Dear fMh: Oaks Analogy
by newbie,
Dear fMH,
As a reader of your site and a presently frustrated active member, I simply have to pose the question: Is the Salt Lake Tribune reporting accurately that Dallin Oaks compared the backlash of Prop. 8 to the unfortunate events our African American brothers and sisters experienced during the Civil Rights era of the 60’s? I simply cannot fathom such a thing and perhaps since you [Lisa] live in Idaho, you are closer to the situation and would be able to tell me what was really said. [here is a link to the speech].
I live in Los Angeles and voted NO on Prop. 8. Please let me know the truth about what was said. Thanks!
I (LISA) know our readers probably want to talk about this, and I don’t have much time to get into it, (got about a hundred lbs of apples to juice, sauce, pie, and butter today) but I thought this might be a good jumping off point. I guess I do want to say (quickly) that while I think the analogy was unfortunate and inappropriate, especially considering that the church in the 60s was actively participating in discrimination. I do have sympathy for the point Oaks was trying to make, that it is important to protect each other’s intellectual and spiritual freedom, that tactics of intimidation, spite, and hate are always inappropriate. Still his choice of defending civil freedoms also somewhat ironic considering the freedom of belief he is defending is the freedom to restrict someone else’s civil rights. Goodness it’s convoluted.
Anyhow, I view it as a cautionary tale on analogies, almost always a mistake to compare oneself (or one’s opponent) to Hitler, the Holocaust, or pretty much any iconic injustice. Will almost always backfire, make you look silly, and undermine your ultimate (and perhaps legitimate) point.
and enrage the people who used to like you.
Comment by Alyssa — October 15, 2009 @ 11:13 am
I thought Elder Oak’s talk was, for the most part, great; I thought the comparison to civil rights was horribly, horribly wrong.
The freedom of minority religions to practice as they wish is always at risk. I feel that we need to put more effort into making sure that our religious rights are protected, and less effort into the type of stuff that went on in California.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Elder Oaks gave examples from last year, but failed to give comparable examples from the 1960s to show that indeed the comparison is apt.
The overriding question here is this: is religious freedom threatened by gay marriage?
Comment by Dan — October 15, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Tim - Well said!
Comment by Ros — October 15, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Tim, I would be interested in seeing a list of times that minority religious rights have been threatened and ended up being dismissed by the judicial system. My impression is that courts have generally given religions a long rope and a wide berth in which to put into practice their faith. During this brouhaha, I’ve heard this phrase bandied about a lot, but I am at a loss to think of any religious rights that have been stripped, muzzled or restricted. Educate me, please.
Comment by LRC — October 15, 2009 @ 11:29 am
The strangest part for me is that this particular analogy was used in this situation. I wasn’t even alive in the 60s, but I remember at least the basics the LDS church/Civil Rights situation. Elder Oaks WAS alive during all of that… he was a law school professor! I can’t believe he picked this analogy out of ignorance. It makes me wonder: In 40 more years, who will we be comparing ourselves to? How will we rewrite what is going on today?
Comment by Jamie S — October 15, 2009 @ 11:30 am
fmhLisa,
Thank you for your charitable interpretation of Oaks’ remarks. Too often we like to assume the worst in what others say, whether Church leaders or not, and we don’t seek to first understand their meaning.
Yours was a peacemaker’s approach that is all-too-rare in the blogosphere. You sought to understand what Elder Oaks meant, even if you disagreed with how he expressed it.
I found your reply refreshing. Thanks again.
Comment by adam e. — October 15, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Oakes?
Comment by Mark D. — October 15, 2009 @ 11:34 am
The BYU Daily Universe reported the same thing. I was incensed.
I agree that making an analogy to historical strife and saying that our strife is the same thing is always naive. This is especially true in this case where the Mormon Church compares itself to black persecution. The majority of the American church is white and centralized in the western half of the country, and therefore, we can’t even really say we understand what the plight of the blacks was like.
I remember growing up in a mostly-white area of Sacramento Valley and being confused as to why they taught us about black persecution in school at all. We were so removed, both spatially and time-wise, that racism against blacks was never real for us. It was little more than a story, just like the War of 1812. By my reasoning, teaching that racism used to exist was only perpetuating the problem. But back east, in places like Chicago and Atlanta, these sentiments and events are very real. The Civil Rights movement is within living memory, and for many, it’s still a sensitive issue. Being a white Mormon in a part of the country where the Civil Rights movement didn’t really happen, I think, makes the analogy look contrived and hypocritical.
I also was bothered that Elder Oaks and other church leaders would have the audacity to say that this is a civil rights issue against us when those on the opposing side have a much bigger reason to say that they are being persecuted against. Nobody is saying that Mormons shouldn’t have had the right to vote. All they are saying is that our vote was wrong, and they have every right to argue that by whatever means they want, within the law.
I don’t like the self-congratulatory attitude that the Church members have taken about Prop 8 or the persecution complex that they have developed with the backlash.
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 11:35 am
I have less sympathy for the point Elder Oakes was trying to make. He is exhibiting the persecution complex so typical within the Church and Christianity in general. Except for a very small fringe, the vast majority of those who are reacting against the Church are doing so well within the bounds of the law and ethical behavior. There is absolutely nothing wrong with protesting against an institution which attempted (sadly successfully) to use government power to codify their laws and deny freedom of conscience to other faiths and individuals, with speaking out against them, boycotting them, etc. It isn’t persecution, and is nothing like the discrimination against blacks throughout most of the last century (and the preceding). The blacks were being persecuted for their genetics. The LDS Church is being “persecuted” not for its inherent doctrines, but for its choices in the political arena. We can hardly complain about the consequences of our actions. It is sad to see so much anger raised against the Church, but we are simply reaping what we have sown.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Also, I can’t believe that gay marriage threatens religious freedom. It just doesn’t follow that the government would force us to adhere to things like that. Did they force us to ordain Black people when the priesthood ban was in place? Do they force us to let people into our temples without temple recommends? Of course not. That would be government unlawfully interfering with religious practice, and that would be a huuuuge civil rights infringement.
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 11:38 am
It would be another thing if gay rights activists were denying jobs to members, paying them less, excluding them from their public gatherings, lynching, or raping, but none of these things are happening (that I am aware of).
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Aaron,
If you are interested in contributing thoughtful ideas to the conversation, by all means do so.
If you are just going to pick a fight, as your comments seem to suggest, then we will continue to delete your submissions.
Comment by Bouncer — October 15, 2009 @ 11:44 am
It is clear by the statements here that most of the posters have not actually read or listened to the talk given by Elder Oakes. I would encourage you to do so. While the analogy was perhaps a poor choice, the severity of the issues involved were never stated to be equivalent.
It seems like the sky may be falling. Perhaps more people should read first and post second.
Comment by Davis — October 15, 2009 @ 11:50 am
So I guess the take-home point is that the more horrible an event in history is, the more off-limits it is to actually learn anything from it.
Right….
Comment by Seth R. — October 15, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Let me rephrase. It does not appear that there is much discussion here. It appears, rather, that this largely a collection of commenters (after the OP) who have decided a priori that there is no merit to Elder Oakes’ comments.
This is not discussion, as is Kaimi’s thread.
