahhhh….. That makes me feel sick. Sick. Man, I wish I had been in California then. I would have helped you at your polls, and gone home and gushed to my husband about this amazing activist woman who was fighting so hard and dealing with so much crap. You are my hero. I have a crush on activists.
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
I really do think this idea that “both sides must admit fault” in order for there to be a reconciliation is just odd. In South Africa, the victims of apartheid weren’t expected to say, ‘Hey, sorry for being born black. We know that was rough on you guys.’ In Australia, the Aborigines weren’t expected to say, ‘Hey, sorry for being here before you guys. Wow, that must’ve been hard for you to have to conquer and commit acts of genocide against us when you probably would’ve rather not had to do that.’ Were there violent blacks in South Africa or indigenous peoples in Australia? Certainly. But they were individual people reacting against a system of discrimination. Ditto the situation in California.
The LDS church does have a lot to apologise for. I hope the recent investigations into allegations of dishonesty in reporting church donations will humiliate the church enough to keep them out of this debate in the future. The tide of history is not on the side of the church - already more and more countries are recognising same sex marriage, and the world has yet to collapse on to itself. As the older generation dies out, gay marriage is inevitable. I wonder how those who donated heavily to prop 8 at the promptings of the church will feel then, about giving away (in some cases) close to their entire life’s savings in the name of discrimination?
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Thank you, Natalie.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
Natalie #121 - Thanks. :hug:
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Quimby #122 -
I do feel sorry for people who have been duped into donating huge amount beyond reason to fund such a hateful and wrong-headed cause. It’s kind of like how my grandmother used to send every last penny she could scrape together to the Televangelists she loved to watch on Sunday mornings before church. They could barely afford to pay their rent and buy their food, and here she was sending checks to slick TV preachers to buy them their luxurious homes and pay for their hate campaigns against the menacing gay agenda.
It’s amazing how easy it is to talk people into giving away their hard-earned cash to idiotic things like this, when there are so many homeless and hungry people in the world who Jesus would have us care for.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
The church has nothing to apologize for. Doctrine isn’t something needs to be apologized, and confusing this issue with the Aborgines only highlight a sense of entitled victimhood.
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Katie, have you read the posts on this thread?
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
I know it’s a long one, but just to summarize some relevant thoughts…
Doctrine IS, in fact, something to be apologized for, when it is used to deprive people of civil rights.
A useful example would be those churches who used church doctrine to defend and uphold the institution of slavery. I’d say those churches definitely had some doctrine to apologize for. Should churches apologize for declarations of “who’s going to heaven or hell” or “who’s going to be exalted in the next life”? Nah. That’s their opinion, and it doesn’t deprive anyone of their civil rights.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
On the topic of boycotts - When I was in high school, a couple of men opened up a funky, artistic cafew in my otherwise souless town As soon as word spreasd that they were a gay couple, people started to boycott the cafe. They were eventually forced to shut it down and left town.
I am sure there are many stories just like that, of GLBT businesses being forced out of business. Where is your outrage for them?
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Katie P, nobody - NOBODY - is saying that the church can’t teach whatever it likes. The church cannot force the rest of society to accept its teachings.
If you’d like to live in a society where religious organisations CAN force you to accept their teachings, might I suggest Iran? I’m sure you’d love it there - gay marriages are illegal.
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Very true, Quimby. In fact, in Iran, not only are gay marriages illegal. Just being gay at all is illegal. In fact, just having people THINK you’re gay can get you killed.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
I’m not even sure what “entitled victimhood” means.
Are people entitled to call them victims when others conspire to remove their civil and human rights? I think so. Is that what you meant?
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
I dunno, the way Ahmedijiad owns that beard - I’m not saying he’s gay but at the very least he’s definitely metro. (Remember the Metrosexual Pride Parade from Southpark? “We’re here! We’re not queer! But we’re close!”)
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Yeah, Ahmedinijad is kinda pretty. Of course, his attitudes aren’t pretty — not at all.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Quimby, I totally missed Katie’s “entitled victimhood.” It’s a good thing you’re here to let me know when I’m being insulted. I generally assume people are disagreeing with me politely until they hit me over the head with it.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
A friend of mine backpacked through Irain in the early 80s. To this day she’s not sure how she fluked getting a visa. They were heavily watched every step of the way and prohibited from taking photos although they both snuck a couple anyway. (When you’re young and female you can get away with a lot by playing dumb. I’m not saying it’s right, but I’m saying, the patriarchy works against you every other step of the way, if you can exploit it every now and then why not.) One of the places they stopped was a sort of shooting gallery where all these boys - from about the age of 5 on up - were lined up shooting at effigies of American soldiers. Across the wall, written in Persian and then in English, it said, “We’re not asking for much, just that everyone in the world follows shar’ia law.”
This isn’t a complete threadjack. It’s about 80% threadjack, 20% on-point. Here’s the part that’s on-point: If that just made you throw up a little in your mouth, how is it any different for the LDS church or even a coalition of conservative Christian churches to get together and undertake a pointed political activity to make a point of their doctrine, the law? Isn’t that also asking everyone to live by their religious rules?
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
Exactly. If we, as a nation, tear down our protections against a religious majority imposing its will on us by way of our government, in order to, as the current majority, impose OUR will upon the minority, how will we feel in the future when we become the minority, and another majority imposes its will upon us? Right now, our separation of church and state protects us from having to live by religious beliefs not our own (unless we’re gay, of course), but if religious conservatives keep at it, those protections will fall away.
It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye…or their right to believe and practice the religion of their own choosing.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Considering that, in the immediate aftermath of Prop 8, a coalition of GLBT groups approached the LDS church and asked for church support for legislation that would remove all legal discriminations against the GLBT community in Utah, and the church replied with silence, despite saying in California that they were in favor of equal rights for GLBT as long as it didn’t extend to marriage - Well, it’s pretty clear that the church really does not want reconciliation, and I think it’s pretty clear that those words in California, about wanting equal rights as long as it doesn’t extend to marriage, were just empty rhetoric and nothing more.
So, to answer the OP, there is no way the church would sign this or any other document aimed at reconciliation.
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
The church isn’t forcing anyone to believe anything. They are encouraging members to vote based on their beliefs…just like every voter. It’s not like Steve Young and his wife were excommunicated for supporting GLBT.
Oh the rhetoric…poor retired couples being duped out of their life savings..Sorry no. It could just be that some people felt they should donate. There was pressure and I don’t doubt some people were wrong in applying pressure or succumbing to it. That is wrong. To imply that most of the money came that way is ridiculous.
oh the “lies”-you mean like how it would effect education? It was affecting education with books going home or kindergarteners invited to weddings, or documented problems in Massachusetts.
Most importantly though is the basic concept that people are free to vote their beliefs (not religious practices but beliefs) into law. Even if those beliefs are from the Bible and even if those beliefs don’t agree with what you believe. I believe in small government, I believe murder is wrong, I believe drinking and driving is wrong. I believe abortion is wrong. I believe we should buy locally and eat much less meat. Some of those beliefs are biblical. Some of those beliefs I would want to vote into law, others I would not. I support others rights to vote based on their beliefs no matter where they get their beliefs.
Comment by britt — June 18, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Poor britt. Someone should’ve paid more attention in high school civics.
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Kate P
The petitioners for reconciliation are not attacking the church. From looking at the website, it seems that they are asking that we listen to each others stories, and the impact that ” folk doctrine”, the superstitions of men and pronouncements of church leaders have on their lives. It can be at times a deadly intermix.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
Lorian: Thanks for the Prohibition protest links.
I’m glad someone does. My activism is in other fields than what’s normally discussed on this blog.
Quimby: That last story of yours is another example of word of mouth in small towns. Did anyone who thought sexual orientation of the owners was important to them ever ask the owners?
Many at my High School here in San Jose were homophobic, in a twisted way: If you were not linked up with someone of the opposite sex, you were gay. Boom, no discussion, no reasoning, harassment galore, even if you were not “guilty”.
Years later, it turns out 2 of the guys I knew in my High School class were gay. And, they had dated girls a few times in HS, and other girls did talk to them. Later on, they both died of AIDS in the grim time of the 1980’s, where very little could be done to treat AIDS. I disagree with homosexuality, but I take no solace in what happened to them. 2 others from my HS, 1 man, 1 woman, came “out of the closet” years later. That would have been real bad for them in the HS days. The woman I’ve talked to a little about Family History research.
A woman I dated some at BYU after my mission backed off our budding relationship after a while. Years later, I saw that she was part of the Aff1rmation movement, and her partner is from the Ward I grew up in. If I see either of these 2 at an LDS HS Reunion this summer, I won’t come up to them screaming about how they’re going to Hell, or anything like that. I don’t work that way on something like this
Yet, if I came upon my cousin that raped my sister years ago, I would probably go ballistic. But, he’s dead now.
I think there’s been some over the top things said by both side on Prop 8. I don’t see either side backing off of the core reasons for their feelings, though. I was for Prop 8, but I didn’t give money or time to it. I was too bummed to vote since I lost my job the day before.
I think what happened to Mathew Shepherd was an abomination. I can’t condone anything like that.
So, I can’t really be put into a box with other LDS members
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Who said anything about retired couples? Who used the word ‘duped’? There was an article in the San Diego paper about a family with 4 boys giving $35,000 to prop 8 after being asked to donate by their Bishop. My feeling is, that money probaly came from retirement savings or from college funds. My feeling is, they will regret it when gay marriage becomes legal - which will inevitably happen - and they have $35,000 less for their boys’ education or for their retirement.
How do you know? There are many stories of bishops and stake presidents calling people into their offices, or visiting people at home, and saying, “We think you should donate X amount to this cause.” Many people have said that they couldn’t have come up with that figure without consulting tithing records. I have read this story too many times from too many different people to think it was just isolated to one ward or stake. Is that an appropriate use of tithing records?
All lies. If you read up a bit, you’d know that. The books going home? Parents aren’t forced to read them; parents were made aware of the books at the start of the year; and they were part of a larger group of books - sent home at the same time - about various minority groups. The wedding? No kindergartener was ‘forced’ to attend; IIRC the wedding was held on a Saturday and it was individual parents who took their children.
But really, why should it bother you if your child is taught in class that gay families exist? I hate to break it to you but there’s every chance your child will be in class with another child whose parents are gay. Ooooh, scary. I highly doubt your child will get to the age of, say, 5, without understanding that some men like women and some men like men, and some women like men and some women like women. Nobody’s talking about going into the mechanics of gay sex with kindergarteners. You don’t go into the mechanics of straight sex, so why would you go into the mechanics of gay sex? At the very most you’re talking about teaching kids that some of their classmates have a mom and a dad, some have a mom and no dad, some have a dad and no mom, some have a mom, a dad, and a stepdad, some have a mom, a dad, and a stepmom, some have a mom, a dad, a stepmom, and a stepdad, some have two moms, some have two dads, some have a grandma and grandpa and no mom and dad, etc. etc. In other words, that families come in all shapes and sizes. Again, ooooh, scary.
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Britt, the things you are quoting about schools are lies and distortions. We can talk about them if you like.
But first I’d like to address this statement:
There are those who might vote for a law to prohibit freedom to practice certain religions, such as Mormonism. You support such a vote? If the law passed, you’d support its implementation? You wouldn’t complain about the fact that it was unconstitutional, and do everything in your power to have it repealed?
I know that I would never support a law like that. I’d never support even having a vote on a law like that. If such a law passed, I’d fight it to the bitter end. Because whatever hurts YOUR civil rights as a citizen of this country could potentially hurt MY civil rights as a citizen of this country. Inhibiting the civil rights of any minority group hurts all of us. We may not realize it immediately, but we will eventually.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Britt’s post reminds me of what happened to my Brother just before the election. He lives with my mother, and he’s inactive. A Ward member came by & visited my Mother expressly about Prop 8. My Brother was there, and this sister proceeded to try to browbeat my brother into voting for Prop 8. Eventually, my Brother got fed up, and called the sister a bigot. Now I understand that sister is expecting my Brother to come over & apologize for saying that. Not going to happen.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
So Britt,
So people get to vote into laws their beliefs into law. How would you feel if carnivores outlawed vegetarianism? Fundamentalist Christians outlawed Mormonism?
Fortunately, in the US, we have a Bill of Rights.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Oh, yes, and also, Britt, I think I’m the one you are referring to who talked about what a shame it was that some old people might have been duped into giving more money than they could afford. I know of no such case. The people I know of gave either of their own volition, or because their bishop asked (told?) them to.
I was trying, though, to be a little sympathetic and at least consider the feelings of some who might have given more than they otherwise would have, and might feel badly about it after the fact. I have no sympathy for those who gave because they really, really wanted to, and would have given more gladly. Those are the people who make my stomach churn, with the knowledge of how vigorous and how pervasive is their dislike of me and my family, and how much they wish to see my children punished for what they believe are my “sins.”
Like my neighbors around the corner, who gave thousands. And a man I serve with on the symphony board, who sees me regularly, has seen my little girls at symphony functions since they were tiny, and who still kicked in money to try to take away our civil rights.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
I have seen at least 100 examples on the internet of people explaining very clearly and sometimes eloquently why prohibiting gay marriage is indeed based in religious beliefs, and is a violation of others Constitutional freeoms.
And then someone says this:
And it all goes to pot.
I think I might have to call it a night.
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Natalie… :sigh: I understand your frustration. Believe me.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Oh, Lorian, I don’t doubt that. I’m sure I can hardly fathom yours.
Comment by Natalie K. — June 18, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
as far as the civil marriage verses religious marriage… can we all agree that one of them needs to change it’s name to abolish the confusion! How about the civil marriage? Lets just call that a Legal Partnership or Union. Yes, even my heterosexual marriage would be a Legal Partnership in the governments eyes. Then the religions can “marry” whomever” to “whatever” or “whatnot”. That would not be equal but separate because the legal term would be effective for all, not just gays and lesbians.
I’m currently unsure about the whole of the LDS church, but as far as the petition goes, I don’t think it is fair to ask someone to change their belief system, especially when those people believe it is devinely inspired. Yes the church offended first politically, but as others have stated, they as a whole will not admit wrong under public pressure… no matter if it is the “right” thing to do or not. Because it then admits the organization is flawed. I think asking them (the church) to teach tolerance of lifestyles and other beliefs (no matter if you agree with them or not) would be a fine thing to ask of them though, and it might (MIGHT) actually happen.
Comment by April — June 18, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
April, you might be surprised at how many people are both unwilling to share the term “marriage” with gay couples, AND are unwilling to have their own marriages renamed “civil union.” They will insist, on the one hand, that a “civil union” for gays and “marriage” for heterosexuals IS equal, and that gays should be satisfied with it, but then they turn around and refuse to have their civil marriage called a “civil union.” If it’s equal, then why is it not good enough?
I’d be fine with having entire country share an institution of “civil unions” regardless of the gender of the participants, and leave “marriage” as a designation for churches to dispense to whomever they feel is qualified to participate in it. But most of the people who don’t want gays to marry don’t particularly want us to have civil unions, either, and definitely don’t want to have civil unions, themselves.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
April,
Marriage is a State matter, We have 50 state laws regarding civil marriages, and the federal recognition of those state marriages. If California only had civil unions, then all straight people could only have those rights and responsibilities in California. Move out of state, you’re out of luck. And forget about those Federal benefits.
Which do you think is easier, doing away with civil marriage in all 50 states, and the federal recognition, in order to appease certain religious groups and replacing them with civil unions; or the State extending marriage equality to .all citizens, and allowing religions to determine who they will and will not marry?
Am I making sense?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
One thing I like about the reconciliation website, is the use of the scripture Matt 25:40.
I am also reminded of Alma baptizing at the waters of Mormon.
Where they were told to bear one another’s burdens, mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that needed comforting.
There are members in every ward who need just that.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Suzanne makes a good point. Trying to institute civil unions for all at the federal and at each state level would be mass chaos for several years (at least). And one thing she did not mention is that, since other countries have provisions for recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, but generally no provisions for recognizing civil unions performed elsewhere, international travel for USA citizens could be quite a logistical nightmare for some time to come.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
The changes necessitated by admitting gay couples to the existing institution of civil marriage are really miniscule. Most existing family law is easily applicable to same-gender couples, and the marriage, itself, is different only in the way that forms are worded (Bride/Groom vs. Spouse/Spouse).
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
The original petition is not an olive branch. It is request for the church to admit fault, change doctrine, and accept responsibility for a whole litany of things it is then accused of. Calling it a reconciliation in the first place is shameful.
For Prop 8 - the people voted. In fact, every time the people vote, it has gone the exact same way. Who, exactly, is shoving what on whom?
Comment by Katie P. — June 18, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Well, when one party wrongs another, reconciliation generally requires that the party who wrongs the other party admit fault and promise change. That’s kind of what reconciliation is about.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
As far as all votes going “the exact same way,” that’s not strictly true. The margin of difference decreases with each vote. The younger generation does not oppose gay marriage to the degree which the elder generation does. A few more votes and we will see the balance shift.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Sorry to jump to this if has already been discussed, but I didn’t read all of the previous comments.