Comment by aaron — October 15, 2009 @ 11:52 am
His analogy — one sentence — was a very narrow, tight one — not the widespread full-bore strawman comparisons you-all are disputing.
The intention of the hate/murder/fear poured out on blacks during the Civil Rights era was to intimidate them into retreating from the exercise of their rights as citizens. The backlash against Mormons in the past year has the same intention.
He didn’t say that Mormons had suffered to the same extent or in exactly the same way as blacks. He didn’t compare our situation to theirs in any way, except for the narrow claim that we share a position of being intimidated for exercising our civil rights.
He also did say in any way that the amount or kind of experience was the same, that we had suffered as much as blacks. His entire talk was about the future, where he apparently foresees continuted attempts to force religious people out of the public sphere. You who dismiss his warning because we haven’t suffered so much in the past year really don’t have the standing an apostle has who speaks about events he sees for the future. You are too short-sighted.
Why focus on a single line of rhetoric? Does it excuse you for overlooking and ignoring the rest of his speech?
Comment by Anon for this because you as usual share a single incomplete view — October 15, 2009 @ 11:52 am
“He also did NOT say …” d’oh!
Comment by Anon for this because you as usual share a single incomplete view — October 15, 2009 @ 11:53 am
“A list of times that minority religious rights have been threatened and ended up being dismissed by the judicial system.”
Three come to mind immediately. The first involves a sacred Native American religious ceremony involving peyote: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (look it up on wikipedia).
The second is polygamy. I am happy the church no longer practices it, but laws against polygamy in the US were aimed specifically at the LDS church. Definitely a time when religious rights were threatened. I doubt the judicial system would support such laws anymore (which is why we arrest polygamists for statutory rape instead of for polygamy), but they did back in the 19th century, and laws against polygamy are still in the books.
Another recent Supreme Court decision, based out of Utah (Pleasant Grove) is another example. (The Ten Commandments in a public park is fine, but not symbols of minority religions).
There are more, I am sure, but these are the three that first came to my mind.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
I agree that the backlash felt by members does not amount to that exhibited during the civil rights era. However, there are some similarities. My cousin was fired from her job because she donated money to the cause and rocks were thrown at the windows of my church. I know that this does not amount to the discrimination felt by African Americans, but we should not pretend it doen’t exist. I for one plan to live up to my covenants and support my leaders.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Derek (#10), I believe it’s okay for the gay community to legally protest against institutions that don’t agree with their pursuits and opinions just at it’s okay for a group of people (whether it be members of a church or other organization) to exercise their constitutional right to vote and lobby for their beliefs as well. We use the voting process to pass laws all the time and we all have our right to voice our opinion through that process.
Although the persecution is not on the level that Elder Oaks alluded to in his comments, the LDS church and its members should not be demonized for expressing their opinions and exercising their own rights. The persecution comes from being the primary group that is being mentioned, even though much larger groups also contributed to the process and carried the majority in the process. The LDS church was just the most vocal and therefore has become the lightning rod.
Comment by derecha — October 15, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
fMhLisa said:
and
#9, Allie said:
The thing is, Elder Oakes doesn’t believe homosexual marriage is a civil right. Elder Oakes does believe, however, that free speech is a civil right. And I fully agree with him on that second point. But I’m not sure “marriage” whether heterosexual or homosexual is a “civil right.” Freedom of association surely is–but how is having my marriage blessed by the state a natural right?
I agree with most of Oakes speech–members and religious leaders should protect their free speech rights. Churches also have free speech rights (which they may choose to voluntarily limit for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code). The problem is, even if our church has the right to tell us to “do everything we can” to support a ballot measure–I don’t like it. To be taught moral principles is one thing, but to be told how to vote from the pulpit is distasteful and icky to me.
And can we stop playing the martyr already? They have free speech rights, too.
Comment by Motion de Smiths — October 15, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
Sorry I just have to say in the last days they shall call evil good and good evil
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
#19 - I wonder what the majority of LDS members thought about the City of Pleasant Grove case. I am not sure whether the Church took an official position on it, but would most members have supported a minority religion’s erection of a monument bearing the Seven Aphorisms of Summum in a public park? If not, our defense of minority religious rights is extremely narrow and self-serving if not hypocritical.
Comment by AHLDuke — October 15, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
re: 17
His entire talk was about the future, where he apparently foresees continuted attempts to force religious people out of the public sphere.
In making that point, you and Oaks turn the very concept of freedom of religion and freedom of speech on it’s head. Oaks seems to be suggesting that because the ire of these protestors is against a religious group or people, it is morally wrong for these protestors to protest or agitate against the religious group with whose political activity they disagree? I can’t support that contention. Freedom of speech and organization is a necessary freedom. People have a legitimate right to use free speech to speak out against organizations whose actions they oppose (those few engaged in illegal actions–property destruction or personal violence, should of course be restrained and prosecuted).
There are consequences for our choices and actions. When religious organizations try to use government to restrict the freedoms of others, it will very naturally lead to resentment and opposition to those religious organizations.
The best way to stem this sort of anti-religious pressure and anger is not to claim victimhood and special protection. If religious organizations will refrain from attempting to use government coercion to force their beliefs on others, they will minimize this sort of political and social resistance.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
I agree with those who say that a strawman is being attacked… here is the specific text.
It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.
Comment by zionssuburb — October 15, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
What I find most offensive about this talk is not that Elder Oaks is decrying the intimidation and violence directed at the Church for its Prop 8 efforts, because I agree with him that the violence against the Church after Prop 8 was wrong. What I find most offensive, however, is that the Mormon Church, which denied full membership to blacks until a generation ago and condemned the civil rights movement as a communist conspiracy, is now claiming solidarity with blacks who were lynched, raped and brutally discriminated against on a daily basis under the color of law.
As other commenters have pointed out, Elder Oaks’ analogy was about the “effect” of the intimidation tactics used by whites against blacks. Yet, the audacity of comparing the Mormon Church to blacks, when the Mormon Church officially opposed civil rights and refused to extend full membership to blacks, is absolutely stunning.
Comment by ECS — October 15, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Yes, ECS. Exactly. This kind of has me reeling today. Especially so close on the heels of the whole Hafen thing.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 15, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
ECS- I get that. I understand that we are a worldwide church, but considering the church’s history with the black community, claiming solidarity with the plight of the blacks is, at best, insensitive.
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Jeff–
I don’t mean this to retaliate against what you said, but I’m just following it up with my feelings.
Often people tell me that the things I believe are right are evil, but if I can’t trust my own conscience, what do I, or any of us, have to go on?
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
The spirit Allie, the spirit. It is such a wonderful thing. If you don’t have a testimony of the book of Mormon and the gospel than I understand not following our leaders. But if we have recieved that witness we must turn our will over to the lord. I remember when I learned the churches complete stance on certain issues I was bothered. However, I decided long ago to follow my leaders and as such changed my opinions. We may not alwAys understand why certain things are asked of us, like when the israelites were asked to look upon the serpent. But we must follow the lord’s command. It is not of me to ask how or why but simply to say I must try.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Jeff, you may want to give a perusal to our comment policy. It’s wonderful if the Spirit has witnessed to you that you should simply obey, but it is not cool to suggest that the rest of us are in error by questioning.
Turning our will over to the Lord is one thing, turning our brains over to mortal leaders is another. Our entire religion was built on one boy’s courage to question. It is not doctrinal to suggest that following that example is incorrect.
Comment by Reese Dixon — October 15, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Sorry I was just answering aloes question. I will be more careful in the future.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Sorry for the speeling errors I am writing on my phone
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Jeff…. I was taught this idea at church from the time I was a little kid.
But….this attitude is seriously disturbing to me. And is exactly why people questioned Mitt’s religion during the presidential election.
You are saying that despite your own opinions…you changed them to be in line with what the church leadership said. You turned off your own judgment and got in line and feel you are noble for doing so.
yikes.
Comment by julie — October 15, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Pesecution can be of the same type without being of the same degree.
Comment by Katie P. — October 15, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Yes, because I know that I can be wrong. But as I said I have a strong conviction that my leaders are inspired men. Trust me I am not the band wagon type I am a Mormon a democrat and a criminal defense lawyer, but I have promised to follow my leaders. I trust not unto my own understanding.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
I don’t live in California so I didn’t vote on Prop 8; had I been there, I would probably have voted no. Regardless of my personal feelings on the issue, however, I was really disturbed last year when I was on my way home from work and saw crowds and crowds of people picketing our temple here. We’re in an urban area so there are literally no temple grounds; the building doors open right onto a major street. There was no fence to hold the crowd back; what’s more, our temple shares the same building as one of our meeting houses. Fortunately, the chapel part of the building was closed for renovations. I think it could have been a really difficult situation if, say, our young men and women, scouts and achievement day girls had been in there that evening as they normally are on Fridays.
Do I think that’s the equivalent of discrimination in the 60s? Of course not. But it’s really weird to see your sacred space surrounded and picketed and shouted at because of something that happened on the other side of the countryt.
Comment by Cate — October 15, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
From the speech:
I just don’t see how he can say something like that and realize that Prop 8 did nothing but restrict freedom and responsibility - instead of buffering agency, we refused an entire group the right to exercise their agency in the way they want to. The church’s position was NOT about expanding freedom, and I feel it is dishonest to ignore that important fact when arguing for our own expansive freedom.
Re. 22, Motion de Smiths:
How is voting a “natural” right? How is a minimum wage a “natural” right? The thing is, this isn’t about nature, but about the fact that the government makes available to some groups and not others a very important bundle of benefits. The question is not whether marriage is a “natural” right, but a civil right, one that citizens should have non-discriminatory access to. I would argue that the gender of the participants is not sufficient grounds for excluding some from this very important bundle of benefits.
Re. 37, Jeff.
The scripture about not trusting in our own understanding urges us to put our trust in the Lord, not in men. I get that you consider him to be speaking for the Lord, but it bothers me when people transfer God’s attributes onto his very fallible human servants. That scripture is about God, not prophets.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Maybe he should have used the word constitutional not natural
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Due to their authority they are mouthpieces for the lord
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Um. That is not true. The effect of voter intimidation efforts was death for many, brutal physical beatings for more, and a deeply psychological fear and distrust capable of lingering for generations. It is insulting to compare a few vociferous protests to that.
Also, a note about the peyote case. The church actually submitted an amicus brief supporting the right of the group to use peyote, a hallucinogenic drug. The WoW is right up there with sexual sins, right? What I can’t figure out is why the church was willing to support the rights of Native Americans to do something we would consider immoral, but actively fought against homosexuals doing something we consider immoral. Both are related to the freedom of and freedom from religion. I have mulled this over for some time, and can’t see a good reason for the seemingly hypocritical stances.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
While I disagree that attitudes towards Church during the Prop 8 thing is comparable to the discrimination of blacks during the civil rights movement, I do recognize that we are being persecuted. The backlash against the Church was extreme. Temples and church buildings were graffitied on and vandalized. A surprising number of gay activists encouraged violence against church members. There were numerous protests outside temples - many of them far from peaceful demonstrations. People focused solely on demonizing the Church and ignored the many other denominations that supported Prop 8.
Obviously the GLBT community was angry and upset, but such hatred is not warranted. Even though most members are against gay marriage, you very rarely see Mormons treating gays the way gays treat Mormons.
Comment by skippy — October 15, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Regardless of his meaning, it was wrong to even MENTION the African Americans during the Civil Rights movement. Bad judgment was used in those phrases–and I will not ignore them, as some suggest. He should apologize. It was disrespectful. It was wrong. And yes, GA’s or not, they are human and make mistakes. And I do not believe in following blindly, without my own use of thought, prayer, personal revelation, and so on…it is not wrong to question things and seek answers about them on your own. This is how we gain a testimony of anything…by finding out on our own. Following blindly, never questioning, was Hitler’s plan. and I believe Lucifer’s as well,, if I’m not mistaken.
Second, what upsets me most about all of this is the fact that the church is pushing politics on us, and encouraging us–or rather, telling us–as to how we should vote on issues–aren’t we told by church leaders to use our own conscience in such matters? Does the 11th Article of Faith no longer apply? Has it been deleted and I didn’t get the memo?
“We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
(sorry for any typos)
um…I’m just sayin….
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Skippy - I think using the word “extreme” to describe the backlash against the church is a little unwise. Compared to the normal status of the church, yeah, it’s a big difference. I don’t know if it would amount to persecution, but it’s certainly negative.
But extreme? That’s an incredibly relative term. For the average middle to upper class, white member of the church living in the foothills of Salt Lake, yeah, it probably feels pretty extreme. But for an awful lot of people (including members of the church), graffiti and yelling barely register on the radar of tribulation.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Did I say follow blindly. I said follow the spirit
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Natalie, it’s extreme considering that church members aren’t out there screaming and waving signs, they’re not demonizing gays as evil, horrible people and encouraging violence against them. Whereas, the GLBT community is doing that to members.
Comment by skippy — October 15, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
I know plenty of LDS families who were screaming and waving signs. I really cannot believe that there are people who don’t understand why the gay community is so upset. And the actual “violence” has been the exception, not the rule in California. I have a lot of LDS family and friends there.
I remember the day when Blacks were given the Priesthood, The day it was announced from the pulpit. I was a child, and I remember quite a few white people getting up and walking out. I was very confused, at that young age, but it made a lasting impression on me. I’m from the South.
yes, sure sounds like following blindly to me. it’s not of you to ask how or why? really? I will vote according to my own conscience, which apparently is my right, according to AOF #11. And that doesn’t make me any less “righteous” than anyone else. WHat’s next? A new temple recommend question asking how we feel about Prop 8??
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Um, Skippy - http://www.dakotavoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fresno_-_prop_8_rally.jpg
Just the first one that came up, of thousands, in a 2-second google search.
The signs and yelling is what you’re taking issue with? And perhaps the church, as a whole, isn’t encouraging violence against LGBT folks, but I think many people have felt very demonized, and been portrayed as evil, horrible people.