But- it seems to me that the reconciliation and others who would be inclined to support this imply that the church needs to apologise. I don’t see the need. Indeed, I think the church and church members have been unfairly targeted as the only reason that prop 8 came to be. I don’t think that the church should apologise for standing up for one of its doctrines anymore than I think a gay person should apologise for being gay.
I am also uncomfortable with the plea directly aimed at the church- if this is for reconciliation, why is it aimed at petitioning the church? Is the GLBT community and supporters completely without guile so needs to apologise to no one? Why not add this section as well:
“For individuals who have suffered or been forced to watch a loved one suffer mistreatment, misunderstanding, or demonization as a consequence of their membership in the LDS church because of the absence of respect and empathy for church’s official policies, actions, and teachings regarding sexual orientation, we understand that true reconciliation will require both parties to accept that there is a core difference in what each believes, but we will peacefully respect these differences without judgement.”
To answer Lisa’s original question of how willing members would be to sign- I don’t see it happening at all. The document is too one-sided, I would not sign it based on that alone.
:
Comment by spunky — June 18, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
If one of the concerns of religion is that marriage being expanded to include same sex unions will lead to religions being forced to recognize or perform same sex marriages, then it seems that it would be in the best interest of religion to make a clear distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage now before it becomes an issue instead of attempting to force a religious definition onto civil relationships.
Comment by Stephanie — June 18, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
By the way, I went back to the petition site and I can’t see any place where it claims to be an “olive branch.” I see the words “Reconciliation Petition” and “A Plea for Reconciliation.” This is, from what I can see, an attempt on the part of a group of GLBT persons, some of whom may be LDS members or former members, petitioning (asking, pleading with) the LDS Church to open its heart, admit that it has wronged them, and reconcile with them. In return, they vow to “understand that true reconciliation will require rejecting redress through hostility,” and to be patient with the process.
Clearly, the LDS Leadership is not likely to sign on to such an idea, but it is, after all, a “petition,” with the word “petition” meaning “to ask.” It never hurts to ask for what you want.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Kate P
Can we skip the who is at fault bit, and acknowledge that there are members in pain. Arguing over assigning blame does nothing to alleviate their suffering.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Spunky #160 - You might want to go back and read the thread. Most of your thoughts have been pretty thoroughly covered, and it might help to move the conversation forward if you were able to respond to what has been said thus far.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Stephanie #161 - Great post.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
This post reminded me of a conversation that I had in my first women’s studies class several semesters ago. The class had been divided up into groups of about 15 people and we would get together each week to discuss a particular topic. One week the topic was homosexuality. It was my week to share my opinion first and so I stated that I really wasn’t sure what ’caused’ homosexuality and how I felt personally about any of the issues because I felt too ignorant about them. Each member of the group then proceeded to explain why my opinion was pathetic and bigoted. It didn’t take me too long to notice that each person’s opinion started out the same way: ” I am heterosexual and I have gay friends and they are OK and you are…”. So I asked the group if every one was REALLY ok with it, why did everyone feel the need to be sure to point out that they were not homosexual. I then pointed out that I could change two words in their comments and it would change the sentence to an extremely offensive statement: ” I am white and I have black friends and they are OK.” I will admit that comment didn’t go over very well, but my point was eventually conceded.
I think that the majority of people- including myself- have no idea about how life is as a homosexual and the only information they have are from the church or conservative friends, church members etc… So while we say we are OK with it, our opinions are really much more complex and are probably not really well thought out to boot! I wish that I had a close friend that was homosexual that I could talk to become more informed, but I also think that is a slightly bigoted idea- because someone who is homosexual is exactly like me with only one small difference which tends to not change much of what I do in life… Does it?
I do pray that gays do get marriage soon. I pray for this because it is the right thing to do and I really believe that it will improve our society and not destroy it. I also have a very selfish reason. Civil rights history shows us that we as a country tend to give rights slowly and in a particular order. So the disabled will never been able to have full civil rights until homosexuals do. I really want my son to be able to determine his own destiny and not have it decided for him by someone else. And he will never get that opportunity if any ‘neurotypical’ minority group is denied their rights. So I pray…
Whew! I really went off topic didn’t I?
PS- I am not comparing homosexuals to any kind of disability. If that is misunderstood, I apologise in advance.
Comment by Sonia — June 18, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
I disagree strongly. There’s a lot of tightwad managers who don’t give a hoot about sexual orientation of employees, so long as they work hard. But, those with disabilities are assumed to be “damaged goods” before even working, a disaster waiting to happen.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
I understand your point, I think, Sonia, and I like what you have to say about praying for an end to discrimination.
I want to point out, though, that the civil rights of disabled persons are actually quite firmly guaranteed in the antidiscrimination, equal access, and equal protections clauses of the 50 states and the federal government. As the mother of a disabled daughter, I’m grateful that she won’t have to face legal discrimination because of her disability/different ability.
In 30 states of this nation, however, and at the federal level, gay people do not even have the most basic of civil rights protections — the right to equal treatment in employment, housing and public accommodations. In 30 states of this nation it is absolutely legal to refuse to hire, or to fire a gay person for no other reason than the fact that he or she is gay. It is absolutely legal to refuse to rent or sell a home to a gay person or gay couple for no other reason than the fact that they are gay. It is absolutely legal to refuse a gay person service in a restaurant, lodging in a hotel, or any other public accommodation. Discrimination of the most basic and vile sort against GLBT persons is absolutely legal in the majority of this country. You can’t discriminate against disabled people in employment, housing or public accommodations (or marriage, for that matter) anywhere in this country.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Sonia, I really agree 100% with you with the idea of, “I’m not gay, but I have friends that are and that’s okay!” Well, gee, isn’t that nice of me to say it’s okay that they are doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with me and doesn’t impact me in any way, shape, or form?
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Mike, just let a manager try to fire or refuse to hire a disabled person, and watch the attorneys line up. No business can get away with that. Not true when it comes to gay people. I’ve been refused promotions, despite the fact that I’m a hard worker and do an excellent job.
I’m not saying that disabled people don’t face prejudice. Of course they do. But not legal discrimination.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Oh, YES they do! Most managers are not stupid enough to say it to the face of those with disabilities at job interviews, but the stats show it. When the economy was better, the unemployment rate for the disabled was much, much higher. As one with disabilities, I picked up this info from a group that helps the disabled to get employed. And, it not quadriplegics trying to be carpenters types of careers not fitting, either.
The “right to work” laws can be abused towards anyone. They won’t document disabilities in termination papers, for that would be Civil Suit suicide.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
As I said, Mike, I’m not saying that disabled persons don’t face prejudice. But there is a huge, huge difference between prejudice (which cannot be legislated against) and LEGALIZED discrimination. It is LEGAL to discriminate against gays. It is NOT legal to discriminate against the disabled. There are, in fact, extensive legal protections in place to protect the rights of the disabled, as well as many, many attorneys who specialize in doing so.
Does that mean that nothing bad ever happens to a disabled person? Of course not. But the fact is, it is illegal to discriminate against a disabled person because of their disability, and they DO have legal recourse if such discrimination occurs. It is, on the other hand, perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people because of their sexual orientation in most areas of this country, and when it happens (and believe me, it DOES happen), they have NO legal recourse, whatsoever.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
However, Mike, this isn’t a contest to see who faces the most discrimination or prejudice. NO one should be discriminated against. NO one should face prejudice. And we need to call it out wherever it occurs. I seem to recall a line about “with liberty and justice for all…”
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
Lorain- I do have to slightly disagree with the legal-disabled idea. I do agree that the disabled appear to be legally protected and in some ways they are, but there is a long way to go. Most of those protections only protect the adult and mostly independently disabled. If you have time, take a few minutes to look into the community choice act (CCA) online. The fact that being able to determine whether you stay out of residential placement is not a choice that may of the disabled have to me negates a basic human right- to determine how you body is treated. If you have cerebral palsy but are very smart, you will still end up in a nursing home or a residential treatment place unless your parents are very well off financially. Also, even your right to procreate is a big issue and as late as 1972 people were being forcibly sterilised in this county for being disabled, “feebleminded’ or having a family member with a disability. Even the right to control your own money is able to be taken away from you pretty easily for you ‘own good’. I could go on, but this would become a very long post!
Also take the time to read some of the work published by Harriet McBryde Johnson
Comment by Sonia — June 18, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Sonia, I absolutely agree with you on those points. While it can well be argued that most of the laws in place are made with the intent of protecting the disabled person from those who would exploit him or her, and to insure than the disabled receive proper care, still it is certainly very possible to use them in ways which would be hurtful and even exploitative to the disabled person. We do have a ways to go in some areas. And yes, forced sterilization/eugenics was a horrible violation of human rights, which is no longer legal.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Yes. My brother has faced the same issue twice. He had more experience, more education and is a tireless worker. He could paper his office with the glowing letters people have written in about how well he does his job. They gave a promotion to a man he hired and trained and this promotion was for a job this other man had no experience in…with all of my brother’s qualifications being superior, his review rating higher, the only thing he could pinpoint was that he is gay and the other man is not. The person who decided the matter is homophobic and not even very subtle about it. When confronted by my brother, she claimed it was his attendance record- he missed two days in 5 years, for surgery.
Comment by Kimberly — June 18, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
While there is some legal recourse- for the most part I think that separate but equal is what happens and while there is some legal recourse, I have found very few who truly are able to use it.
So I really would like both groups to get full civil rights. That would make me very happy!
Comment by Sonia — June 18, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Lorian- while sterilisation is not legal it still happens - and did definitely happen for at least 3 decades after it was made illegal. So it is a big concern to me.
Comment by Sonia — June 18, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
I started a post on the sterilization issue, but realized it was leading into a huge derail, so I scrapped it. Maybe it would be a good topic for a guest post, from you or me, Sonia.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Re:176 Kimberly
What your brother experienced is what a female college graduate who had worked for her company for 5 years experienced. They had talked about promoting her for a couple of years, then hired a newly graduated male, telling her to train him to take the position that she thought would be hers. When she inquired why he was chosen over her, they said something about the golf team and that he had the right image for the company. She was given a slight raise at that meeting for her new responsibility of training him and promised something “down the road.” She is still in the same position with her company and since she has a young teenager, she doesn’t take time to golf because she is driving her to soccer practice or baseball games.
Justice delayed is really justice denied in her case. It is difficult to enforce ethics, in society, religion and in business.
Comment by Jo — June 18, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
It is, Jo. And women most certainly face employment discrimination too, and when they do, it is difficult to get redress. The difference, though, between gays and all of these other groups, is that in 30 states, gays have no legal protections on which to base a claim. It’s perfectly legal to discriminate against them.
There is a measurable degree of difference between discrimination which persists in spite of our best legislative and judicial efforts, and discrimination which is absolutely legal, against which there IS no legislation, and against which there IS no judicial recourse.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
I don’t understand the job discrimination. That should absolutely be legally taken care of.
I do support the right to vote what people believe, even if it’s not what I believe…even if it affects me. meativores could vote against vegetarianism…people could vote against my religion, or aspects of it, and if they were in the majority they could win. The right to vote what we believe is basic. If people don’t have the right to vote idiotic beliefs none of us will have the right to vote about the beliefs that really matter to us.
Comment by britt — June 18, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Well, britt, suppose the people vote that it’s okay to discriminate against gays in employment? Because, essentially, that’s what has been done. In the 30 states where it is legal, there have been measures put forward to provide employment discrimination protection to gays, but they have been voted down by the elected representatives of the people. Just voting for what they believe in - the right of regular people to refuse to hire gays.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Re: #128 Lorian”
“Doctrine IS, in fact, something to be apologized for, when it is used to deprive people of civil rights.”
Great response! However, individual members do not have civil rights in our religion. My example of having my ward/stake refuse to credit my tithing as mine was an example. Crediting my husband was interesting, however the “We don’t do it that way.” response when I showed them that I was the payer, from my own account and I wanted it under my name, was interesting and showed that women are not considered as having civil rights in our religion. We already know that we don’t have equal rights, equal roles or equal respect. Doctrine has been used to deprive people of just and equal treatment.
Comment by Jo — June 18, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
# 105
I think you should comment more often. I am an alum of the Y of I and I found my liberal voice there on campus in on of the more progressive departments. but for the most part, the members there are as dogmatically conservative as they come.
But I think that you could do alot if you chose your battles wisely to overcome some of the stereo types that exist there. I have been ridiculed for voting for Obama by my member friends and only a small amount have been willing to listen to my reasons and weigh them to see if i had any credibility.
As for the Letter. I understand the pain that has existed between the two communities since the fall out of that certain day in november.
I do feel like this letter is not the most productive way of brining the two communities together.
What I would like to see is the two communities, especially in LA, work together on humanitarian issues. I know that the Church has its own gig going on and certain LGTB organizatios have theirs. But coming together and working on serious issues that both groups care about can go a long way to having the groups interact and understand where each is coming from.
I would rather light one candle than curse the darkness.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 18, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
In fact, employment discrimination protection measures for gays have been put forward at the federal level too, and have been voted down there by your elected representatives. If you believe that gay people should be protected against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (or just employment), you can and should write to your senators and your representative in the House and ask them to support such legislation.
The first attempt to protect gays from discrimination was in 1974, when Bella Abzug tried to get the house to add “sexual orientation” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was a flop. In the 1990’s congress members who supported civil rights for gays scaled down their efforts, and instead of trying to get us full civil rights protections, which they could see was not going to fly (why should motel owners and restaurants allow us to utilize their places of business, after all? We suck.), they introduced what is now known as ENDA (the Employee Non-Discrimination Act).
It has yet to pass.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
re: 94
So you don’t feel that using the law to restrict another’s rights is wrong, nor deserves an apology? You believe that simply because the majority believes some right should be curtailed, it is then okay? I ask you the same question I asked Stephanie: If Prop 8 were targeting temple sealings, denying temple sealings the sanction and rights of marriage, would you feel this was acceptable?
If you are correct, and decades of emotional abuse towards homosexuals and the systematic use of law to attempt to deprive them of their liberty is not wrong, then there is nothing to reconcile. We will just have to accept an ever escalating enmity.
re: 108
I do not believe that domestic partnerships grant the same state benefits as marriage. If I understood the law correctly, there are rights specifically left out (anyone who can confirm or deny this?). Furthermore, By making sure they are in a separate category, distinct in the eyes of government from marriage, it virtually assures that at some point that the rights associated with it will be further changed from marriage, which is where the “separate-but-equal” issue comes out. Politicians, under the pressure of pressure groups or their own agenda, will tinker with the rights of domestic partnerships, and will get away with it because most people, whose lives the changes don’t impact, won’t care. And little by little, what rights they have will be abolished. The only way to assure that those rights are protected is to make sure there is no legal distinction whatsoever from marriage.
(if you are correct about domestic partnerships, I still oppose Prop 8 on the grounds that it was nothing more than message legislation, and message legislation whose purpose was to browbeat a minority group at that)
re: 122
Excellent point. I have a hard time seeing what the homosexual community as a whole needs to apologize for “Gee, sorry we got really upset when you tried to restrict our rights. That was way out of line of us.” The rage of many in the homosexual community is unproductive, but it is quite obviously the bitter fruit of our actions.
re: 128
Doctrine is only something for which to apologize if it turns out to be false. I definitely have my suspicions on that issue, but am unwilling to make any definitive declarations myself. If at some point the LDS Church officially decides that homosexual relationships, I sure hope they do more to repent and apologize than they did to the blacks.
re: 139
We do have a legal right to do so. We also have a moral obligation, if we truly believe in the 11th AofF and the principle of religious liberty (as D&C 134:4-5 would indicate), to reject the practice of voting beliefs into law, and instead of lazily relying on legal coercion, to maintain the use of persuasion to propagate our beliefs.
Same question for you, Britt, as for Stephanie and Katie.
re: 157
So tyranny is okay if perpetrated by the majority? Same question as the rest.
People need to remember, this nation was not ultimately based on the concept of democracy. The Bill of Rights, and specific limits to government, both federal and state, were included into the Constitution because individual rights were considered sacrosanct, above even majority rule.
I support the aims of these people who wish the Church to reconcile with the homosexual community. Unfortunately, for the homosexual community to put forth this petition is really rather pointless. Like most communities do when faced with criticism, the Church (leadership and membership) will circle it’s wagons and retrench. The pressure for changes necessary for reconciliation need to come from within. It is incumbent upon us in the Church who feel the Church has historically and recently done wrong to the homosexual community to press for change and help bring the Church to the point where it can reconcile with the homosexual community, whether or not it rejects the actual beliefs on homosexual relationships.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Jo #184 -
I think the terms aren’t clear. When I say “civil rights,” I’m specifically referring to those rights which belong to the citizen of a nation as a result of his/her citizenship in that nation. I’m not talking about churches denying religiously-based rights to their membership. I’m talking about churches interfering with the actual civil rights of people who live in this country, as the LDS and other churches did with Prop 8, and as a number of churches did during slavery, when they supported the institution of slavery as Biblically sound and God-ordained. This is churches taking an active role in attempting to get the government to deny civil rights to citizens based upon the church’s religious beliefs and teachings.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
re: 182
No, the rights of Man are basic. The right to the pursuit of happiness (as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others) is basic, beyond the right of any individual or any majority to deprive a person of that right.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Uh oh. While she did a lot of Rights work, I’m still taking back by her comment about “the Mormons are right next to the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan” in 1976, a statement that I never heard any explanation of, or apology about after wards. As a moderate, I find that offensive.