And let’s not forget that the really threatening stuff is coming from a tiny fringe of the movement. Just like really threatening stuff sometimes comes from the minority religious folks who are very caught up in their beliefs. I have never seen anything from the LGBT community that comes close to approaching the Westboro Baptist Church.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
How about one asking whether you support your leaders or rag about them on the Internet
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Any idea where I can find the amicus brief that was filed by the church in the peyote case? I’d be very interested in reading that.
Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Jeff - criticism is not “ragging”. It’s a crucial part of progress. To think that being critical negates being supportive is immature. And to use obedience to leaders as a temple worthiness measure is manipulative. You can’t make a weapon out of doubting the faith of those who disagree with you. That is strictly against comment policy.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
As for the how or why statement. I don’t know why coffee and tea are banned according to the wow but drinking coke is not. But I have a testimony of the prophets. Not bc I blindly decided to follow them but bc I have gained a testimony of their call. So even though I don’t understand the reasons for the command I choose to follow it.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Wow, Jeff–were we raised in the same church? so, we are not allowed to question anything? or comment on anything? stating that he should apologize is “ragging?” Having an open, mature forum on which to discuss political matters both inside and outside church topics is now wrong?
Supporting our leaders does not mean we do not take everything they say or do at face value, we all have the right and responsiblity to use our own consciences in such matters. I have a clear conscience and sleep well at night. I hope the same for you.
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
typo:
should’ve said “does not mean we DO take everything they say…..
*triplet brain* sorry folks
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I think that comparing the verbal outrage of a persecuted minority group against a group that actively discriminates and furthers the legal discrimination against said minority group to the constant threats of bodily harm and acts of extreme violence for hundreds of years against a group for the mere “crime” of EXISTENCE is ludicrous.
And Jeff, it’s members like you who make me want to leave the church every damn day. Each time I have any sort of question I’m viewed as some sort of tainted apostate on the road to hell. If having faith means I have to deactivate my brain and my heart, I don’t want it.
Comment by meganomega — October 15, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Tim, alas, I have never been able to find it on the internet. I’m sure there’s some federal database for all of them, but I don’t know about it.
When I read it, it was a hard copy that a professor handed out. And also, it may have been about a case involving a small group of Brazilian immigrants who used some kind of hallucinogenic tea in their worship, a case very similar to the peyote case.
When looking for these briefs online, I didn’t find the specific ones I was looking for (the LexisNexis database owned me), but I found some other very interesting things. For example, they supported the right of a priest to receive inmate’s confessions without surveillance or recording. They defended the right of churches (including ours) to discriminate in hiring based on religious affliliation. Lots of other things in a similar vein. Basically, the church was warning against “entangling” church and state, and argued that churches and religions should have some legal exemptions. Even with moral issues, like drug use.
Here’s one brief that I think is relevant: http://www.pcusa.org/acl/amicus/am27.pdf
This is the one about the priest receiving confessions in jail. You can see, starting on page iii, a long list of cases the petitioners believe have already strongly established a case for religious freedom. Included there is the peyote case.
Remarkably, the line of reasoning preponderant in many of these briefs thoroughly refutes one of the pro-Prop. 8 side’s most common arguments: If gay marriage is legal, churches will be forced to marry gay people. As their exhaustive list of Supreme Court cases deciding in favor of exemption for religion from laws which apply to other entities demonstrates, this is a pretty pathetic argument. They themselves show that churches have ample legal basis to “discriminate” in the process of keeping to their spiritual standards.
This is why I think it’s fundamentally dishonest for them to make gay marriage a religious freedom issue. They know very well, Oaks especially, that it is not.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
# 39 Natalie K said:
I don’t disagree with you. The question is about non discrimination.– I’m merely using the language of Elder Oakes’ article and the language of the debate. Many gay marriage proponents argue that it’s a civil right. And while I agree that they should have the right to marry and would vote accordingly, I don’t think the institution of marriage is a civil right because civil rights ARE natural rights. The other rights you mention are rights because we made them into law, and they’re good, positive things.
To prevent the equality question you bring up, we either have to make gay marriage into law, or stop recognizing heterosexual marriage. For my own part, I would just do away with state recognition of marriage altogether–do like other countries do and make marriage a religious (or otherwise, if the person getting married is non-religious) ceremony and the state can recognize unions.
Comment by Motion de Smiths — October 15, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Someone just posted this quote on my FB page in response to Elder Oaks’ analogy. It’s Joseph Smith saying that Mormon missionaries shouldn’t preach directly to black slaves without first converting the slave owners because the slaves have a responsibility to follow their masters “without murmuring”:
I’d never heard this quote before, and I thought I couldn’t be shocked by anything past Church leaders had said.
Comment by ECS — October 15, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
The tea case is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. Still looking for the amicae. Google is owning me.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
#59 - Being from the Messenger and Advocate, that quote could be be from the era when the Mormons were trying to convince the Missourians that they wouldn’t try to abolish slavery or free slaves in that state. Obviously, it still isn’t positive if Joseph was saying things he didn’t necessarily believe to pacify other groups, but…. I’d at least like to think he didn’t really view slaves the way that quote portrays.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 15, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Natalie, that’s certainly a possibility. However, given similar quotes made by Church leaders after they moved to Utah and away from religious persecution, I’m not so sure.
Comment by ECS — October 15, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
re: 46
Neither has the GLBT community attempted to force their moral beliefs on the LDS community through law. They have not, for example, sought a law forcing the LDS Church to perform or recognize homosexual marriages. And so it is very easily understandable why there is more bitterness on the part of the homosexual community and believers in the separation of Church and State than among Mormons.
Yes, it can seem strange to some that we would experience protests here in Utah (and perhaps at other LDS buildings in the nation) for something done in California. But it is entirely reasonable to take the protests to the establishments of the organization which directed the political activity, and which made itself the leader of that political action (Prop 8).
I disagree that Church members are not demonizing gays. I have been in the presence of LDS members many, many times when they have accused homosexuals of attempting to destroy marriage, America, and the moral fabric of society. I’ve been present many times when homosexuals have been the butt of crude jokes or otherwise slandered and demonized.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
We’re all just having different experiences, then, because I’ve never heard gays referred to as evil, horrible, bad, going to hell, etc by a church member. That gay marriage and homosexuality is wrong? Yes. But not hatred.
Comment by skippy — October 15, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
WOW. Skippy, you must be a lot younger than me (lucky you, actually…I am wrinkly and have a lot of gray hair, ick)
I remember in college when the gay community was just beginning to really be discussed–on Donahue, Oprah, etc–I was at BYU at the time. and, there was a lot of hatred. In fact, I’m ashamed to say, but I was completely disgusted by it and my roommates once witnessed me yelling at the TV when Donahue was interviewing gays on his show. I have since repented.
I feel IMO that any type of organized repression of a certain group of people perpetuates hate. How is this Christian? How are we behaving Christlike when we attempt to oppress a certain group of people because they are different from us and believe differently than we do? These questions baffle me, and I honestly have no answers to offer.
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
re: 58
Would you consider freedom of religion a natural right? I would, because it is fundamentally tied to the other essential liberties, such as freedom of speech. We must have the right to believe what our conscience dictates, and then act upon those dictates (so far as doing so does not result in harm to the person or property of others, and does not restrict their same freedom of choice).
If that is the case, then marriage must be considered a civil right. Many religions and people consider marriage a fundamental religious ritual and a religious relationship. Some religions and people believe that it is morally acceptable to engage in and perform same-sex marriages. Prop 8, the marriage amendment to the constitution of Utah (and many others) prevents those religions and people from acting on their beliefs. In restricting that, they are restricting freedom of religion.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Maybe it’s just my group of friends, or my ward. Everyone’s pretty relaxed about politics. I didn’t hear hardly a peep about it (either negative or positive) when the Prop 8 was making headlines.
Comment by skippy — October 15, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
As far as josephs view of slavery I know that he gave his horse so that a mans son could buy his freedom. I don’t the circumstances of the statement. But I also don’ t know why Saul/Paul commanded an early slave to return to his master.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
In response to Jeff-
Sometimes it helps to find out what the prophets and apostles themselves have said about thinking through their words. I try to keep the quotes below handy for just such an emergency
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwa[r]t the purposes of God.”
(Brigham Young
Journal of Discourses 9:150)
“There are not enough Apostles in the Church to prevent us from thinking, and they are not disposed to do so; but some people fancy that because we have the Presidency and Apostles of the Church that they will do the thinking for us. There are men and women so mentally lazy that they hardly think for themselves. To think calls for effort, which makes some men tired and wearies their souls. No man or woman can remain in this Church on borrowed light.”
(J. Golden Kimball in Conference Report of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (April 1904): 97.)
“In 1945, when a church magazine urged, “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done,” an indignant President George Albert Smith repudiated the statement. “Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking,” he wrote, “is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church.”"
(Terryl L. Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture; Oxford University Press:2007; pg 18)
Comment by Chris — October 15, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
I do feel the church was right to make it’s stand on prop eight. But, we must treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters with compassion. We must treat them like any of our other brothers and sister. Is acting on as urges a sin? Yes. But so are a lot of things we are guilty of. We are all trying to put off the natural man. The greatest aid to missionary work is the members however there can also be the biggest hinderence.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
I do feel that we must pray to know whether theyvare being directed by god or not. I have and in my view they are.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
re: 59
As I understand it, Joseph Smith was pretty progressive in many ways, including race and slavery. He opposed slavery himself, and part of his platform when he ran for president was a peaceful and lawful end to slavery, using the sale of public lands to raise money and buy all slaves for emancipation. My understanding of the quote you mentioned was similar to Natalie’s. He knew that the Church’s position was already tenuous at best, and that incurring the wrath of the proponents of slavery would be devastating. Just as we don’t proselyte in Israel and many nations in which Islam is predominant for political reasons, JS didn’t preach to slaves. It had too many potentially sticky ramifications.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Well, Joseph Smith in the M&A quote iabove s basically echoing St. Paul: recall that Servants (as was oh-so-well-known in the 19th century) means, in the KJV, slave.
Ephesians 6:5-9: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”
Comment by djinn — October 15, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
I haven’t read the talk, just saw Elder Oakes interviewed on the local SLC news stating that he stands behind his analogy. I think it is an unfortunate analogy. Our church does so, so, so many wonderful things. I wish we could concentrate on those things instead of being divisive. Last night Elder Oakes made Keith Oberman’s worst person of the day on national news. This saddens me. I feel for the wonderful missionaries and how this will effect their ability to bring others to Christ. I think the church has the legal right to do as they please and others have the legal right to protest our church if they choose. I think we do need to remember history and I don’t think we always treated blacks as the children of God as they are. In the 60’s an apostle wrote Gov. Romney about his thoughts on blacks www.boston,com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf I read this letter with sadness. We have come so far, lets keep going in a positive direction.
Comment by no name — October 15, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Derek- I’ve heard that too. Is there any written evidence?
Comment by ECS — October 15, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
I agree that it is a bit hypocritical to condemn gay marriage on the basis of religious freedom because it is restricting those who believe gay marriage to be morally right to act under their own religious freedom. This seems less to me to be about religious freedom and more about religious control of the societal norm.
An elementary knowledge of the constitution is enough to know that the government cannot and will not force Latter-day Saints to perform gay marriages. If the government had that kind of control, they might have stopped us from not allowing certain people into our temples. Or maybe they would have forced the Westboro Baptist Church to shut up by now.
I don’t believe that our religious freedom is threatened by other people’s religious freedom.
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Jeff-
Just because one is guided by God doesn’t mean he or she never makes mistakes. Making mistakes is part of being mortal. I do believe Elder Oaks was chosen by my Heavenly Father, but he is still a man.
If I didn’t believe that the apostles spoke for God, I wouldn’t be in the church.
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Sigh. I was so hoping stuff like this would fade . . .
I’m honestly kind of surprised that the furor over the speech is about that line. It seems fairly obvious in reading the whole speech (and even just that paragraph) that he’s talking about voter intimidation . “In their effect” is comparing the result of voter intimidation - scaring people into not speaking up or voting.
I read other lines I would expect to see more outrage over (like “newly alleged civil rights”).
On a recent thread, someone asked when the GA’s were going to say anything prophetic. This line of the speech sounds prophetic:
Sigh.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
re: 75
I haven’t studied that topic enough to give any sources myself. There is a wikipedia article, “Blacks and the Latter Day Saint movement,” which seems to have a number of relevant citations.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
My understanding of the whole slavery-Missouri thing is that many of the saints in Missouri were from New England and were abolitionists. Many others weren’t and had slaves. A single pro-abolitionist Mormon editorial appeared at some point in Missouri, which had been made much of 150 years later.
Joseph Smith also gave the priesthood to a free black man, (an escaped slave with no owners about). So, the Prophet behaved very decently towards a free man, but (and I did not know that M&A quote previously, but do now) echoed St. Paul as to the status of actual slaves with owners.
Plus, Elijah Able, the man in question, was explicitly not granted equalty with white people and was to minister to “the coloreds.” This all must be understood in the context of the times. But still. Mormons had had, back in Missouri , and to this day, many different opinions; see this very website for proof,
Comment by djinn — October 15, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
#70 Jeff,
But, we must treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters with compassion. We must treat them like any of our other brothers and sister.
I agree, but it seems like a lot of people don’t. It’s not good enough to “love the sinner, not the sin.” They feel we must accept the sin.
Comment by brownstone — October 15, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
re: 78
What would you consider voter intimidation?
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
I agree with this:
It seems fairly obvious in reading the whole speech (and even just that paragraph) that he’s talking about voter intimidation . “In their effect” is comparing the result of voter intimidation - scaring people into not speaking up or voting.
Voter intimidation, trying to scare people from voting, trying to make it difficult for people to have a political opinion, threatening people’s livelihood unless they two a political line - all those are completely unacceptable, no matter the political issue. Elder Oaks was correct in speaking against it.
Comment by Katie P. — October 15, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
We all make mistakes and say things we shouldn’t. I get that. But the point he was trying to make both frustrates and saddens me. I (and many others) view the fight for gay marriage as a civil rights issue. Here he is comparing the church as if we as members somehow are battling for civil rights. Our rights are not being threatened, but we are withholding rights to many individuals and families in our country.