And, If the KKK is so close to the Church, I would like to hear Bella explain the KKK cross burning in the 1970’s on the lawn of a Missionary couple in Washington Co., GA?
I know she’s dead now, but I find comments like what she said out of line. Of course, others, like Barry Goldwater have also made some really way out comments, so I take issue with both sides of the political fray.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Mike, whatever Bella Abzug’s faults, she was a determined worker for civil rights for blacks and other minority groups. The fact that she made that comment in 1976, two years before the LDS church formally acknowledged that blacks are full and complete human beings, children of God, with all the same priesthood and other rights that white member have, would lead me to believe she was referring to the black priesthood ban.
Which, when you think about it, would not be an unreasonable thing for her, as a black woman, to object to, however you may feel about the manner in which she phrased that objection.
The LDS Church, with all its many wonderful characteristics, still would be difficult to defend as anything other than an extremely politically conservative religious organization.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
The whole “rights” thing gets tricky sans prop 8 or anything else- the LDS church is a worldwide church headquartered in the US, but not all countries globally offer/compel/assign “rights” to citizens… Australia for example, does not have a bill of rights (there is a movement for one), so to declare a “right” to citizens in regard to marriage/religion, etc. is impossible by law.
If the church were to support gay marriage, it could not guarantee gay marriage to members in countries (like Australia and other western countries) where religion, marriage, etc. are not civil (or otherwise) recognised rights.
Comment by spunky — June 18, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Spunky, no one is asking the church to support gay marriage. Nor does it have to guarantee gay marriage to its membership, either here in the USA or abroad. That isn’t even at issue.
What was done was that the church took a direct role in taking AWAY an existing civil right from a group of citizens of this nation.
Churches have no role in either declaring, protecting or denying CIVIL rights to citizens of this country (or at least, they aren’t supposed to). There is no conflict for the LDS Church or any other church involved in the government protecting the civil rights of its citizens.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
And, Mike, considering Ezra Taft Benson’s strong ties to John Birch Society, it’s not entirely misplaced.
Spunky, nobody is saying the church should support gay marriage. We’re just saying the church should butt out because it’s none of their business. In all of the many countries where gay marriage is now legal, there hasn’t been a single case of forcing a church to marry a gay couple. It’s a red herring; it doesn’t happen.
BTW, Bill of rights v. declaring legal ‘rights’ - two completely different things. Just as a country does not need to have a constitution in order to have a government, a country also does not need to have a bill of rights in order to guarantee legal rights to its citizens.
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
re: 192
The rights issue doesn’t get tricky at all. Whether or not a given government officially outlines what they consider to be rights is immaterial. All that matters is that the Church be consistent with its own principles and steadfastly refuse to encourage anyone from using the law to deny others the right to make their own religious and moral determinations. That is the extent of its obligation.
Comment by Derek — June 18, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
But, not everyone in the Church subscribed to his political statements, including me. David O. McKay issued a First Presidency statement denouncing the John Birch Society, but a number of members ignored it. So, I do feel that was a misplaced generalization.
Comment by Mike H. — June 18, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Yet another :marry-me: post, Derek.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
Mike, at the risk of further derailing the thread, I believe that Abzug’s statement was strictly a comparison based upon racial discrimination as advocated and practiced by those organizations, not a declaration that they were directly and officially associated with one another, or that they shared all of their ideals and practices in common.
Sad that mentioning that Abzug sponsored legislation aimed at attempting to protect gay people from discrimination should lead down a winding road to the John Birch Society and the KKK, but then, I’ve done my share of derails. I guess we could tie it all back together by pointing that the John Birch Society and the KKK also treat gays rather horribly, too.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
To use Australia as an example - last year the federal government repealed all federal legislation that discriminated against same sex couples. Even without a bill of rights they were able to extend these rights to all citizens.
Theoretically speaking a bill of rights is symbolic. Merely by being born, it is accepted that humans have certain rights - these rights are not given to us by government and cannot (at least in theory) be taken from us by government. This is basic liberal philosophy stuff - Locke, Hobbes, the lot of them.
I find it bizzare that in a country with the likes of Tony Abbott, Tim Costello, and Cardinal Pell, you actually think that religious freedom is something you have to worry about.
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Yes, Mike, it was a misplaced genarality - Imagine that, a politician making an outlandish statement to make a point!
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
#185, Sam Sneed, thank you so much for the encouragement, and everyone else who responded. I feel it’s taken me some time for me to adjust to the outright verbal abuse of liberals, homosexuals, etc that is allowed here at the University. I know that I’ve tried to highlight what I feel to be unjust or just worthy of exploring from another angle, but I was naive in supposing I would be received with some understanding. As a result, I just sort of shut off, and now I’m easing myself back into what can oftentimes be quite unpleasant situations.
Still, I find that if I don’t interject myself when I feel a different opinion should be heard, such as when people in my class start referring to President Obama as “evil” or “Hitler”, I often feel just as bad or worse than if I had. Yet even recently, as your suggestion implies, I have begun to find a few people to align myself with in my department who seem to think more moderately, or at least are open minded enough to consider other views before condemning.
And I think that is the goal that we here at FMH share, and the one that we as a community should aim for-the free and respectful expression and discussion of divisive issues. If we could just get to that point, many of our other barriers would seem easier to break down.
Thanks again to everyone on this board-when I feel at my wit’s end, I come onto this website and wish I could know you personally!
Comment by Whitney — June 18, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
It’s really nice to hear from you, Whitney. I hope you find more encouragement here. I know that I do.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
Isn’t it hilarious when people accuse Obama of being both ‘too liberal’ and ‘Hitler’ in the same sentence?
Do you know I was censored from the Des News boards the other day? I never comment there, but someone was busy calling Obama a liar (actually the comment was that lying in the White House started in 1992, lasted until 2000, and then started again in 2009) so I posted that Bush had done his fair share of lying too. They deleted it! I’m kind of proud of that, actually. By ultra-conservative logic, did they delete it because they’re too liberal or because they’re Hitler?
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
RE: Comment #191
Lorian,
Where in the devil did you get the idea that Bella Abzug was black? She was a white Jewish lady from New York with a fondness for outrageous hats. Yes, indeed, Bella had an opinion on everything and she was happy to share it with you whether you wanted to hear it or not. It was her Jewish sense of justice, equality and fairness that was the spark that kindled the flames of so many of her causes, not that she was African-American. African-Americans had their own torch bearers for their cause of equal rights, and their spark came from centuries of oppression and injustice.
Comment by Boston Yankee — June 18, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Boston Yankee, sorry, you’re right. I blew it. I’ve conflated her in my mind with a couple of other civil rights crusaders, and chose the wrong mental image.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Whitney
Thanks for your comments.
Perhaps the church could set up a study abroad program in San Francisco. I think it would be helpful for students to experience another culture.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 18, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Mental images aside, though, I still believe the reference Mike brought up was related to the LDS Church’s stance on the rights of African Americans, particularly as relates to their position in the church.
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Suzanne, my BIL and his (same sex) partner are going to San Francisco later on this year. We felt compelled to warn them there are a (whisper) a lot of gays there. They were shocked, and told us they’d watch their back, but they thought they’d be safe from them in the Castro, where they will be staying.
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
Comment by Lorian — June 18, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
Or in the infamous words of my nephew, who, when he learned that his uncle was gay and I said, “Yes, and (partner’s name) is nice don’t you think?” replied, “Oh no, they aren’t gay together.” I guess he thought they were gay apart?
Comment by Quimby — June 18, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Are you TRYING to ruin my computer equipment tonight???
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:02 am
Just ask any female LDS member who is married to a non-member how
she is perceived by the members of her Ward who have been married in the temple. That female is never accepted as being as faithful as the others. And since that is still the case today as it’s always been , a reconciliation between the Church doctrine and gay marriage will never happen.
Comment by mary — June 19, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Um… Not sure I follow you, Mary.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, Mary, but I think Mary is saying that the church doesn’t give equal credence to non-temple marriage so it’s a really big leap to expect them to give equal credence to same sex marriage.
And yes, I was trying to ruin your computer earlier, because after all we are in a global financial crisis and we have to spend up to get out of it. Everyone has to do their part, Lorian.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 12:20 am
I was in the Castro in March for a Petula Clark Concert. I was a little perplexed that someone was out on the street at the Theater “No on Prop H8″ buttons, since at that point it was well in the hands of the Court. Can wearing buttons sway the Court?
I had understood those who were of black African descent were to be treated equal in all things, except for having the Priesthood, before the 1978 Revelation. It could have been taught a little more forcefully, though. Hugh B. Brown had made statements about that in a Church News Editorial.
That’s from the “A Plea for Reconciliation” itself. I remember, though, an Ensign article by Dallon Oakes, specifically saying that a heterosexual marriage is NOT a treatment for same sex attraction. I know it was in decades past, but is it still taught as a therapy? And, by who?
Comment by Mike H. — June 19, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Be careful, or crazywoman (I think) will be snorting coffee through her nose again!
My meds must be working, I’m not in a manic phase laughing at the funny stuff woven into this thread, unlike last night’s gibberish thread.
Comment by Mike H. — June 19, 2009 @ 12:29 am
My internet handle is a completely different meaning of the word, but for now, Lorian is my hero in its most awe-inspiring and rockstariscious sense.
Long may she wave.
Comment by hero — June 19, 2009 @ 12:45 am
I probably should have thought this one through better, this was on my mind so I posted it, but then I walked out the door and spent the entire day at the Cherry Festival (knitting in the shade while my children roamed free like wild animals)(I’m the best mom ever)
So I haven’t read any of the comments, I didn’t babysit properly, I’m hoping there’s some good stuff in there, but I suspect there was a bunch of bickering too (please, please, please can’t we all just get along?)
Oh well, off to bed. I’ll try to catch up tomorrow, meanwhile, Behave!
Comment by fmhLisa — June 19, 2009 @ 1:02 am
I have to say , I read the petition - my mother read the petition and we’ve both signed it. Not because I believe the “Church” is some evil entity but because I believe that there has been too much deliberate and accidental pain being pushed back and forth between the two “sides”
When people are hurt they react they don’t respond.When people are fearful they react again they don’t respond. Prop 8 was a reaction to fear-they’ll teach it in schools, they’ll sue us for not recognizing their marriage..etc. Prop 8 was not a Response..
In fact the petition asks for both sides to apologize,listen and discuss.. perhaps it could be worded differently so not to seem accusatory.
It would have been nice to see actual discussion about the issue.The real issue…not just the Bible says… the Bible says a lot of things-we don’t stone people for adulterary anymore do we? Cut off a hand of a theif? Spare the rod…
And then the other question…what if it’s cultural not Biblical? What if our own ancestors bias helped to distort the truth? Because the Bible is history… not just God standing there on the mountain top speaking..but actual history..recorded by man , handed down verbally..and we already know that things get lost in translation..
I do not believe that God would create Homosexuals so that they could suffer,be depressed , and kill themselves because they couldn’t change how he created them(or how they were biologically) And who am I to say who can love who? If you find your match,by all means you hold on tight and don’t let go..
The anger and the hurt is been there for a long time, the GLBT community has been just as long as we have.. all societies past and present have some variation of it. It’s just that now, there are laws to protect their God given rights.(well at least in theory)
I have a question:
Do any of you face death if you hold your wife’s or husband’s hand? If you kiss them in public,do you worry who will see your? do any of you have to worry about who knows about your spouse? What will people say at work?
If people are surprised by the anger that the Church is facing because of Prop 8 then they do not understand Gay and Lesbian History.. does Stonewall ring a bell?
No,I’m not gay…just grew up saying “with justice and liberty for all” funny the fine print never mentioned anything about but not just,gays,women,minorities…
Comment by Jillian — June 19, 2009 @ 1:12 am
Hero #219 - Thank you.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 1:39 am
Mike #217 -
I still have No on 8 stickers on my car, and will probably keep them there, or suitable replacements for them, until every gay person in this nation has the right to marry the person they love and receive equal federal and state protections and rights for their family.
Prop 8 has become quite a rallying cry within the community, very much like Stonewall and Matthew Shepard. There are these tremendous watershed events which mobilize and energize people and remind them of who they are and what they must do. Prop 8 was, I believe, such a moment in our history.
As for this comment:
That statement (and I realize that it is an accurate expression of LDS teaching prior to the 1978 revelation) is about as convincing as “love the sinner, hate the sin.” If someone is truly “equal in all things,” then there is no reason to deny them the fruits of that equality. In the same way that some straight people claim that civil unions and marriage are equal, but would refuse to trade in their marriage for a civil union, this is but one more expression of the fact that “separate is never equal.” Denying someone something on the sole basis of his race is not treating that person as an equal. Doesn’t matter how it is reframed, turned about or obfuscated. It is simply not consistent.
The fact that blacks were denied the priesthood means that they were NOT treated as equals. They were treated as inferiors.
As I understand it, there has been some very recent movement within the church to reduce pressure on homosexual persons to marry someone of the opposite gender, mostly because such marriages have historically been horrendous and catastrophic failures, which have damaged both spouses and the children which often result from such unions.
But they have historically been a routine prescription in the LDS Church, along with other conservative Christian groups. Additionally, there is a long and sad history of pseudo-scientific experimentation conducted on gay men, particularly at BYU, involving the employment of methods of torture, such as electrodes applied to the genitals, and the administration of emetics to cause vomiting, used in conjunction with displays of gay pornography.
All manner of abuses, from electrical shocks to lobotomies, have been employed against gay and lesbian people throughout the last century or two, masquerading as scientific “cures” for homosexuality. The LDS Church is not alone in this abuse, but it has certainly done its diligent share, and it continued to employ many of these methods long after other agencies had abandoned and repudiated them.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 2:03 am
Quimby
How very civic-minded of you.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 4:15 am
Derek #187
Sorry, meant to address this earlier and got sidetracked.
CA Domestic Partnerships carry most, but not all, the same state-level rights of marriage. They, of course, confer exactly NONE of the 1000+ federal rights of marriage.
Here are the differences between DP’s and CA state marriage, as summed by wiki:
So there are some significant differences.
Additionally, as you point out, Derek, there is a risk, and not a small one, that should some religious groups have their way, it would be a relatively easy matter to rescind Domestic Partnerships in this state and in one motion deprive all gay couples of these rights. There are many religious conservatives who advocate such a move.
I would additionally hold that the right to marry is, in and of itself, a right which is missing from Domestic Partnership, and which distinguishes the state-level rights of Domestic Partnership from the state-level rights of marriage.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 4:30 am
Mary- I loved your comment about nonmember marriage. As soon as I read it I recognised it as that is me. My branch treats me and my son as second class citizens. I have even been invited to singles activities - hee, hee.
I think the church would be unable to accept gay marriage in any form if they are still able to not recognise other hetero marriages
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 4:36 am
#163: it seems to me that you are discussing a different topic if you are asking for sympathy. I am discussing this petition, which makes accusations, is completely one-sided, shows no understanding itself, demands a change in doctrine, and is very unspecific about who has done what, thereby including all members in its terrible accusations and blaming the church in general for some members acting on their own. It’s shameful, and it is passive aggressive to a massive degree to call it an olive branch.
What you asked for would be lovely. This petition reflects none of that.
In terms of “civil rights”, that is not a settled matter where this is a case of it, and to speak of it as if it were is too biased a version of events to afford any common ground. It would like demanding that anyone who wants to talk about the first acknowledge modern revelation.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 6:16 am
Funnily enough, though, Katie, all of the concessions it’s asking for - I’ve heard the GA’s say all of that over the pulpit, with the exception of the scriptures, but that’s hardly a stretch, there’s plenty of interpretations of the Bible that leave out homosexuality altogether. So all it really requires is, instead of the normal, “We no longer teach that” routine - which is just fence-sitting, members who still believe it feel justified in believing it and think it’s a ‘nod nod wink wink’ to political correctness while members who don’t believe it either get frustrated at the double-speak or think that that GA’s are saying more than they’re saying - Anyway, all it requires is, instead of doing the normal fence-sitting thing, saying, “Hey, look, we were wrong before.” But that’s not going to happen.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 6:35 am
And I REALLY think you’re off here. The church - the actual structural heirarchy of the church - has consistently pushed its members to vote one way on this issue and to donate to one side of this issue. If you think it’s really just “some members acting on their own” you are rewriting history big-time.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 6:37 am
Wouldn’t it be great if the church spearheaded legislation against employment discrimination?