Comment by shannonj — October 15, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
#83–
I see what Oaks did in this speech (and what others have done) IS exactly what you claim he is speaking against. I feel like I’m being bullied by church officials to take a certain political stance, or to vote a certain way. I feel I am being intimidated into having the same political opinion as he has. I even will go as far to say that I believe they are painting a picture, such that if you do NOT feel the way they do on this political issue, you’re doing something wrong, or incorrect. That is why the church (and all churches) need to stay out of politics and actually let us exercise our own conscience as voters.
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
The only way in which the Church could paint this as an issue of protecting religious freedoms is if gay rights organizations were attempting to pass legislation to force the Church to do something which is against its beliefs and teachings. So, if gays were trying to force the church, by way of civil legal means to allow gays to be married in the church or sealed in the temple, or to allow non-celibate gays access to the temple, then the church could argue that it was defending its religious freedoms.
What it was doing in Prop 8, though, was using civil legislative means to infringe upon the religious rights and freedoms of others, by having its religious dictates encoded into civil law.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
uh…SORRY!! the block quote was meant for the top part–and the bottom paragraph is ME speaking…uh, all I can say is, it’s after midnight on this side of the pond and I’m tired, sorry
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
can anyone at fMh fix my #85 comment? sorry.(yep)
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
No one is disputing that individual citizens who happen to be LDSaints have the right to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience. What is being disputed is the Church’s, as an organized religious institution, using its financial and other resources to bring undue (and untruthful) influence to bear upon the legislative process, thereby depriving a segment of the citizenry of their civil rights, simply because the church considers them “sinners.”
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Re: 82
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that there isn’t some attempt at voter intimidation going on, but to equate a few instances of graffiti and vandalism with institutionalized policies of voter repression by local and state governments and with widely accepted lynching (in one case the beating death of a pregnant 15 yr old girl in-front of cheering crowd) was not a wise move. Yes, both were trying to achieve the same goal, but it is like saying that a firecracker is like a car bomb because they both explode. I still think that Elder Oaks is great, he just made a mistake. He’ll get over it, and I think we will too.
Comment by Chris — October 15, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
As to the issue in the OP, I find Elder Oakes comments deeply insulting, since it was the actions of his church, in great measure, which helped to deprive me and my family and others like us of our civil rights.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
#90 - I haven’t seen anyone trying to intimidate voters. I’ve seen people expressing outrage at the actions of the Church and those who took it’s directions to actively donate and campaign for a law which deprived their fellow citizens of civil rights. There is a huge difference, here. No one is following suspected LDSaints into polling places and trying to keep them from voting their conscience. No one is trying to keep LDSaints out of polling places. THAT would be “voter intimidation.”
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
Lorian, legal moves are made in steps not leaps. When Ssm passes (which it will). Then the fight will steal not be over. I promise you that law suits will one day be filed to try and force the church to perform ssm in temples. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive or is lying.
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
I haven’t read all of the comments here, so forgive me if this has been covered, but the most outrageous part of Oaks’ comparison (for me) was that Mormons were part of the discrimination against blacks which the civil rights leaders were fighting against. The church continued to discriminate against blacks for a decade after the Civil Rights Movement and has never apologized for its treatment of blacks. Even Bob Jones University did that much.
Oaks can try to forget if he wants, but the rest of the world won’t.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — October 15, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
It is not just the right to marry, there are many other rights involved with being married. Here in Washington State we will be voting on a referendum that would take away rights given to domestic partners. Don’t you think a partner should have rights to the insurance of the other person? What about the right to use sick leave to care for their partner? What about the rights to hospital information or the right to an inheritance? These are just a few of the rights that we have as married individuals have that we don’t think twice about.
Comment by shannonj — October 15, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
That was in reference to comment 86
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
Brownstone #81 -
I don’t want you to accept anything you see as “sin.” You don’t have to have a relationship with someone of your own gender or marry someone of your own gender. But it is not your right to dictate to ME what is or is not “sin.” That is where your rights end and mine begin. Whether you love me or not is not particularly my concern. But accepting the fact that I have the right to follow my own conscience and live my life in the way which I believe God wants me to live it is not “loving my sin.” It is simply accepting and acknowledging MY rights as a free human being, and accepting the fact that you don’t have the right to take away my civil rights based upon your religious beliefs.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
I haven’t read all of the comments or even the talk yet… but for some reason, when I first heard the question in the post… I thought Elder Oaks was talking about the backlash with so many members having serious issues with their faith because they belong to a church that betrayed them by telling them how to vote… as well as working to deny civil rights to any group of people.
Then I woke up and realized the church leadership probably is unaware of the terrible toll prop 8 has had on so many members’ faith… so I fell into another fantasy. I imagined that he was referring to gay people as the group being likened to the blacks during the civil rights movement. I had to read Lisa’s comment several times before I realized he hadn’t said something good after all. I keep hoping for Christlike behavior, as well as revolutionary revelation, from our leaders. In this case, I thought Elder Oakes had come to his senses and was sort of apologizing for causing such a backlash against gay people. Then again, I am gullible and am likely to believe or hope for anything… even if it is impossible. Bummer.
Comment by Ahhh... — October 15, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Being able to support political causes and vote freely without having one’s livelihood or person threatened IS a civil right.
When someone tries to make it difficult to exercise the most very basic of civil rights - being involved in the political process and being able to vote freely - then comparing that intimidation effort to other oppressions of civil rights is appropriate.
There is clearly some debate and opposing opinions over whether being able to marry whomever one wants is a civil right. There should be no debate about whether being able to vote without fear of violence or loss of livelihood is a civil right. It most certainly is.
Comment by Katie P. — October 15, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Re #93 and then what will happen? We had our marriage customs taken to the Supreme Court before remember? Everything seems to have worked out just fine, and I would say for the better.
Re #90 In an atmosphere where there has been rock throwing and vandalism, attempting to post the names and addresses of petitioners on Google earth can sound intimidating. Even if is only to shame or embarrass the signers, it still is an attempt to change votes in a way that is somewhat intimidating. These are not big attempts, nor are they likely to be very successful. Like a said a firecracker versus a car bomb.
Also, I think the expressions of outrage are perfectly understandable, and if they don’t lead to violence or property destruction are perfectly acceptable (and I think they are exactly what we deserve) I don’t believe that every expression of outrage is an attempt to intimidate LDS voters. But that doesn’t mean that there haven’t been any.
Comment by Chris — October 15, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Jeff #93 -
Jeff, this is not the case. Even if it were, such an effort would be in vain. This country has existed for over 200 years without anyone successfully forcing a church by civil means to grant a religious sacrament to a person that church did not find worthy of its sacrament. Here are a few examples:
1. The Roman Catholic Church has always and continues to deny sacramental marriage to divorced persons who have not obtained a religious annulment from their bishop. They will not even dispense the sacrament of the eucharist to divorced and remarried persons.
2. The Roman Catholic Church has always and continues to deny sacramental marriage to those who are not Catholic (at its own discretion), particularly if they refuse to bring up their children in the Catholic faith.
3. The Roman Catholic Church has always and continues to deny the sacrament of ordination to women, despite every gender non-discrimination law ever passed in this country.