Lorian people can vote for all manner of stupidity. They must have that right if any of us are to have the right to vote for what we fell is right.
Comment by britt — June 19, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Katie- I really think you are wrong in that this is just should be blaming ‘a few people’. The church in my mind has two separate parts: the Gospel and the Culture. And in dealing with gays and lesbians most members use culture, not gospel. The Ensign, for example has had many articles discussing how the church is supposed to treat the disabled. If the church or branch I lived in followed the gospel, my son would have no problems at church. But church culture is NOT always church gospel and so every Sunday is a huge challenge as I have to deal with the culture and its ramifications, not the gospel. So a culture that condemns gays and lesbians without giving full knowledge or voice to both sides is wrong… and leaves out the gospel which is open, changing and loving.
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 8:10 am
#230: It seems you are saying the church is wronging for saying that homosexuality is a sin. If you want the church to say it is the act and not the people, they already do.
I get that no one likes to be told that what they are doing is wrong. That isn’t a reason to stop teaching what is right and wrong.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 8:17 am
#228: The accusations are so vague, so total, and so all-encompassing that apparently we have different intrepetations of what, exactly, the church is being accused. That alone means it is a poorly-written document.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 8:19 am
Also katie, on the ‘civil rights issue’ if you definition of civil rights were the one that was followed throughout time without changing- blacks would still be slaves, women would still have no vote and would be unable to own property, children and money without a man giving permission, autistics would have no ‘right’ to treatment in Canada and other countries and children would still be able to be forced to work in factories as young as five. Women and coloured minorities would still be unable to go to most schools, certain jobs, etc.. I could probably go on for hours.
The fact that we have this forum - that allows the opinion of both genders- that is accepting of different opinions and really accept the idea that ALL people have rights including free speech is a very product and testament that your definition of civil rights is incorrect and what defines a civil right changes with time.
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 8:19 am
No, Sonia, that’s not true. I realize that you may equate this to be the same issue, but taking that as a given means choking off the dialogue before it even starts. I don’t think it is a civil rights issue, and that means the onus is to try and argue that it is rather than take it as a given and start accusing people of supporting racism through the centuries.
It is as unfair as demanding non-members take modern revelation as a given and start from there.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 8:35 am
Katie- I’m sorry that I am not explaining myself well enough for you to understand my thoughts.
I think that you are confusing gospel and culture and civil rights all into a big jumble. Some of the GA’s have said that homosexuality is a sin- for the sake of pure argument let’s all agree that homosexuality is a sin and will always be a sin unchanging in the sight of God. Now add culture as mormons take that same thought and add it too their lives and opinions. It doesn’t take to long to see that is the way that members and others justify lack of respect, dialogue, and even other really bad behaviours against gays that are also clearly sins - after all their sin is ‘worse’. This behaviour is cultural and church-wide although not given as gospel from the pulpit.
Civil rights are outside of a religious arena. They are rights that the average human being agrees are rights that all beings should have no matter what religion, financial state, colour, sex, etc… So if men are allowed to vote, every human being should be allowed to vote. If men are allowed to earn 12 million dollars for a specific job, anyone doing that job should be able to make the same amount - no matter gender, lifestyle etc… A civil right is no akin to women getting the priesthood in the mormon church exactly- that is a doctrine/cultural issue which I’m sure could be discussed at length in another forum. But if one human being is allowed to marriage because of the legal benefits designed into it by government, than all are entitled to those benefits. If you are a married woman with kids and your husband dies, the state automatically would give you his property. If you are an unmarried woman living with a man and he dies after an average of five years, the state will tend to treat you as married and you get the stuff. A homosexual couple does not have the basic right to determine so easily how their belongings can be transferred and court cases show that a person’s wishes can be null and void if other family members step in and argue the case-marriage protects you from that.
Maybe that is explained better
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 8:54 am
re: 217
Much as I wish that were true, Mike, it isn’t. President McKay, I believe, worked hard to make sure that blacks did not use a popular public pool, for example. President Lee fought vigorously with the red cross to ensure that no blood donated by blacks were used in local red cross blood banks. The discrimination certainly went farther than just denial of the priesthood.
re: 221
Nicely said, Jillian.
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 8:55 am
“It doesn’t take to long to see that is the way that members and others justify lack of respect, dialogue, and even other really bad behaviours against gays that are also clearly sins - after all their sin is ‘worse’. This behaviour is cultural and church-wide although not given as gospel from the pulpit.”
This is what I mean about blaming the church for the actions of the members. Considering what the actual instruction is from the pulpit is completely against all of those behaviors, demanding an apology for this is like demanding an apology for all the Mormon adulterers out there.
The point is that Mormons are NOT monolithic and Salt Lake doesn’t control all behaviors. If individual members act badly and against church doctrine and policy (and it definitely isn’t church-wide and not all do it), then it is their problem. In fact, I’ve NEVER seen that kind of behavior in my current ward. I don’t appreciate being accused of sins I haven’t done, haven’t seen, and are against official doctrine.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 9:21 am
I have to laugh at the “you can’t do this and you can’t do that . . . ” because it is so absurd. OF COURSE you can. Its already been done. Can that be changed? Sure, but it can be changed back as well. Remember the days when “you can’t” was supposed to be followed by “Why not” or “The H*** I can’t!”
Irreconcilability is impossible because both side thinks the other side is sinful and that they are righteous. For many LDS Church members and leaders it is a matter of defending immutable doctrines. For the Gay community it is about rights. Both are hotly contested and therefore not ripe for reconciliation, only conquest.
I am more on the side of the LDS Church because I am a full blown believer first and foremost in the doctrine of man and woman/women only, and second that I think minority rule decisions are as wrong as majority rule. It would be so easy, and anti-gay marriage advocates have reached out time and again with this proposal, to eliminate government involvement with any committed relationship. That way there would be no separate but equal mess because there would be nothing besides a piece of legal paper.
What the gay community doesn’t understand is that for religious people this is a “separation of Church and State” issue. By allowing gays to be called “married” the state is not defending “rights,” but defining doctrine. The word has RELIGIOUS meanings beyond the simple definition of couples. If you think this is silly then read the anti-polygamy arguments that ended up making that institution illegal. The gay community would have much more support from the conservative religious community if they were to seek to have the word “marriage” abolished for all unions. contracted relationships of sexual orientation should just be called Civil Unions.
Comment by Jettboy — June 19, 2009 @ 10:05 am
To those of you who have stated that the Church and/or government shouldn’t define “marriage” as one man, one woman, but that it should be a matter of individual conscience and choice: Do you also extend the right of legal marriage to polyamorous couples? When gay marriage is legally recognized, then polygamy may soon follow. The Church would then have no reason to denounce it (if it were no longer against the laws of the land), and it could be reinstituted. What say ye?
Comment by Rose — June 19, 2009 @ 10:25 am
re: 238
We are arguing from moral and ethical positions, not physical ones. If I say that a moral person cannot murder, I recognize that, of course, it is physically possible for them to commit murder. I’m simply arguing that a moral position precludes murder. Same goes for violating rights by majority vote.
When and how have anti-gay marriage advocates proposed that we eliminate government involvement in relationships? I’ve never seen it. I’ve repeatedly heard, both in this past Prop 8 fiasco and prior, that the government needs to protect marriage, and that it is necessary for government to grant certain legal rights to marriage, both for the purposes of protecting property and procreative rights, and for–though they would never use the term–social engineering purposes (to prescriptively encourage the sorts of heterosexual relationships which many morally feel are best).
No, for those who you describe as “religious people” (which is a very inaccurate and judgmental way to describe them, because many in the homosexual community, as well as many of us who support them, are very religious people), this is an issue of conflating Church and State. They want to use government legislation to promote their religious beliefs and enforce them upon others.
Again, this is absolutely incorrect. By allowing each individual or organization to decide for themselves what constitutes marriage, as the Vermont, Iowa, and Cal prior to Prop 8 laws allow, government is removed from the equation. The LDS Church could still refuse to recognize or perform homosexual marriage within our faith. That law grants each individual, organization, and faith full sovereignty in regards to its doctrine. The anti-homosexual marriage legislation which the Church has consistently advocated–be it federal or state marriage amendments–would via government interference deny other faiths the right to grant homosexual couples marriage if those faiths believe homosexual relationships are morally acceptable. It is the Church promoting government definition of doctrine, not the homosexual community.
You are completely turning the situation upside down.
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 10:31 am
#210 Tangent: As a high school student (from Mormon Southeast Idaho) I went on a school trip to San Francisco. You’d have guessed it was the Congo or the Amazon based on exotic warnings I received on all sides. I came to understand that gays (no one mentioned lesbians, they must not have been discovered by the Ricks College Geographical Survey yet) were some sort of rare animal sequestered in their California preserve. So, I left my motel room– after being urged by my peers to change my all-black outfit so I didn’t attract the homosexuals (because they’re attracted to black like bees are attracted to reds and yellows?)– and joined with my peers in a game of gay-spotting. We didn’t see any, or so we thought. I think we were trying to spot them wearing purple sequined leotards or tongue-kissing in public places. I have since learned that they look like regular people because they are regular people
Comment by Moniker Challenged — June 19, 2009 @ 10:32 am
As I read this, I couldn’t help but think of the scripture… 1 Nephi 3:5 “And now, behold thy brothers murmur, saying it is a hard thing which I have required of them; but behold I have not required it of them, but it is a commandment of the Lord.”
Do they need to be treated with “Love Unfeigned”? Absolutely! Do they need respect as people? Of course.
Do our leaders determine what constitutes worthiness - or set the standards…. no.
If you are LDS, then you should know that this is the Lords church and He sets the standards and requirements. If you want a man who is in charge of such doctrines in his church, then you are looking in the wrong church.
Comment by Robert — June 19, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Jettboy- I know talking to gay people, I have heard repeatedly that they will accept no more marriage, but they won’t advocate it. They feel like they are already being accused of trying to destroy marriage and actively trying to eliminate the term marriage would feed into that.
Comment by Tami — June 19, 2009 @ 10:36 am
re: 239
Absolutely. Any consensual “marriage” should be granted the same rights by the state. Hetero, homo, bi, tri, poly, whatever. If the Church feel divinely inspired to restore polygamy, they should legally be allowed. Other faiths which feel other relationships are divinely sanctioned should be just as free to pursue them.
We can and should actively promote through persuasion whatever relationships we feel are morally acceptable. But we overstep our bounds into unrighteous dominion.
(That does not mean any and all relationships are automatically acceptable. Many advocates of legally restricting marriage like to use the slippery slope argument about pedophilia and bestiality. But the key word in the phrase is consensual relationship. It is within the mandate of government to prevent violation of rights of determination–ie, to prevent non-consensual relationships. It has a role in determining the age at which one is old enough to be considered emotionally and mentally mature enough to give consent, therefore preventing child marriages or the sort of compulsory arranged marriages we hear about in organizations such as the FLDS Church. And given that animals are not sapient, they cannot be considered independently consensual in any sort of relationship, thus ruling out O’Reilly’s fears about people marrying their dogs.)
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 10:44 am
“We are arguing from moral and ethical positions” Your really arguing gay marriage from this position? Excuse me, but that doesn’t sit well with people who define morals and ethics far differently than you do.
“You are completely turning the situation upside down.” NO, gays are and they know it!
Comment by Jettboy — June 19, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Correction on 245:
The line “But we overstep our bounds into unrighteous dominion.” should have read “But we overstep our bounds into unrighteous dominion when we use the law to restrict people to act in accordance with our beliefs.
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Jettboy #239 -
Jettboy, I understand this is your opinion, but it certainly does not match my experience. As I’ve said on this thread several times, while the solution you propose would call for a great deal more changes in the law, both here in the USA and around the world (since your civil union would likely be just as null and void overseas as mine), I’d be open to that solution, and so would many other gay people. It’s not the terminology we’re hung up on so much as the fact that “opposite marriage” advocates (to coin a term
) don’t want us to share in the same civil institution which applies to their relationships.
The problem (as I’ve just stated) is that many, if not most, of those who wish to deny gays the right to marry ALSO are unwilling to give up the term “marriage” as it applies to their own civil contracts. They want to maintain two separate institutions, one of civil marriage, which is for the “good” people who know how to pick opposite-gendered partners, and one for the “bad” people who insist upon stupidly chasing after their own gender.
This is a problem.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 10:54 am
“We do have a legal right to do so. We also have a moral obligation, if we truly believe in the 11th AofF and the principle of religious liberty (as D&C 134:4-5 would indicate), to reject the practice of voting beliefs into law, and instead of lazily relying on legal coercion, to maintain the use of persuasion to propagate our beliefs.”
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. When I say people have the right to vote their beliefs, I do not mean voting that other people must believe as they believe.
Everyone votes based on what they believe to be right or wrong. Both A of F 11 and especially Doctrine and covenants 134 support that, with v 3-4 in section 134 supporting the concept. They both emphasize forcing beliefs or forcing the human soul to believe something. I get what you are trying to say about religious opinions impinging on others freedoms. I do not believe it is a civil right to change marriage to include same sex relationships.
With marriage defined as it is everyone has a right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I worry about the over emphasis on the importance of attraction in marriage. Our culture is already weak in it’s concept of love as a place you fall in and out of-based on feelings predominantly.
There is an abstract-emotional concept, but the rock of love in a marriage must be true love-the ability to be kind and gentle, tender, forgiving, selfless and loyal.
Please don’t misconstrue my statements as to imply that homosexual people don’t truely love. I see the emphasis on attraction in marriage and the “right” to marriage to someone you are attracted to as FURTHER weakening the concept of love.
Comment by britt — June 19, 2009 @ 10:59 am
re: 246
The fact that people define morals differently is precisely the point. Because people define morality differently, it is a fundamental moral principle that they should be able to follow their own conscience in determining what is moral and how they should act (always with the caveat that in doing so, they cannot infringe upon the rights of others). They should not be coerced into following the moral interpretations of others. This is enshrined in the fundamental principles of the nation (”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) and in the Gospel (agency is the most essential aspect of the Gospel, and I’ve noted previously a couple of modern scriptures expressing this). It is only by accepting this fundamental moral principle that religious freedom can survive.
If you believe that the majority and the government has the right to interpret and prescribe morality for homosexuals and their supporters, then you must logically accept the right of the majority and government to restrict any given practice of our faith. Would you accept such a law?
You have every right to believe homosexual relationships are immoral and to refuse to participate in a homosexual relationship. The Church has every right to deny its own marriage or membership to people in homosexual relationships. You and the Church have every right, even obligation, to dissuade others from participating in homosexual relationships if you believe they are morally unacceptable. We have no moral right, according to the principles of the nation and to the principles of our faith, to force others to live according to our beliefs through the law.
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 11:08 am
britt, if by “having the right to vote for whatever you believe” you mean that each of us, when s/he enters the polling booth, has the right to put a punch mark next to the option which most closely resonates with his/her own personal thoughts and feelings, of course you are right. No one has the right to follow you into the polling booth and force you to vote for something with which you disagree.
But I think that Derek and I are talking about a much larger principle of law, by which a bill or proposition which would serve to take away the civil rights of a group of people for no good (non-religiously-based) reason should not BE on that ballot in the first place. We, as a society, do not have the right (according to our own founding documents and principles) to inhibit the free exercise of basic human and civil rights by our citizens without showing good and just cause (and that does not include, as I said earlier, things like “It’s gross” and “I think it’s a sin”).
So, yeah, you have the right to mark your ballot however you choose, but we, as a society, do not have the right to take away people’s civil rights willy-nilly, by majority rule. That’s why we have a constitution and Bill of Rights, and a judicial system to determine the constitutionality of laws (though they are human and subject to prejudice and the risk of recall, and don’t always get it right, either).
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Lorian, if what you say about motives is true (and from my experiences discussing this with Conservatives its not), then there is no more point arguing, much less reconciling. Since one side wants to “split the two” and another “wants it all,” then like I said this is about power and conquest and not marriage and rights.
Comment by Jettboy — June 19, 2009 @ 11:13 am
And, by the way, britt, are you the same britt I asked this of a few weeks ago, or are you possibly a britt I know from another board? You seem very familiar to me.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Jettboy #252 - You are the one who proposed that we all should share the same designation and the same civil rights. Why I am now all “about power and conquest” by agreeing with you that we SHOULD all share the same designation (whether it be “marriage” or “union”) and the same set of rights?
I begin to mistrust your motives when you bait and switch.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:15 am
re: 249
This is a hollow distinction. The right to believe differently is meaningless if you are not allowed to act upon that belief. One must have the right to follow their conscience if that conscience is to have any point. The right of a homosexual to believe they are homosexual and to believe their relationship is divinely approved means nothing if they are legally barred from such a relationship. The right of a religion to teach that homosexual marriage is acceptable to God is meaningless if they cannot act on that belief and solemnize those relationships.
You may well be right that the importance placed on attraction in a marriage is overemphasized, and that it is harming the institution of marriage. To try to use law to correct that common error would be morally repugnant.
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Lorian, I didn’t say YOU, I said “what you say about motives” of others. Gays then become cowardly or not truthful for not pushing forward a possible solution because of “perception” fears it might hurt their cause. Pro-marriage advocates become far more religiously conceded than I think they should be.
If you agree with me, then hey there is common ground right there. Why not work harder on that?
Comment by Jettboy — June 19, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Britt #249
I grow extremely weary of hearing this red herring.
The deer says, “Cat, you have the right to eat any of the vegetables in the garden. You may not kill and eat the birds. You have the right to eat any of the zucchini, corn, radishes, just the same as I do. Now stop complaining and let’s have supper.”
The cat says, “But I cannot digest the vegetables. They do my system no good and reak havoc inside me. Besides, they don’t taste good to me. I have absolutely no inclination to eat them.”
The deer says, “What a whiner you are. Dinner isn’t about things tasting good. It’s about getting nutrition. Doesn’t matter if you’re inclined towards them or not, old boy. Besides, they taste just find to me. Can’t imagine what you’re complaining about. You focus too much on the pleasures of the flesh and doing what you’re ‘inclined’ to do. Now sit down, shut up and eat your carrots.”
Britt, maybe you can have a good, lasting and fulfilling marriage by marrying someone with whom you are absolutely and utterly sexually incompatible. Maybe it’s an exercise in heroic martyrdom for you to go through the motions of sexual intimacy without feeling a thing (or perhaps feeling utter revulsion each time your spouse tries to make love with you). But most people cannot stomach that sort of relationship in the long term, and such relationships almost always end in utter failure and dissolution, with children born in the relationship being the saddest of its victims.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:30 am
re: 257
Beautifully put, Lorian.
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Jettboy #256 -
You’re confusing me with someone else, Jettboy. This wasn’t my argument.
You can think what you like of them, but truly, I’ve been having these discussions with literally dozens, if not hunreds, of people, and have read the arguments of many more, and those anti-gay-marriage-advocates who would accept having their own marriages converted to civil unions are few and far between, and those who would take an active role in advocating for such a change are scarce indeed.
And there is a significant percentage of anti-gay-marriage advocates who not only do not want gays to have access to marriage, while retaining it solely for themselves, but who ALSO do not want gays to have any of the rights of marriage at all. There are frequent assaults made upon the Domestic Partnership and Civil Union institutions which have been set up in the various states. There were some in the Prop 8 faction last November who not only wanted gay marriage overturned, but also wanted the existing 18,000 marriages annulled, AND who stated that their next objective, if they won that one, would be to go after Domestic Partnerships and have them revoked, as well.
I’m afraid, Jettboy, that not everyone in your camp is quite as reasonable as you.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Katie #238 - Are you saying that Prop 8 was the result of a few “bad apples” acting independently of the Church’s directions, that the Church, at large, had nothing to do with Prop 8, and that it is unfair to blame the Church, at large, for the outcome of Prop 8?
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:51 am
I just had a thought, maybe others have already said this. But I guess regarding the OP, it has become clear through the extensive comments on this post that reconciliation is still quite a ways off.
Sadly.
Comment by Roxanna — June 19, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Roxanna, I’m afraid you are right. However, I’m quite certain that if the LDS Church were to issue a simple statement that it regrets interfering in the lives and civil rights of gay people in the past, and will refrain from doing so in the future (while still maintaining it’s own internal teachings and policy for it’s membership regarding issues of homosexuality), most in the gay community would be appeased.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Derek, I really appreciated your last comments about acting on conscience. Thank you.
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
#260: The church absolutely has nothing to apologize for concerning proposition 8 (which, by the way, was not the original topic of this thread). Freedom of speech is absolutely an American moral right, homosexuality is immoral, and the church members excercised it. There’s nothing to apologize for.
If excercising free speech, voting one’s conscience, and teaching doctrine is what you think the church should apologize for, then it is absolutely right that you will be waiting a very long time. No apology is necessary. The church did nothing wrong.
Voting one’s conscience is more than a right - it is the obligation of American citizens. Persecuting people for voting their conscience - now that’s something that requires an apology.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Katie P
Are we reading the same petition?
It struck me like it was an abused dependent begging not to get beaten again.( And they shouldn’t be beaten again if they “wrongly” accuse blameless Daddy and ask him to stop.)
I thought it was interesting that you describe the petition as passive-aggressive. It is a defense mechanism and you do know where it comes from?
I’m glad you live in a positive ward. Many don’t.
The Church can have any doctrine it feels God has ordered. It’s called freedom of Religion.
Yet there are gay kids growing up and family members hearing the “folk doctrine.” vitriol. Thank you for not participating in this.
My parents are good, faithful members of the church trying to live the gospel as best they can. Yet their understanding of this folk doctrine has brought–both me and them–much harm and pain. It is not my intention to whine, but to let you understand there are people in your pews being negatively impacted by Mormon culture.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 19, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
We must not be - I saw a litany of vague, terrible accusations and a demand for a change in doctrine.
I think that church members not following the doctrine and examples that are being taught from the pulpit and hurting each other in the process is an enormous problem. I also think it is a very, very old problem, and that church leaders from Moses to Alma to Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley have all struggled with it.
The solution is not to toss aside or mariginalize the teachings of the gospel but to do better as a people to actually live them, to actually be Christ-like.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Katie #264 - Prop 8 is extremely germane to the thread topic. The thread topic is about a document listing harms done to gay and lesbian people by the LDS Church, and asking for recognition of those harms so that reconciliation between the two groups may be made. The most recent, and arguably most far-reaching, of those harms was the role the church played in interfering with the CIVIL (that is, not religious, having to do with the rights of citizens recognized by their government) rights of gay people.
The church, as I’ve said before, has every right to believe that homosexuality is a “sin.” It has every right to teach that belief to its membership, and to anyone who is willing to listen. It has every right to deny it’s sacraments and blessings to gay people, and even to refuse to admit gay people to it’s meetings. Those are the rights of any religious group in this nation.
It does NOT have a right to impose those beliefs upon those who do not share them by way of our nation’s legislative system.
If the church had only “exercised free speech” (and without lies and slander, mind you, which played their role in this debacle, as well — and are immoral and, in some cases, illegal) we would not be having this discussion.
Part of the failure here, certainly, comes from persons in government who bowed to undue pressure from religious groups, including the Mormon Church, in permitting this blatantly unconstitutional proposition on the ballot, and then in upholding its passage.
No one is “persecuting” you, Katie. Vote your conscience. But own the fact that you have imposed your religious beliefs on those who do not share them. The responsibility for that wrong is not solely yours. It belongs also to those who voted like you, and also to the churches who pushed their religious teachings into law, and also to those in government who allowed this mauling of our constitutional rights and protections.
But the final word has not been spoken, and ultimately justice will be done, or we are not the nation of law and equality and freedom that we claim to be.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Katie #266 — The accusations were terrible, yes, but true, and not really vague if you know anything about the history of the Church’s involvement in persecuting gays, those who are members and those who are not.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
“The line “But we overstep our bounds into unrighteous dominion.” should have read “But we overstep our bounds into unrighteous dominion when we use the law to restrict people to act in accordance with our beliefs.”
What beliefs? I believe underage drinking isn’t good…I am restricting peoples’ actions when I codify that? I believe nonmedically necessary late term abortions are bad…I am voting to restrict peoples behaviors there too.
We disagree on whether same sex marriage is a civil right…that makes all the difference in the larger principle argument .
Every law is based on what people believe is good or bad, and they all restrict behavior in some way.
Lorian-I am that Britt. Someone brought me here a couple of months ago, I read the Mother in Heaven talk and loved it. What beautiful, careful scholarship went into that article. I’ve commented sporadically and somewhat rarely…you understand the demands of parenthood waxing and waning. I did see a few weeks ago a comment by a britt and I considered changing my posting name to differentiate.
I am not in an attractionless relationship. I do see the problem there. I have seen arranged marriages work beautifully-though differently without any of the martyrdom you discuss-that is annectdotal evidence so take it for what it’s worth.
Do you see the problem in our culture as a whole overemphasizing the importance of attraction?
Comment by britt — June 19, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Katie #266 -
But they ARE being taught from the pulpit to persecute gays. Prop 8 was a persecution of gays. Gay people simply want the right to have their relationships treated the same under civil law as those of opposite-gender couples. That has nothing to do with the Church. And yet the Church took an extremely active role in taking away the rights of gay couples to receive equal protection under the law, and in urging and even compelling its membership to participate in that terrible wrong.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
I am aware of the church’s involvement, and that you think the vague accusations were perfectly okay is a good example why this isn’t actually a dialogue. All the touted need for understanding seems to only place the onus on one side. Not interested.
I understand that you think prop 8 was fundamentally flawed. That is not proven, not a universally held view, and if you persist in believing that its very existence is proof of bad behavior, then you will see bad behavior everywhere. I think this is a problem, because it can’t distinguish between teaching moral doctrine and actually treating people in an unChrist-like manner. Where’s the incentive to try to improve behavior and relations? Your requirement is that the doctrine change as the very first step. No wonder you feel nothing is happening.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
britt #269
Yes, those things DO restrict people’s actions in accordance with your moral beliefs, but they are not codified into law simply because you think those things are “a sin” or “icky.” They make it into law because those who advocate for them are able to demonstrate, within reasonable limits, that those behaviors lead to direct harm to individuals or society at large.
In the case of underage drinking, there is a significant body of scientific evidence that such drinking not only causes physical and emotional damage to the child who engages in it, but also has a propensity to lead to societal ills such as violence, drunk driving, and accidental death of the consumer and of innocent victims. This gives society just cause to legally restrict the access of alcohol by minors.
In the case of late term abortions, there is a significant body of evidence demonstrating that after a certain number of weeks gestation, a fetus has the ability to be viable outside the womb, with proper supportive care. Under such circumstances, then, it can reasonably be argued that by most anyone’s standard’s the fetus is a full and independent (in the sense of being able to sustain its own life functions when detached from its mother’s body, with proper supportive care) human being and should have the rights pertaining to that status, namely, the right to life. Now certainly you may argue that fetuses and embryos at earlier stages of gestation ought to be considered in the same manner as these later-stage fetuses, but that’s not at issue here. What is at issue in your argument is that there is general consensus that a late-stage fetus has reached a point of moderate independent functioning which allows it to have the rights of a human being by most anyone’s standard of measure. Therefore, legislation prohibiting the abortion of such a fetus is made on the basis of determining the rights of the individual to not be infringed upon, rather than your personal moral belief that “this is a sin.”
When one attempts to extrapolate these situations into reasoning why gay people should be denied the right to civil marriage (or form legal relationships which purport to be equal to civil marriage), one finds oneself at an impasse, because there is no equivalent demonstrable harm to individuals or society at large arising from people of the same gender being allowed to engage in civil marriage.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Katie #271
Katie, I believe that you are the one who is having difficulty making that distinction.
Prop 8 did not “teach moral doctrine.” It FORCED your idea of “moral doctrine” down the throats of people who don’t share it.
If that does not equal “unrighteous dominion,” I really don’t know what does.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Katie #271 -
Please show me any one single post I have made where I “required” that the church’s “doctrine change.” I have repeatedly said that the church has a right to believe that homosexuality is sinful, has a right to teach this belief to its membership, has a right to teach this belief to those willing to listen, has a right to deny membership and sacraments to homosexuals.
Where the church crossed the line was in interfering with the legislative process to have it’s beliefs, not just taught to people, but to force other people to be governed by and abide by its beliefs, whether they share those beliefs or not.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Prop 8 was a VOTE where California citizens were asked to decide. People voted. The way you talk, you’d think someone’s arm was twisted in a backroom somewhere. That isn’t how it happened, and characterizing it as happening that way makes you sound like you are on a different planet. People, especially Californians, vote on stuff that becomes law all the time. One of the glories of being American citizens is that we can.
Of course, if the vote had gone a different way, there wouldn’t be this condemnation of the democratic process. I can’t even imagine what the response would be if the Church set up a website listing the people who supported it falling.
Stop talking about the vote like someone rigged the ballot boxes. The legislative process wasn’t interfered with - it was FOLLOWED. There was a election, various people and groups aired their views, in accordance with freedom of speech, and then the people voted.
Are you seriously proclaiming that campaigning is “interfiering with the legislative process”? I honestly cannot wrap my head around this. If you come up with some sort of proof that the election was rigged, that votes were bought that swung the election, and that the church paid for all of it out of tithing, then what you say would be true. Until then, it just looks like you want to take the right of free speech and a free vote away from people who disagree with you.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Katie P.
I appreciate you are trying to live a Christ-like life. There are many Gay people also trying to follow the teachings of Jesus. There are Gay people in numerous wards, trying to uphold gospel principles. You have that in common. Many of these faithful members have felt ostracized from their wards, by the anti-gay cultural behaviors of their brothers and sisters in the gospel.
What many do not realize how much “jokes”, snide comments, and just the fact that many people believe their existence is a perversion, affects their ability to remain in the Church(or even alive). I do not think this is Christ-like. I hope all church members can learn (as D&C 42:45 says) to live together in love.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 19, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
“What many do not realize how much “jokes”, snide comments, and just the fact that many people believe their existence is a perversion, affects their ability to remain in the Church(or even alive). I do not think this is Christ-like.”
I completely agree with you. I feel very lucky that behavior like that isn’t acceptable where I live, and it makes me very uncomfortable to even read about it happening elsewhere.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Katie, who crafted Prop 8? Who gathered the signatures? Who donated the money to get it passed? Who advocated for it in the media? Who spread vicious lies to convince people to vote for it?
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
So tell me, those of you have been in this conversation for 24 hours and have not slept, what is the secret.
Take a break already.
It is hard enough to read this let alone think about it at the same time.
But it has been a fun journey as I try and parcel out legitimate arguments on both sides.
I find this a great conversation.
So despite my protests at the beginnning of this comment, keep on keepin on.
And Whit, I wonder if t
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 19, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
So tell me, those of you have been in this conversation for 24 hours and have not slept, what is the secret.
Take a break already.
It is hard enough to read this let alone think about it at the same time.
But it has been a fun journey as I try and parcel out legitimate arguments on both sides.
I find this a great conversation.
So despite my protests at the beginnning of this comment, keep on keepin on.
And Whit, I wonder if the department you are referring too is the same that I found refuge in during Katrina and other events?
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 19, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
I did not mean for the couble hit. Sorry.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 19, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Double hit, i am just going to stop now.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 19, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
re: 264
Prop 8 had absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. Before Prop 8, individuals and organizations were already free to express their disapproval of homosexual relationships and marriages. Prop 8 was a legal restriction on people to act according to their own beliefs and consciences. That violation of individual rights is first and foremost what the Church needs to apologize for.
(so do all the other many religions which supported Prop 8, of which the LDS Church was only one. But given I am a member of the LDS Church, and that this is a forum for discussion on the LDS Church, that is the only one I’m interested in discussing).
re: 269
There are real, material consequences to inebriation. The rights of others are often violated by one who is under the influence (physical harm by drunk driving, rape, abuse, etc). Therefore, the government, the role of which is to protect individuals from violence and the infringement of their rights, has a proper role in making laws regarding alcohol.
Abortion involves the taking of a life, the violation of that life’s rights. Therefore, while I disagree with much of the conservative agenda involving abortion, I do absolutely agree that the government has a reason to be involved in the abortion issue.
There is no material harm to anybody in a consensual homosexual relationship or marriage, and thus the government (the law) has no legitimate reason to be involved in affirming or denying such relationships. There may well be serious spiritual harm for engaging in homosexual relationships,but spiritual matters are far beyond the capacity and proper role of government. The government has no moral or ethical role whatsoever in issues based on religious belief and action; that is for individuals and voluntary organizations to determine as their conscience guides them. When law is used to prefer some religious belief or practice above another, or to force people to live according to one particular religious code, that is unrighteous dominion.
Please answer the question: If a popular vote enacted a law denying temple sealings the sanction of marriage, would you accept that as an ethically and morally valid law? After all, the majority would have voted on it based on their beliefs (presumably the belief that Mormonism is corrupted and will lead us all away from Christ and to hell). How would that be any different?
Comment by Derek — June 19, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
Katie, the democratic process failed in allowing a measure to even be put on the ballot in the first place which would rob a group of citizens of their civil rights at the whim of the majority. That is where the democratic process failed. The vote was simply the predictable aftermath.
I’m proud of my donations to No on 8, Katie. I don’t try to hide them. I welcome dialogue with those who disagree with me. I proudly display a gay flag in my driveway and “No on 8″ stickers on my car.
Do I fear the crazy fag-bashers who might harm me? Yeah, sure I do. But I refuse to live my life in fear. I refuse to hide. My cause was just and right.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
A ballot referendum allowed for by the state constitution and voted for cleanly by the citizens of the state, where people of all various views were able to lawfully campaign for or against it, is NOT interfering with the process. It IS the process. That’s the process.
If the vote had gone a different way, then THAT would be the law.