4. As has been pointed out earlier, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continued to deny the priesthood to black men until the 1970’s and could have continued to do so despite complaints of civil rights leaders. It was not compelled to change its policy by the government, but did so according to its own internal dictates and processes.
5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues to this day to deny the priesthood to women. The government cannot and will not intervene in the internal workings of the Church to force it to change this rule.
6. Other churches which objected to interracial marriage did, and some still continue to deny marriage to interracial couples. The government cannot and does not force them to offer this sacrament to anyone for any reason.
The reason is that there are two types of marriage in this country — CIVIL marriage and SACRAMENTAL marriage. The government does not force religious groups to dispense sacraments or blessings upon people. Civil marriage is a contract engaged in by the couple in the eyes of the state, and confers a set of civl rights, protections and benefits upon the couple. Sacramental marriage is a religious blessing confered by a religious group or authority at its own discretion. The fact that many couples enter into both upon the same day, often in the same ceremony, does not mean that they are the same thing.
For instance, a Catholic couple might go to City Hall, obtain a marriage license, and have their civil marriage formalized by a Clerk of the Court. If they go to their priest and announce that they are married, he will tell them they are absolutely NOT married and are living in sin. Are they still civilly married in the eyes of the state? Yes they are. Are they sacramentally married in the eyes of the church? No they are not. A couple could also go to their pastor and ask him/her to marry them. The pastor could hear their vows, pronounce a blessing and declare them married. But when they went to file their income taxes or try to collect one another’s social security or inheritance with no marriage license, would the state consider them married? In most cases, no (a few exceptions for common-law states, where simply holding forth as a married couple is sufficient to be considered civilly married). The two are separate entities, and the government has no control over whether or not a church dispenses its sacramental blessing of marriage (or sealing, or any other religious rite or form) upon a couple, simply because the state has seen fit to grant them a marriage license.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
re: 83
But what qualifies as voter intimidation? The fact that homosexual people, organizations, and their supporters are protesting at LDS facilities? The fact that homosexual rights and separation of Church and State advocates are speaking out against the Church? The fact that these people are encouraging boycotts of LDS affiliated people and organizations? Aren’t these all legitimately protected free speech and assembly? Don’t they have the right to try express their opinion and try to agitate for change? Is that immoral intimidation just when aimed against religions, or just Mormons?
re: 85
I think you’re right. By pulling the religious persecution card, he’s trying to stifle an opposing political position.
re: 93
Doubtless someone stupid will attempt such a lawsuit, and it will fail because of the importance of freedom of religion, and because the Church has been very careful to avoid any sort of ties to federal funding (the primary method by which the government can influence churches). Sadly, the rights of alternative faiths is not being so respected because of the actions of our Church.
re: 94
Jack, where have you been during all our recent talk about feminism, gender, and roles?!
Yep, given the Church’s history in not only actively discriminating against blacks, but also the history of the Church’s leaders actively opposing the civil rights movement, if nothing else, Oaks’ analogy is horribly ironic and in terribly poor taste.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Katie - 99
No one lost their livelihood or suffered harm because of how they voted. Votes are a private matter.
If anyone has suffered a backlash, it is entirely due to how they campaigned, or how they donated large amounts of money to a campaign of lies and hatred.
When one makes large donations to political campaigns, it is a matter of public record. When one stands on streetcorners waving signs that tell lies about other people, that is a matter of public notice.
No one has faced any sort of intimidation for how they VOTED (unless, of course, they have gone about taunting others with that vote).
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Yes, and no one in Venezuela has been blacklisted from employment or fired for VOTING against Chavez, only for signing petitions against him. Having incorrect political views is a great reason for firing someone, as long as you don’t fire them for what they put on the actual ballot.
Comment by in reply to 103 — October 15, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Thank you Lorian!
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
People may not believe free speech is a civil right. They may not believe freedom of religion is a civil right. But they are. Now you may not want marriage to be a civil right, but it is.
The Mormon Church was instrumental and is still pursuing denying gay people their civil rights.
And it’s just not marriage. In Utah, it is legal to fire someone for being gay. You can deny them housing.
And wasn’t slavery legal in Utah?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 15, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
To comment 101. Yep and in two hundred years of American history gay marriage has never been legal. And they can get to us through our tax exempt status
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Hey 106 where is marriage in the constitution. It is not a civil right. It is a states rights issues and each state gets to determine If it’s a civil right in it’s own constitution
Comment by Jeff — October 15, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
“If having faith means I have to deactivate my brain and my heart, I don’t want it.” - very well stated.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 15, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
Way to go Jeff! Way to stand up for our religion! I am surprised at how some members of the church are reacting to Elder Oaks address. I am a student at BYU-I and I was in the auditorium where Elder Oaks spoke. It was an amazing experience. I could feel the he was speaking the Lord’s will.
The talk was actually not about gay marriage but, that’s how everybody seems to be spinning it. It’s amazing how good Satan is at making evil seam good and vice versa. He truly is achieving his goal of deceiving, “even the elect.”
His analogy of past black persecution compared to modern discrimination of faithful church members was brief and only used as a teaching tool. He never even alluded that latter-day saints face the same type of persecution as African-Americans. He simply stated stated that we are on a slippery slope. Is it a crime to learn from history?
The act of homosexuality is an abomination before god. It is the great sin that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and is now wrecking havoc on our modern society. Our Founding Fathers defined marriage between a man and a woman. They agreed with that, I agree with that. We have been criticized as trying to force our beliefs on other people when in reality; it looks like other people (a minority group) are trying to force their beliefs on us.
I encourage all church members who are doubting the teachings of this apostle of Christ to get on their knees and pray. I promise that you will feel what I felt. Elder Oaks is a man of God and what he said is the will of the Father.
Comment by Adam — October 15, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
re: 110
Where to begin? No, there is no scriptural basis for the notion that homosexuality destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I think greed, materialism, pride, and hate are doing much more to wreck havoc in modern society than homosexuality. And our Founding Fathers never defined marriage. They never discussed it in the Continental Congresses, or the Constitutional Convention, or in the early days of the Republic. I suspect that they all agreed with the conventions of the day (which likely included for many the notion that miscegenation was an abomination and that wives were subject to coverture), but they never “defined” marriage. And by denying other faiths the right to decide for themselves what relationships deserve to be solemnized in marriage, we are indeed trying to force our beliefs on them.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Gee Jeff, where’s the word privacy in the US constitution? I guess married people shouldn’t have access to birth control. As for marriage, look up, Loving v. Virginia.
In California, marriage is a fundamental right. Prop 8 removed gay people from that right.
And Black people weren’t allowed in Mormon temples, which meant no sealings and no exaltation. And very legal.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 15, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
You should read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. All the city’s men try to rape two male angels. Then the angles destroyed the city
also see Lev 18:22, Rom 1:26-27, Cor 6:9
Comment by Adam — October 15, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
You know… I honestly don’t give a damn whether Prop 8 was right or not.
The backlash from the gay community was hateful, unhinged, over-the-top, and quite frankly disgusting.
Targeting donors homes? Creating maps of said donors homes? Picketing businesses to get donors fired?
I mean come on guys…
It just ridiculous that I have to explain to anyone what was wrong with this.
I’ve been listening to the rhetoric in liberal and gay advocacy forums, and believe me - these guys are not being cuddly little victims.