If you want to claim the vote itself wasn’t constitutional, you are welcome to challenge it, but that’s been done already and the courts don’t agree.
I am actually baffled by this insistence that exercising free speech and lawful voting are somehow a sign of corruption.
Comment by Katie P. — June 19, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Prop 8 did not “teach moral doctrine.” It FORCED your idea of “moral doctrine” down the throats of people who don’t share it.
Every law is forcing morality on people…EVERY LAW.
I wasn’t comparing drinking and driving to homosexuality, just pointing out that laws restrict behavior. The drive on the right hand side of the road law restricts behavior, even though driving on the left hand side of the road is actually more correct ; )
Why is the government involved in marriage…primarily because of children. Science has made it possible for same sex couples to have children. Most countries did not put the cart before the horse and allow children into unmarried families…the United States did. We haven’t kept up ethically with science. People have differeing opinions on potential harm to children in unmarried families-whether same sex relationships or with only one parent. How necessary is a mom? How necessary is a dad?
I still would love to see the church attack the job discrimination issue.
Comment by britt — June 19, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
I think we repeatedly talk past each other. Katie P. and britt, I am trying to understand your position.I hope you can understand mine.
Could you consider Derek’s scenario? What if a fundamentalist Christian group put on the ballot a law to outlaw Temple marriage, Or for that matter, strip state recognition from all Mormon marriages?
And the people voted it in.
Would you believe that was just fine and dandy and legitimate? Would you believe that group if they said they weren’t anti-Mormon, but just needed to protect families from Mormon immorality?
Most gay people don’t know many Mormons.They just know the crude stereotypes perpetuated in popular culture. I know that I reacted quite negatively, when in the name of protecting the family, Prop 8 sought to destroy mine. Like most people, when those I love and care for are attacked, I responded.
As citizens and as human beings, we both really need to start listening and try to understand each other
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 19, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Lorian and Derek thank you for your comments on this thread.
It is hard for me to put my thoughts into words…
Prop 8 ripped my heart out and handed it to me to grieve and mourn over. After much prayer and grieving, I left the church over Prop 8. I could not be a part of anything associated with such evil…and evil it is, for me there is no other word for Prop 8.
For the record, I am a happily married, moderately conservative, Christian, heterosexual women raising a family. With as profoundly as it effected me, I can not fathom the pain felt by those members of the GLBTcommunity. MY heart still weeps.
Comment by Just me as I am — June 19, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
I completely understand that a voting majority could decide to vote something in that isn’t eternally right. It could become constitutional because it had followed the laws of the land. It could be legit in that way. Their campaigning and funding could all be legit. It wouldn’t make it less painful for me. I see that this is painful. That doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Constitutional doesn’t equal morally right. You feel same sex marriage is right and that won’t change based on how people vote.
I understand that some people feel this way about prop 8. I don’t feel same sex marriage is a civil right, but I understand that some people do.
Comment by britt — June 19, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Britt - Most states have an “equality” clause in their constitution. It is this clause that is found to be breached in making gay marriage illegal. Thus it becomes an issue of constitutionality at a state level.
At a federal level, my feeling is that it - like most other issues of civil rights - would probably fall into the perview of the 14th Amendment.which states:
It is that clause - “the equal protection of the law” - that will eventually see same sex marriage allowed across all states, on constitutional grounds. At the moment, there are a myriad of ways in which homosexual couples are discriminated against.and denied equal protection. This isn’t a matter of debate; this is a fact. Lorian and Suzanne could enumerate many of the ways they and their partners are denied equal protection. The quickest, easiest, least messy, and most legal way of changing that is to broaden the definition of marriage. (Which really isn’t such a tough act. Historically marriage has meant something very different to one man/one woman.)
I think Jettboy has removed himself from this discussion. But to back up what Lorian said, I was reading a Voice of America article yesterday on Obama’s proposal to extend benefits to same sex partners of federal employees, and sure enough, up popped the flag-waving conservatives saying, “Oh no you can’t do that it’s not right.” This is several steps short of gay marriage, and the conservatives are still unhappy about it. So, I really don’t see them accepting having their marriage become a civil union - I can just imagine what Rush, Glenn, & Co. would say about it, for starters.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
I’m okay with my marriage becoming a civil union as long as it is just as hard to get out of a civil union as it is to get out of a marriage. I don’t want to increase divorce by making it easier.
As far as the unconstitutionality of DOMAs it really depends on how you look at same sex marriage. It sounds harsh but it is true to say that every woman has right to marry a man(not a relative and of age). Everyone is treated the same under the law in that way. I get that a woman attracted to a woman wouldn’t want that. That is focusing on individual though, as is the quote you sited…couples are treated differently under law and there are all sorts of rules deciding what couplings work (business or personal)
A first step would be looking at how homosexuals are treated individually. job discrimination
Comment by britt — June 19, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
I just reread 289 and I think britt may be saying that anything the people want and vote into law is constitutional? If that is what you are saying, britt, the nicest and quickest way to say it is: You are wrong,
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
britt, if the gist of your argument is that gay people can get married, just as long as it’s not to each other, so where’s the discrimination - I’m going to stop being nice and just say you’re as dumb as that other britt, who said that anyone who could think of anything bad to say about motherhood shouldn’t be a mother
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
If you’re not in a marriage that is likely to end in divorce, why would you care?
But if keeping divorce rates low is your ultimate goal, can’t you see the idiocy in just encouraging people with SSA to marry people of the opposite sex?
And if you honestly believe that people with SSA should marry people of the opposite sex and in that way they wouldn’t be discriminated against - And if you have any sympathy at all for the huge body of scientific evidence that proves that SSA is not a choice but an innate inborn characteristic - Isn’t that like saying that a black person who was a slave wasn’t being discriminated against because *all* black people were (or should have been, according to the eugenics of the day) slaves?
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
from http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-17-voa73.cfm
It’s quite clear that people like Mr Sprigg - who oppose even limited equal benefits to same sex couples - would oppose civil unions, gay marriage, and any other small legislation that would chisel away at his comfortable position of being in a legally-superior ’straight’ marriage. We would have to fight against the Mr Spriggs of this world at every step of the way - an expensive, time-consuming battle that Mr Sprigg would, no doubt, claim was a waste of legislative time and tax payer money. Far quicker and simpler to just use the Constitution to make gay marriage legal, across the board, and tell Mr Sprigg to take his lump and be done with it.
Unless of course you want to do away with marriage altogether - and give no couples, straight or gay, any sort of right or benefit at all? Because as I see it those are your choices: You make marriage equally applicable to all, or you make marriage something that is so completely useless that it ceases to exist.
I dunno. Maybe conservatives would prefer the latter?
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
f you’re not in a marriage that is likely to end in divorce, why would you care?
I care because divorce harms children.
I don’t encourage people struggling with SSA to marry heterosexually.
There are other factors in SSA besides genetics.
I did not say or mean that anything people vote is constitutional..that’s why we have courts. What I did mean and say is that just because something is constitutional doesn’t make it right.
But I’m apparently dumb, so carry on. It’s friday I’m not up for name calling, I’m too busy trying to find a child friendly doctor who will figure out why my daughter has so few cones on her macula-I’m in the middle of earning a mommy masters in optometry.
Comment by britt — June 19, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Sorry I hurt your feelings, just as sincerely as I’m sure you’re sorry gay people (and their children you claim to care about) are hurt every day (in ways much more tangible than mere hurt egos) by policies you uphold.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
These are charges I’m leery about. Do you have proof of either of these?
Comment by Mike H. — June 19, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
Mike H. - Pres. McKay preventing black from using a public pool was detailed in the book David O. McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism, an excellent read. IIRC, he did not create that policy, but he deliberately upheld it when he was in a position to change it. The chapter on him and the priesthood ban was fascinating in its ambivalence.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — June 19, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
britt #291
And how has the LDS Church done in the cause of championing fair employment for glbt persons? Have a look at Equality Utah’s “Common Ground Initiative,” if you’re wondering.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Just me as I am #288 - :hug: Thank you.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
To get back to the original post re would anyone sign that statement I am going to echo Ann’s (? it is way up there) sentiment: truth and reconciliation is what happens AFTER. The New Yorker has an amazing article about Rwanda’s president Kagame and the balance he has achieved by offering amnesty at intense personal cost to himself and the victims of genocide in his country. The price of that peace is releasing the hunger for vengeance. I have spent a lot of time since prop 8 passed thinking and talking and walking and reading. Then getting mad, then walking and etc some more. I’m not at the end of my cycle of flaring up at the monstrous injustice and the part the LDS church played in it but I have figured out a couple of things.
The president touched on it the other week when he was at Buchenwald when he said,
This is a rather rambling, elliptical way of saying that this is not to time to be attempting reconciliation with the Church. This is a time of fighting through legislation, voting, talking, winning hearts and minds and also demanding, fearlessly and ferociously the rights that are inalienable , that is, ours for the taking, not really to be granted.
But when that’s over, when we all enjoy equal protection under the law, then there will be a time for reconciliation and bridge building, forgiveness when apologies are offered. And I hope that all of us, if we are doing something now to support this apartheid, with our money, our words or our actions, we will stop. Then we have less to seek forgiveness for.
I hope when the time comes I won’t take pleasure in knowing that members of the church are devastated by SSM being the law of the land, I hope I can just feel sadness that they can’t share my joy. But I’m a long way from that now. It is a goal of mine though. Right now there’s still so much work to be done.
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 19, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
britt #286 -
Absolutely untrue, britt. We do not legislate morality in this country. We legislate against things which would demonstrably cause harm to society or would infringe upon the rights of others. Morality for it’s own sake does not fall within the purview of the law. As discussed earlier, the reason why a particular thing is or can be legislated against is because it infringes upon the rights of others. Murder, for instance, infringes upon the victim’s right to life. Kidnapping infringes upon the victim’s right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. They are not against the law because “The Bible says so” or “The Pope thinks they are wrong.”
Apparently you did not read my explanation carefully enough. I never said you were. I simply explained why the test of a law is not whether it is moral or not, or whether a particular religion believes the behavior is sinful or not.
Your example is a good one. Clearly it is not more moral to drive on the right or left of the road. But society legislates that you must do one or the other because this is the only way to govern traffic in such a way that drivers will not be continually crashing into one another, thereby infringing upon one another’s life and/or property rights.
Actually, there is no dispute within the legitimate scientific community regarding gay parenting. After mountains and years worth of data have been assembled, it is clear that children of two same-gendered parents are equally as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as children of opposite-gendered parents. All of the major medical and psych associations are in agreement.
Those who claim there is a dispute are either grossly ill-informed, or are unethically distorting the data to suit their own purposes.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Um, in case you missed this part of biology, it’s possible for children to be born to parents who aren’t married. Actually it’s pretty hard to legislate against it. In fact I have this crazy idea that if you actually did your family history you’d probably find a few of your ancestors came into the world in exactly this way.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
hahahahahaha!
That is such a uniquely Mormon burn, Quimby! I love it. As a budding genealogist, I can’t wait to use it. This is what happens when Janet stays away; Q and I encourage one another to be snarkier then we already are. Heaven forbid.
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 19, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I would not sign the petition.
Quimby, I have been thinking all day about this post, and your comments (in fact, I knew this was a hot button for you and I was curious to see what you would say).
I have mostly been thinking about your comment way back in the 140’s… gosh I can’t find it now, but it had to do with the victims of life. The blacks, aborigine’s and countless others that have suffered because they were the underdog. Where i get your point about how little the LDS church had to suffer in Prop 8, I don’t know that you can really compare the two. Gays and Lesbians have not been mass murdered, have not been banished from our public schools, and have not even be treated as slaves. That being said, I understand that there is probably more hurt on the GLBT side of things as opposed to the LDS community.
And, another one of your comments, I think it poor taste and shameful that a community would not visit a store simply because it was owned and run by gays. Pathetic, actually.
I don’t know how to properly put into words that this issue for the church was simply moral, and the whole of politics they leave to the people. I would also like to add that California is not predominantly LDS, so there had to be more than LDS people voting for the prop to pass. And why, are the GLBT not upset with these other religions, or people? Why is it just the Mormons? Because we are the easiest target, and a pretty big one too.
So… quimby, we’ve gone our rounds on this and we know where the other stands. Just some thoughts rolling around in the brain.
Comment by Sunshine — June 19, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Sunshine #306
Haven’t we?
Gays have been forcibly confined to mental institutions; subjected to cruel and torturous medical experimentation; subjected to cruel and torturous “therapies;” lobotomized; administered Electro-convulsive Therapy; been imprisoned; sometimes for life.
We’ve had our children taken from us. We’ve been evicted from our homes. We’ve been denied employment. We’ve been beaten to death. We’ve been brutally and repeatedly raped by those who believe that all we need is “a good f**k.” We’ve been kicked out of schools, churches, restaurants, and our parents’ homes.
Gays made up a percentage of the groups specifically rounded up, imprisoned and murdered in the camps by Hitler. Gays are subject to the death penalty in many countries in this world even today. Gays have been put to death in some of these countries within the past year. It is a crime to be gay in dozens of countries around the world, and in some, it is a crime even to be seen associating with a gay person.
So, wait, are you saying we haven’t suffered enough as a group?
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Well, yeah, actually they have, for 2 out of the 3 at least, The GLBT community was targetted by Hitler, for instance, and I believe by Stalin as well. In Egypt and many other countries, GLBT individuals are thrown in jail merely for being gay. There are several instances of GLBT teachers being fired or not hired to teach in public schools; I believe this was policy in serveral districts until fairly recently.
The LDS church has been targetted because it was largely due to church efforts that gay marriage was outlawed in California. Church members gave the bulk of the money to the campaign; their money paid for ads that spread lies and innuendos. The church organised a series of phone banks, door knocks, etc., to get out the vote. These were efforts that were largely coordinated from Salt Lake; hence it’s dishonest of the church to say they weren’t involved in a very real way. (And in fact why would they want to? If they really believe they are standing for ‘truth and righteousness’ wouldn’t they want to stand up and be counted?)
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Sunshine
What is it, specifically, about depriving my 7-year-old twin daughters of equal protection under the law as compared with your children, that you feel is “moral?”
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
Where is the church on other moral issues? Why the silence when th US invaded Iraq on lies? (And yes, they were well-known at the time to be lies.) Where was the church on civil rights? Women’s rights? Why is it just moral if it reflects Victorian-era mores?
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
As far as that goes, divorce being one of the greatest threats to the family, how is it that the church is not out there campaigning for legislation to prevent heterosexual couples from divorcing one another? Jesus said that those who divorce their spouse and marry another are committing adultery. And yet, people maintain that the church has an absolute responsibility to uphold morality, particularly as it relates to marriage, through the legal system of this nation, but the church has completely failed to try to ram through any legislation against divorce. I don’t understand.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Sam, I wonder if indeed we were of similar majors…oh out with it, I recently switched from a communications major, which had it’s upsides but largely contributed to my absolute opposition to censorship by my observation of the various student news networks, to being a bookish and mousy English major, which I now wouldn’t trade for the WORLD. What was yours, if you feel inclined to share?
Lorian, Quimby, Derek, and others, I adore you. This is more frank and helpful discussion than I am likely to hear within any other arena. Way to go!
Comment by Whitney — June 19, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Here’s a perfect story for you Sunshine: When I was 17 I was living in London with my Australian girlfriend who sometimes got horrible migraines. An Egyptian doctor, Hanni lived down the hall from us and would, free of charge, treat my girlfriend, applying reflexology and writing her prescriptions. Hanni was in London on a sabbatical, was considerably older than most of us who were travelers or students, having our own rooms but sharing a communal kitchen in a South Kensington building. We often cooked meals for each other, sat around after, drinking wine and telling stories. Some of us were queer, some of us weren’t, nothing much was ever made of it either way and it certainly was nothing Hanni was uncomfortable about. Which is why it was such a shock when one night after one of our communal meals, Hanni shared the story of his time as a Captain in the Egyptian Army, during the first Gulf War. Two of his men were making love in what they thought was a secluded place. Whem they were discovered, one of them managed to escape and the other was captured. Hanni ordered the execution of the soldier who didn’t escape.
He was sad but not apologetic. He mourned the loss of the life but felt he was not responsible for taking it; it was wartime; a different set of ethics was necessary.
There is, as Hannah Arendt and others have meticulously noted, a banality to evil. There is an aspect of committing grave injustices that have nothing to do with lobbing grenades and lashing out in anger. I think it is hard for you to recognize where the actions of your church fall in that continuum of helping/hurting because you love your church and short of physical violence it is sometimes hard to recognize when people (or churches) are committing injustice.
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 19, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Sunshine- you mentioned that its only a moral issue… but I can’t simply agree. If a group gets together with money from group members to start organisations to change public policy (a,d keep the original group out of it) and if members of the first group are called to volunteer in the new organisation, I think that most of us would see that as pretty politically motivated. Especially it the new organisation was create to be political.
I haven’t researched it recently but I think that is pretty much what was done in Hawaii.
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Sunshine- you mentioned that its only a moral issue… but I can’t simply agree. If a group gets together with money from group members to start organisations to change public policy (and keep the original group out of it) and if members of the first group are called to volunteer in the new organisation, I think that most of us would see that as pretty politically motivated. Especially it the new organisation was create to be political.
I haven’t researched it recently but I think that is pretty much what was done in Hawaii.
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
In response to this: no, they haven’t. Not in this 2009 or the past 50 years by the LDS church, which is, what the problem is all about. The GLBT have a beef with the LDS church. They aren’t mad at the Iraqi’s or Hitler, or Stalin for killing them, They haven’t put up petition for peace, forgiveness, or love to the people that have actually physically hurt them. murdered them, and hung them out to dry, they are mad at the LDS church because we made a choice, and to that is what I was referring.
You can have equal protection. I have no problem with that. You can have a civil union and the rights that belong to it, but (call me what names you will) I will not budge on my right of saying no to marriage being defined differently.
Lorian, Quimby– There is not fight here. I know how you stand and I respect that. I am not forcing you to see things my way. We are different, maybe one of us is wrong (yes, it could be me), maybe we are both right… I don’t know how it will work out in the end. Just like you two, you have reasons for feeling the way you do and I respect that, but know you won’t change my mind.
Quimby, the last time we talked about this the Savior was brought in and how we should love one another and treat one another with respect and love. You taught me a lot about my own life and places that I can make changes maybe in the future this will be one of those, but as for now this is where I stand. Both of your are wise women, whom I respect.
Comment by Sunshine — June 19, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
CWC… I’m weeping.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Oops! Sorry to duplicate
Comment by Sonia — June 19, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Sonia -
Yes. And in California.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
You can have equal protection. I have no problem with that. You can have a civil union and the rights that belong to it, but (call me what names you will) I will not budge on my right of saying no to marriage being defined differently.
Comment by Whitney — June 19, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Sunshine, you’re changing up the rules in midstream because I demonstrated that your claim that gays have not been mass-murdered, thrown out of public schools, or enslaved, was patently false. Now you claim that it is only necessary that those things be done by Mormons in order for gays to qualify for your sympathy.
So, as long as Mormons stop short of mass murder, scholastic expulsion and enslavement of gays, anything short of that, such as depriving them of minor civil rights such as that of civil marriage are just fine.
Got it.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Sunshine
Nope. But you, and others like you, have already forced me to LIVE by your rules, whether I see things your way or not. You can’t change my mind, but you can take away my civil rights. You must pardon me if I find little comfort in that thought.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
You can have equal protection. I have no problem with that. You can have a civil union and the rights that belong to it, but (call me what names you will) I will not budge on my right of saying no to marriage being defined differently.
Comment by Whitney — June 19, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Sunshine
That’s a very kind thing to say. It would mean a great deal more to me, though, if you would respect the rights of my family, my children, to be protected by the same laws which protect your family, your children.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Yeah, Lorian, it was a pretty sad time. We ended our friendship with Hanni and many of our neighbors didn’t understand. Hanni was friendly and helpful to the gay men who lived on our floor; wasn’t that what mattered? No. I think about that man’s mother, the children he never had, what became of his lover and all the other ghosts of his unlived life and they keep me from burying Hanni’s actions and pretending like if you create a box in your mind labeled, “ok for religious conscience,” or, “ok for wartime,” then you can call evil good and good evil. You can’t.
Pray harder, Sunshine. You have such a good heart and such a delightful soul, you reach out over and over again and try to build bridges. This isn’t something any of us can convince you of or not; I do believe that if you allowed yourself to open your heart to the injustice that is being inflicted on gay families, you could not maintain that they are less worthy than you of all the rights you enjoy.
If your life and your marriage is sacred, so is mine and so is Lorian’s. Not because we are straight, LDS, gay or atheist. Either we all deserve that respect or none of us do.
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 19, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
scratch 320-I have a sad lack of knowledge of block quotes. and Sunshine, I tried to tone it down as it came off less moderately than I had hoped. The internet isn’t my favorite translator. refer to 323.
Comment by Whitney — June 19, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Whitney - Highlight the passage you wish to appear as a blockquote, and then click the quote button above.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Sunshine
So you’ll kindly let me have equal protection, as long as it’s not equal.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 19, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
whiney- don’t listen to lorian- she is too tech savvy and doesn’t get the depth of our un-savviness. lisa, janet and quimby all walked me through this several times and i still got it wrong:
click on ” ” button above
copy and paste your desired quote and then on the same line
click on the ” ” again
so you bracketed your quote in…quotes!
If you want to link to another page, like I did the NEw Yorker article, highlight the address in your browser of the desired page,
copy it
on you r comment, highlight the words you would like to link
click on the arrow button
paste the address in the window that appears
done!
and I still wouldn’t know how to gchat if mfranti hadn’t slowwwwly walked me through it and since I’m on the subject wouldn’t have joined facebook if ECS hadn’t badgered- what a perniciously informative bunch fmhers are!
Comment by crazywomancreek — June 19, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
Okay, Sunshine, let’s talk about what the LDS church, specifically, has done. They have spearheaded a campaign to take away rights from Lorian and Suzanne and families like theirs. They have spearheaded a campaign to make it more difficult for Lorian’s children, in a myriad of small and not-so-small ways. This includes but is not limited to medical decisions, insurance questions, guardianship, etc. I’m sure Lorian can give you a much bigger list because it is something that impacts on her on a daily basis.
Imagine if that were your marriage. Imagine if suddenly you or your husband had no legal rights over your children. Imagine if suddenly you or your husband had no right to make medical decisions for each other, to be carried on the same insurance policy, to have automatic right of inheritance, etc. Wouldn’t you be angry?
You say, ” I will not budge on my right of saying no to marriage being defined differently.” But how does Lorian’s marriage affect you, personally? I’ve lived in Egypt, where men are allowed to marry more than one woman. How does that affect me, personally? My husband would never take another wife. (Why would he want the hassle? Can you imagine how difficult he has it, just being married to me?) So what does it matter? In Australia, to avoid having to allow gay marriage, they’ve done away with all special protections for married couples. De facto and married couples now have exactly the same legal rights, at least on a federal level - and it’s rolling in slowly across the states too - which means that if John and Jane are married and John is getting a little something on the side from Sally, John and Jane and John and Sally have the same rights under the law. That means, for instance, that if John breaks up with Sally, Sally can sue for maintenance. In effect they’ve legalised polygamy to keep from having to accept gay marriage. But so what? It doesn’t affect my marriage. Why should I care?
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
CWC, why are you calling her whiney? That’s not nice!
:snickering-as-I-poke-fun-at-CWC’s-typo:
:I’m-a-bad-girl:
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
309- Lorian- I recently had a conversation with my mom about why she voted against ssm. She could not see how she was taking away any one’s rights. I outlined all the benefits, and for every right she said, well, that should be given and of course that should be granted. She would even agree to all forms saying married/civil union (as opposed to making them as separate designations). And at the end of this conversation, I said, ok, so why did you vote the way you did. And she said, because this isn’t about those things. It’s about marriage.
That attitude is what I have seen in most people against ssm. Somehow, all those rights are not part of marriage. I don’t know how to break that cognitive dissonance, but I know that many of the ssm arguments seem to start with the assumption that people equate those rights with marriage, and that assumption is wrong. Of course, it could also be that I want to think the best of people and so assume that they don’t actually understand the consequences of their actions/vote.
Comment by Tami — June 19, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
Good post, Quimby. Taking away people’s civil rights seems like a very small thing when you don’t really know the people whose rights you are helping to take away, and when it is not you and your family who are losing those rights.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
CWC, you really have to watch the movie “Yossi and Jaggar.”
Actually Sunshine, I recommend the movie to you too. It has gay themes and subtitles, so you may feel more comfortable watching it once the kids have gone to bed. It’s a beautiful Israeli love story about a couple who are serving in the military together, and have to keep their relationship secret. It’ll break your heart.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
You’re right, of course, Tami. The problem, at its root, is that most people have conflated in their minds the concepts of religious/sacramental marriage, and civil marriage. The fact that most people who enter into sacramental marriage, actually have both forms of marriage solemnized at the same time by the same official only adds to the confusion. Many people simply cannot understand that there is a difference and are completely unable to untangle the two in their heads.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Tami, that reminds me of a similar conversation with my dad, who agreed that same-sex couples should have the same rights, and that prop 8 wasn’t about rights at all. And when I challenged him on the question of why the church has not come out in favor of legislation in Utah that would give GLBT equal rights, he replied, “Because the church does not become involved in politics,” Yeah. That went over well. DH had to talk me out of kicking him out of my home.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
I wonder if when people, hear the term Gay Marriage, they visualize being forced to marry a gay person?
Tami, tell you’re mom to rest easy. I don’t want to marry her.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 19, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
But you want to marry me, right? I’ve always wanted to be ‘recruited’.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
Yep, yep, yep and yep…. I have no freaking idea! I hereby grant my approval for all gays and lesbians to have the same rights that i do…
Waves magic wand…
And it is done!
C’mon give me a break. That’s not what I meant and you know it. I would gladly sign yes, vote yes, on any action to allow gays and lesbians to join civilly and have the same civil rights as a married couple, especially for any children they have in the marriage.
You mock me religiously– so be it! To bad we can’t walk a mile in each others shoes.
Comment by Sunshine — June 19, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
335..That is where I stand.
Comment by Sunshine — June 19, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
This was done to members of the church when the federal government decided to make plural marriage illegal. Families were ripped apart (without anyone in the US standing up for their rights). If gay marriage is legalized then I do think plural marriage and all restrictions against marrying those who are considered “too closely related” need to be legalized. It is a string of dominoes. We must look further down the string to see where things will end up and if we don’t like that path then we need to not get on that road. Personally, I do not want plural marriage to be legalized and feel the way to stop that is to keep it at 1 man and 1 woman.
Comment by Alissa — June 19, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Quimby
Not if I only get a toaster oven. But for a new washer and dryer, I’d follow you to the ends of the Earth.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 19, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
I’m sorry if you think I or anyone else is mocking you, Sunshine. I don’t think that is the intent. It certainly isn’t mine. But the only way - the only practical way - to guarantee equal rights to same sex couples, is to broaden the definition of marriage to include them, or to negate the definition of marriage so that married couples have no special rights or protection.
The idea of having ‘civil unions’ that are the same as ‘marriage’ is simply not practical. It would involve a rewriting of every state and federal law on the books regarding ‘marriage’, whereas, broadening the definition of ‘marriage’ merely requires a change of form from ‘bride/groom’ to ’spouse 1/spouse 2′.
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
343 huh…interesting.
Comment by Sunshine — June 19, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
CWC, you are very kind. Thank you! I find myself right in the heat of 335. The core of me knows gays/lesbians deserve the same rights. I know that and feel it strongly in my soul. The religious part of me also knows this to be true, but doesn’t know how to make everything add up. If that makes sense… ?
Comment by Sunshine — June 19, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
Alissa
I’m not too keen on plural marriage myself. One wife is plenty for me.
Equality under the law means that if man and a women can get married, then I can marry my wife.(which I did)
Now if a State decided to allow a man to marry several women, than for there to be equality, a women could marry several men.
Since I am legally married, be glad I’m right, or you could wind up with multiple husbands.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — June 19, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Sunshine, these are challenging questions. I don’t think you’re a bad person; I don’t think you’re unintelligent or hurtful or anything else.
For me the analogy that was most helpful was the Word of Wisdom: I agree to abide by certain dietary restrictions, as a member of the church, but I do not expect everyone else to abide by those same restrictions, and I do not expect them to become law. Never mind that alcohol, for instance, can hurt people (unlike homosexuality, which cannot - even if you believe it is a sin, it is only a sin for people who are practicing it, not for their neighbors or friends or family; whereas, alcohol can hurt more than just the person who is partaking it). I still recognise that other people have the right to drink.
For me, because there is a strong propensity towards alcoholism in the family, having the Word of Wisdom has been beneficial. Without that restriction in place, I might have ended up a raging drunk. I know I have no self-control where chocolate or shoes are concerned, so it’s a safe bet I wouldn’t with alcohol either.
But where sexuality is concerned - I’m not gay. I’m not going to be gay even if Suzanne gets me a killer washing machine. I might sleep with her to get it, but I still wouldn’t be gay, just an expensive hooker. If I can be okay with other people drinking, why not with other people marrying who they love?
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Quimby
Hey now, woman! You still owe me for those donuts!!! :grrr:
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
Right, I get that…
Comment by Sunshine — June 19, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
I’m still waiting for my donuts. Just what kind of fly by night operation is this homosexuality thing anyway?
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
You haven’t gotten them YET, Quimby? Darned international mail.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Sunshine, the important thing to remember about civil marriage is that it is NOT religious marriage. The two are separate and distinct entities. As I said somewhere earlier on the thread, it is absolutely possible to enter into one without entering into the other.
See my post # 44 in this thread for more details.
Keep in mind, in addition to what I explained in that post, that if a couple goes to their priest or minister and asks the minister to marry them, but they have not obtained a marriage license, it doesn’t matter what ceremony or blessing or ordinance the priest, minister, or other official performs on their behalf, the federal and state government will not consider them civilly married, will not allow them to file income taxes jointly, automatically inherit one another’s property, claim one another’s social security, and so forth. The federal and state governments do not consider a religious ceremony to be the same as or a replacement for engaging in a contract of civil marriage with the state.
The two are entirely separate and distinct entities, even if a couple engages in both of them on the same day, in the same ceremony.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
You know what’s scary? Was it Time (or Newsweek) that asked if the church would have at it again if there was a ballot measure in California in 2010, and the response was, well, a non-response. The article made the implication that the church would jump in again just to show that it doesn’t bow to pressure. Now, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I just don’t get how the church can stay out of it in Iowa and New England, but we California members have to go through this - perhaps again. I almost left the church over this, because I too, believe Prop 8 is evil.
Comment by newbie — June 19, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
if you figure that out will you send me know the formula?
/sigh…
and you guys have some stamina– yeeesh!!!!
Comment by mfranti — June 19, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
I don’t know that the Church IS going to stay out of it in Maine.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGQ6LMSOvL9rjDHrAmyO9mHoVieAD98T8SP00
Maine “marriage protection” groups have hired the same firm, Schubert-Flint, to run their upcoming campaign to overturn gay marriage, as ran the campaign for Prop 8 in CA. I’m sure the battle will be bloody. It will be interesting to see where the funding comes from.
Comment by Lorian — June 19, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Interesting article. Note that, since this was legislative, they are attacking the legislators as being out of touch - when, prior to it being a legislative decision, the criticism was that it was activist judges and should have come from elected officials. If the people vote it in, who will they attack then?
Comment by Quimby — June 19, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Whitney,
I am glad that there is more than one moderate department on capmus there in Rexburg.
I was a History major and a poli sci minor.
Although most of the students in the department were definitely still a conservative, we often said that the carpet in that part of the Ricks building was somewhat blue.
Compared to most Universities however it would be considered a mild form of liberalism.
I graduated in Dec 2005 and have not been back yet. I would like to go back and I’m in contact with certain people from the dept.
Good luck with your English degree.
Comment by Sam Sneed — June 20, 2009 @ 12:14 am
So I just read the last fifty comments, all I have the energy for tonight (I never seem to have energy). So I’m wondering did anyone ever really address the topic? if I can carve out a couple hours this weekend will I find someone on the traditional Mormon side of this issue make an effort to write up something reconciliatory (I think I just made a new word) that they’d be willing to put their names on?
I’m really curious as to what that would look like.
night ya’ll thanks for being so awesome
Comment by fmhLisa — June 20, 2009 @ 12:51 am
Y
Comment by Sonia — June 20, 2009 @ 7:44 am
Sorry about the last post- it was an accident
Comment by Sonia — June 20, 2009 @ 8:04 am
I have typed out a post four times explaining this decision, but for some reason my handheld will not allow me to post it and then erases the comment so I will try again to post the moat important part.
Lorain I saw your post on maine and since I live there, I will join Freedom to Marry next week and see what I can do.
Comment by Sonia — June 20, 2009 @ 8:44 am
I live in California and my mom works for a quasi state organization and they give all of the same rights to gay couples as they do to married straight couples although they do not give those same rights to unmarried cohabiting straight couples. I am pretty sure it is the same for State workers as well.
Comment by Venisa — June 20, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Bless you, Sonia.
Comment by Lorian — June 20, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Venisa #362 - Yes, state organizations in CA are required to give full married benefits to gay couples who are Registered Domestic Partners (not to unregistered gay couples, though), or who are part of the 18,000 couples who married between last June and November, whose marriages are, as of the moment, being allowed to remain intact. This status is tenuous and under attack by conservatives (both the marriages and the Domestic Partnerships).
Additionally, there are still no federal benefits for any gay couples, even those who are employees of the federal government, who are legally married or Registered Domestic Partners. Obama’s recent bone that he tossed to the GLBT community — a handful of the many benefits married federal employees receive (but not healthcare benefits or the ability for the spouse to collect the pension after the employee’s death) — will be welcome, I’m sure, but cannot even laughingly be called anything approaching “equality,” even for these few couples.
The fact is, though, that there are rights of marriage in CA which Domestic Partners cannot access — that is, beyond the Right to Marry, itself.
Comment by Lorian — June 20, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Once again, FMH is God’s voice for a Church that has gone astray. Thank you FMH. If it wasn’t for the the intellects (Sunstone rejects) at FMH, God would certainly remove the Church from this Earth.
Comment by ... — June 20, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
Here are some comments from one of the owners of the website, who gave me permission to quote her here:
“Writing the Petition was a very painstaking process, we wanted to be fair and respectful of both the Church and the Gays. We worked with an active former bishop and high councilman and a gay excommunicated brother, wanting to develop language and tone that would serve to bring about a true reconciliation.
It’s very easy to pick it apart for this word or that phrase, and insert meanings we never intended. We did not ask the Church to change the Proclamation on the Family or other official doctrines, we have asked that they make changes in how they treat the Gays and Lesbians and to show them respect and apologize for abuses such as shock therapy to change sexual orientation.
I am aware of the admonition to love the Gays from Church leadership, I asked a friend who responded to me with that comment this question:
“How many Gays and Lesbians in your ward and stake boundaries, even the whole Heber Valley join the Church or if they are members, feel so loved by the Mormons that they want to attend Church with you regularly?”
She answered that over the past 30 years in the Heber Valley that she knew almost all the active members there, but the newest move ins, and honestly replied she did not know of even one gay or lesbian that felt so loved in that area that they actually felt comfortable and accepted to attend. I know that there are some that do in the Church, but most do not feel that request for love in any significant actions by members or the Church leadership.
I welcome and challenge those that have criticized our words and efforts to blog there and e-mail us at ldsapology@gmail.com to write for us a better introduction to the Petition. Or to please e-mail us and blog about any other constructive or effective ways to show respect for the Church, and some compassion and fair treatment for the Gays and Lesbians who have and are still being harmed, show good will towards both parities, that will bring about a true reconciliation.”-Cheryl Nunn
Comment by Paula — June 20, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
(whoo hoo, I highlighted and hit quote- and it looks like it worked…)
Lorian- Thank you for this paragraph. I’ve gone round and round with relatives, and even my Mr. about how “we restrict behavior all the time” argument.
I try not to think too hard about the church’s involvement with prop 8. It still upsets me. It upsets me that a gospel I love so much was used in a way that hurt so many. After much prayer, I can say that I have no idea how heavenly father will work things out, but that I feel it is my responsibility to show love, and not act out of fear. Thankfully I have a kind open minded bishop who recognizes that there is much in the world that we just don’t know, and speaking with him was helpful in working through my issues.
I honestly don’t believe that my family members or even church leaders were purposely spreading lies. It did bother me that the main points the church used in their arguments seemed to be fear based. But I think they really believed that the fears were justified.
I don’t know how much will change in the future, but I think Heavenly Father allows even prophets to stumble in the dark sometimes, and a lot of what comes across as doctrine really is a prophet taking bits of what he receives from God and doing his best with what he has based on his own life experience, which is why personal revelation is so important, all of us in the church are responsible for receiving confirmations of the truthfulness of the words spoken by our leaders. I think as the next generation takes over we’ll see more changes in statements from church leaders.
As to the original topic- I don’t see a reconciliation happening anytime soon. I think there is too much hurt, fear, and misunderstanding on both sides. I think a tenuous ignoring of the past is more likely. At least for the time being.
I would love to see government get out of the marriage business. Civil Unions for everyone, and let religions define marriage any way they like. The most common argument seems to be over semantics anyway.
Comment by Alliegator — June 20, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
One more bit that Cheryl asked me to add, “While the Petition is not perfect and we can’t please everyone and include every personal preference, we deeply appreciate all those or you from this blog that have visited ldsapology.org and have had the courage and compassion to sign the Petition”
Comment by Paula — June 20, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Thanks, Alliegator.
And thanks, Paula, for all the clarification on the petition. It’s good to know how much thought and prayer went into it’s construction.
Comment by Lorian — June 21, 2009 @ 12:33 am
# 358 - fmhLisa, reconciliatory - (adj) To bring (oneself) to accept. Let us hope that our church will accept these loving souls and allow them some type of civil claim to each other, for the sake of the children that they are raising together.
The fundamental principal of “love one another” should overrule their retro action and rectify the lack of grace that they showed in California.
So let us examine how their ethics have evolved in the last
Remember, it was okay to be racist before 1974, according to the LDS religion as that was their rationale for sorting those worthy of leadership. It is still okay to be sexist, especially to working women as they must be feminists. Now it is also okay for men to divorce their stay at home wives as long as they pay some meager child support. So, based on their historical reasoning, it is okay for them to dominate by powerful influence against what they do not see as the ideal, which is represented by church leaders, who are predominantly still white males with stay at home wives, who may or may not have divorced their first family.
It all makes sense, if you are a member of their elite group, that no other groups matter. It is the “We’re God’s favorite so we can dictate what marriage is and is not.”
The worst wedding ceremony that I have ever attended was by a Bishop in Boise, Idaho, who spent most of the ceremony telling the couple that the civil marriage they had entered into didn’t count and only a temple marriage would show a real commitment. It was awful, and you should have seen the look on the couples faces. I felt their pain and I too, and wished the couple had chosen someone with more grace and civility to marry them.
The church recognition of civil marriages is also weak for couples who have, for whatever reason, not yet attained a temple marriage. The attitude toward children who are not “born under the covenant” is also cruel, such as the practice of grandmothers making covenant quilts for those grandchildren whose parents are married in the temple and refusing their grandchildren whose parents are not married in the temple.
I work with children, so I have heard their children’s sadness resulting from the bigotry of their parents and leaders intolerance.
Comment by Jo — June 21, 2009 @ 2:07 am
“The attitude toward children… not born under the covenant is also cruel…”
Jo - BS. I attend every week yet I have no plans of getting sealed in the temple. If anyone has such an attitude towards my children it is to their problem. I only see these individuals for maybe 3 hours a week and I am not going to waste my time being concerned with their opinion(s) of me.. You are reaching for straws in an attempt to paint LDS members as unforgiving, etc… Only the enlightened members of FMHS deserve the admiration of standing up to the LDS homophobes.
Will you only be happy when there is a state run religion that enforces quotas and other policies? An individual does have the right to dislike someone based upon religion, sexual orientation, etc… Organizations can be exclusive.
Jo- Where do we take a stand? Members of NAMBLA are just waiting to make their case. Why should a man be denied the right to have sex with a minor? Why can’t female teachers have sex with their underage students? You may find these things to be terrible, but there is a segment of society that finds such things as normal. (Note: My family gives money and time to the Center on Halsted in Chicago.)
Comment by ... — June 21, 2009 @ 10:25 am
I’m not sure how there can be reconcilliation at this point if the church gears up for another go-around in 2010 in California. Time will tell, but those of us who suffered through the pain that was Prop 22 were hoping the church would sit Prop 8 out. Since that didn’t happen, I don’t know at what point the church will decide to let it go.
Comment by newbie — June 21, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
…#371 - Are you really comparing gay people to NAMBLA? Really?
And by allowing religious denominations to use federal and state governments to force their views upon the rest of society, people who believe as you do have moved us one step closer to that point where the separation of church and state falls away and we end up with that very “state run religion that enforces quotas and other policies” which you decry.
Comment by Lorian — June 21, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
[…] Is reconciliation possible? […]
Pingback by Notes From All Over - through June 20 | Times & Seasons, An Onymous Mormon Blog — June 21, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Church members should not be in the business of encouraging sin. Legalizing homosexual behavior/marriage will never take away the seriousness of the sin.
Comment by Dara — June 21, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Lorian, don’t encourage … He’s a troll. I deleted some earlier comments of his that made light of child molestation (shades of Kevin - it’s all in our heads - except he went further and said something like, “Yes, next thing you know I’ll get in trouble for waving at your child,” as if raping a child is on par with waving at a child) so he’s just a troll looking for a bite. Ignore him.
Comment by Quimby — June 21, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
Good to know, Quimby.
As for your comment, Dara #375, how does legalization of homosexual behavior (which is already legal, by the way), or the legalization of gay marriage, constitute “church members being in the business of encouraging sin?” What church members do or do not “encourage” should have nothing to do with the law of the land governing the civil rights of all citizens. The church can discourage homosexuality all it wants, without manipulating the system to take away people’s civil rights.
Comment by Lorian — June 21, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
“The attitude toward children… not born under the covenant is also cruel.”
Punishing children for the omissions of their parents should be discouraged. The example I gave was from a sister in my local ward, who was participating in a sunday school lesson regarding “How Do You Show That Temple Marriage is Important in Your Family.” This was one of the answers to that question and a common practice for many quilters in the LDS religion. Making a Covenant Quilt for their grandchildren.
As a School Psychologist who is also certified as a School Counselor, I work with children.. I can state my own opinion and experience on this site as can you. I hope we can each add to the discussion points.
Comment by Jo — June 21, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
It’s silly to me to ask these to groups to come together and compromise their moral beliefs. The Gay community feels that their moral and legal rights have been trampled on by the Mormon community, and the Mormon community feels that it would be wrong to compromise their moral beliefs and support gay rights. Some things just can’t be sugar coated.
Comment by Debbie — July 2, 2009 @ 1:07 am
Coming late to this conversation…
It jumped out at me that many of the comments assume that the petition is a request from the GLBT community for an apology from the LDS church. I don’t believe that’s the case. It’s a petition from *members of the church* to the church leadership. It’s from those members who are ashamed and hurting because of the church’s actions in influencing a vote to take away another group’s civil rights and to impose our religious beliefs on those who don’t share them.
I strongly doubt that the petition can accomplish anything directly. But there have been many doctrinal and policy changes over the years in order to bring the church more into the mainstream. Perhaps feedback from church members that many of us are deeply uncomfortable with the church’s political actions and hurtful rhetoric may contribute to a slow evolution of policies over time.
Comment by Mytha — July 5, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
I see many insightful comments here on this discussion line. I must agree with Mytha at least in part:
“It jumped out at me that many of the comments assume that the petition is a request from the GLBT community for an apology from the LDS church. I don’t believe that’s the case. It’s a petition from *members of the church* to the church leadership. It’s from those members who are ashamed and hurting because of the church’s actions in influencing a vote to take away another group’s civil rights and to impose our religious beliefs on those who don’t share them.”
I do believe this in not coming from the greater GLBT community. I also do not believe this is at all just about prop. 8. This is about the homosexual members in very unit of the church that suffer as a result of church’s prejudicial culture.
So many of these good members sit in sacrament week after week afraid of what their fellow ward members will say if they knew who they really are. These members suffer as a result of a policy that ask them to treat their orientation as if it were a serious sin, only sharing it with the bishop and a close family member, in spite of the church’s doctrine saying the feelings of homosexuality are not sin. These members watch fellow members say hurtful things, even from the pulpit. And then watch the brethren instead of putting their efforts into helping member really treat gay members in a Christ like manor they rally the membership to give millions to take away gay Californians civil rights away.
I will stop my rant though there are many other reasons these members sit in pain. This is about asking the church to do something about the members that three times as many commit suicide as there straight counterparts.
Many have stated here that this request for reconciliation will likely not result in any real change from the church. Sadly, I do agree, but this is a great opportunity to stand up and be counted. We as members have an opportunity in so many ways to work to stop this suffering. Until we start standing together the system we live with will not change. When Rosa parks refused to give up her set how much did that one action do. Even with hundreds of thousands of people marching on the Washington mall to listen to the “I have a dream” speech did little or nothing on it’s own. Injustice only changes when people with in a community start standing up and being counted in significant ways.
We as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are members of a community. Let us all stand up. Let us all open our mouths. Let us all sign our names. Let us all raise our hands in gospel doctrine. Yes, one request for reconciliation will do little on its own, but we all have the opportunity to say this will not be all.
If you believe that gay members of the church should be treated as brothers and sisters, I admonish you to sign the request for reconciliation. I also say continue to right where ever and whenever you have the opportunity that you believe our culture needs to change. I also say in anyway you can stand up and be counted. This issue will be with us until our community changes. Let us all be on the right side of history.
Comment by Gail F. Bartholomew — July 8, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Thank you Gail F. Bartholomew for your very optimistic view of the LDS Church’s response to constructive criticism. I hope that works in your stake. I agree with you, and would like to propose a recommendation for individual rights, due process and an oversight process within the LDS religion. Right now we have nothing and the LDS Church is being run like a boy’s club, excluding many members and many stakes are allowing abuse to those that do not fit the ideal stereotype. Asling for a set of individual rights, so that members would have some guarantee of being treated with respect is a great first step.
What would you want in that rights statement?
Comment by Jo — July 27, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Jo,
Currently, I would be surprised if this type of constructive criticism “works” in any stake in the church, because the church is not just run like a boys club it is a boys club. That idea is inherent in the patriarchy.
In fact in this issue in particular many avenues of expression have been completely cut off. Homosexual members are asked to only share their orientation with their bishop and a close family member. I guess if there was someone living the gospel and openly homosexual in the ward some vast evil plan would be set in motion. Also, according to Elder Oaks we are not even to refer to them as homosexual they mealy experience same sex attraction. This make it so most members believe they don’t know anyone gay. When in reality there are gay members in every unit of the church.
I resonantly was talking to my bishop. My bishop is very aware of my views on this subject, knows I have sent many letters to the brethren and blog heavily on this subject. He also is well aware of my testimony that the spirit has born witness that close gay family members were created gay. He says he believes my testimony, and agrees with most of what I believe. He was apologizing for resent hurtful comments made from the pulpit about homosexuals. Comments he felt powerless to stop. Yet when I asked in clarification, “hypothetically if I were to get up in testimony meeting and share my personal witness on this issue what would he do?” He said if I shared anything on this subject anywhere in church he would need to stop me. So, he is unable to stop statements he personally believes are faults, and would be obligated to stop comments he personally believes in.
This is why every opportunity we do have to share anything we do believe it is so important to take it. Whether it is on the internet or in person I feel moved to action.
I am not sure about everything I would like to see in a rights statement, but the right to share a personal testimony I believe is important.
I also think that the more everyone of us shares. The more that members stand up and are heard that eventually like with blacks and the priesthood the brethren will have no choice but really get down on their knees and ask how the lord would like us to solve this problem. I know God has an answer, better than our patriarchal culture has provided thus far.
Comment by Gail F. Bartholomew — July 30, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
The September 2009 issue of the Ensign has an article that seems to be an attempt at reconciliation, or to help members to reconcile themselves with gay loved ones/friends. It’s from the perspective of a member with a lesbian sister name Leigh. I particularly liked this part:
I doubt everyone is going to be perfectly happy with the article, but it seems like a start?
Comment by Stephanie — September 1, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Stephanie
Thanks for sharing the article.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — September 1, 2009 @ 11:32 am
I just saw this:
Judge: Prop 8 Campaign Must Release Records
http://www.ktvu.com/news/21177826/detail.html
So, what happens to all this info? How does one guard this info once it gets submitted? Those of us who didn’t even vote, but got emails in favor of Prop 8 from others, could be subject to various problems if that list is not kept private.
Comment by Mike H. — October 2, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
What kinds of problems, Mike? The only people who have been targeted for boycotts have been those who made financial contributions to the campaign.
Comment by Lorian — October 2, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
And, incidentally, those records (of individual contributions) have already been released as per state law. I think what they are after here is records of who the large donors (i.e., hidden, behind-the-scenes, corporate donors, who gave other-than-monetary sponsorship).
Comment by Lorian — October 2, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
I did not vote for it, or even give money to Yes on Prop 8, but I am concerned after seeing the boycotts & protests that have gone on. I am concerned about the “guilty by association” mentality if the email list is not strictly seen in Court only.
I was sent a couple of emails for Yes on Prop 8, and I am concerned that some will feel that just receiving those emails will make me a target.
As it is, they are having trouble with finding all the people involved in leaking the CIA Agent info about Valarie Plame, a MUCH more serious act. If someone leaks out the Yes on Prop 8 email recipients list, who’s going to stick up for a dirt bag like me? I’m job hunting, and I don’t need my email totally screwed up by someone against Prop 8 thinking I voted for it, and jamming up my email!
Kill the secret ballot if you don’t like the results?
Comment by Mike H. — October 2, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Mike, I don’t think you really need to stress about this. A LOT of people are on the Yes on 8 email distribution list, including me. I still get their emails on a regular basis. They make me throw up in my mouth a little every time, but I figure it is better to know what those who hate you are up to.
No one is going to target Prop 8 email recipients with any kind of organized campaign. Really. Stop stressing.
Comment by Lorian — October 2, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Here is what they are after:
Not email advertising lists.
Comment by Lorian — October 2, 2009 @ 10:44 pm