They are using rhetoric that would sound more in place at a KKK rally. I haven’t heard such venom, hatred, bigotry, and outright threatening language anywhere in civic discourse as I’ve heard from the gay community in the aftermath of Prop 8.
Our civil society places limits on the sort of behavior people can get away with. But when civil order breaks down, the true nature of people tends to come out. And I’m seriously disturbed by the nature I’m seeing from a big swath of the gay-advocacy community.
I do not see the same tone from the pro-Prop 8 campaign.
Say whatever you want about the anti-gay marriage crowd. At least they aren’t talking like a bunch of neo-nazis.
Hell, I didn’t even support Prop 8. But the gay community backlash utterly alienated me. The depth of hatred displayed in those quarters matches in every respect the kind of racial hatred I’ve read about during the Civil Rights movement. Of course, they haven’t been able to act out on that hatred so far.
But I have few illusions that they’d like to, if given the opportunity.
Comment by Seth R. — October 15, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
And people are completely mis-characterizing Oaks’ message.
He never, not once, said that Prop 8 donors suffered like blacks.
He said that the hatred directed at them was basically the same sort of hatred directed at blacks in the 60s.
On this, I agree. I have little doubt there are plenty of guys in the gay community (not a majority) who would like to drag a Mormon to death behind a pickup truck - right now - given the opportunity and enough beers.
Thankfully, we have social barriers that prevent this. But don’t mistake the underlying desires out there.
Hatred is hatred. I don’t care how fashionable your cause is.
Comment by Seth R. — October 15, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Re: Sodom and Gomorrah
Ezekiel 16:49-50:
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
At least according the scriptures sex of any kind had nothing to do with why they were destroyed.
Not that Sodom and Gomorrah really have anything to do w/ this discussion, but using that story to justify prejudice against homosexuals when the scriptures bluntly state what their sin actually was is kind of a pet peeve of mine.
Comment by Genavee — October 15, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
It seems to me that a lot of facts are being blurred by emotion here:
1. Voters during the civil rights movement faced intimidation and retaliation based upon the way they voted. Voters during
Prop 8 faced intimidation and retaliation based upon the way they voted. Therefore Elder Oaks’ analogy is accurate.
2. Historical church interaction with blacks in the past is irrelevant to the accuracy of Elder Oaks’ analogy. Pointing to this history purports two forms of logical fallacy: Ad Hominem (the church was wrong in it’s discriminatory position during and after the civil rights movement, therefore the Prop 8 voter intimidation was not similar to the civil rights voter intimidation), and the Straw man (Elder Oaks is trying to make comparisons between the post Prop 8 backlash against the church and the civil rights movement, therefore his analogy is false) **Note: Elder Oaks did not make his comparison to the whole civil rights movement, only one facet of it, namely, voter intimidation. Thus, the straw man.
3. Elder Oaks comments, in their accusatory nature, puts those who support or sympathize with voter intimidation tactics into the position of having to defend these actions. The logical fallacies listed above have been employed in an attempt to avoid the topic at hand and redirect into an attack on the church. A productive and logically sound response would be to address whether or not voter intimidation tactics during Prop 8 was appropriate. Admittedly, it’s an unenviable position but obviously one that has it’s adherents.
Comment by Ryan — October 15, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
re: 113
Indeed I have read about Sodom and Gomorrah. And as I’ve noted on this forum several times (so I apologize to the regulars for the redundancy) I would point out that the section in which Ezekial very clearly listed the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, homosexuality is not listed.
Many conservatives insist that “committed abomination” refers to homosexuality, but that is simply conjecture. Note the things he does specifically list. I wonder why we focus so much on the thing not listed, and so little to the things which are?
As to the story you reference, the attempted rape of the messengers of God (1 Gen 5), the key word in there is rape. They pretty clearly wanted to violate the messengers against their will. Yes, that is certainly a sin. However, I think rape is of interest to members of the homosexual community at least as rarely in the hetero community. Homosexual marriage in particular obviously isn’t about rape, but about establishing long-term, committed relationships. So to use that story as justification for opposition to homosexual marriage is an extremely flawed argument.
re: 114
I honestly haven’t heard much of anything like you’re talking about. I know of a lot of rallies and pickets, but I don’t know of anyone targeting any homes or anything like that. I don’t doubt it has happened, much like abortion doctors have had their homes targeted by some, and the school principle under whose name the elementary school Obama hymn was released has had her home targeted and been the subject of threats. If this is something widespread among the homosexual community, I agree it is deplorable.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
Ok I just want you to read that scripture quote you are using.
“And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good”
What was that abomination? Inhospitality was never an abomination.
Homosexuality is.
Lev 18:22
Comment by Adam — October 15, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
re: 115 & 117
I guess the real issue is how widespread these acts of true intimidation have been. If they are really widespread, then I think you have very valid points. But I haven’t seen it. I live and work pretty close to downtown SLC. I live and work in the middle of liberal Utah, and have a number of connections with the homosexual community here. Yes, they’re mad as hell. Yes, they really resent the Church. Yes, they are gathering and loudly protesting. Yes, they’re writing sometimes very vicious letters, and blow of a lot of very angry, crude steam in their personal forums. I don’t think we in the Church would feel or react much differently if a law were passed to ban temple marriages. But I haven’t seen a lot of vandalism. I haven’t heard of a lot of threatening people or pestering them at home. Given how often the Church exhibits the persecution complex and see any sort of disagreement as oppression, I suspect that there is a lot of exaggeration of this sort of thing by the mainstream membership and leadership.
re: 119
I already addressed that, but if you insist: Leviticus also refers to all sorts of foods as abominations (Lev 11). Perhaps the eagle was a primary part of the cuisine of Sodom and Gomorrah. Or I suspect the Lord thinks rape is an abomination; one might suspect rape may have been rather common in S&G. Or maybe torture for fun; that’s an abomination, wouldn’t you say? Like I said, interpreting “abomination” as “homosexuality” is just conjecture.
According modern revelation, homosexuality is a sin. Fine. But there is no scriptural basis for the conventional belief that homosexuality was the cause of the fall of S&G.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
correction: According modern revelation, homosexuality is a sin. Fine. And doubtless homosexuality was present and practiced by some in S&G, just as it has been in every society throughout the world from the beginning of time. But there is no scriptural basis for the conventional belief that homosexuality was the cause of the fall of S&G.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Seth R.
I frankly do not believe you. You spiel sounds just like those I have heard from anti gay people. Maybe I’m wrong in regards to you but you sound just like them.
I participated in several demonstrations after my family and other families were stripped of our civil rights. They were peaceful despite the anger .(like you would be all happy if someone voted to do away with your marriage).
I could if I wanted relate repeated encounters with anti-gay protesters who have repeatably for years shown up at gay functions. Apparently all they can think of is Sodom and what’s that other place?, and that we should die.(these people were your allies in the prop 8 fight. I do believe most gay people have associated both together. I know I saw both groups working together to strip me of my civil rights.)
I have no intention of rolling over and being a cute cuddly gay victim, nor will I stop working peacefully to restore my Civil rights.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 15, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Derek, the backlash of the gay community was horribly under-reported. Pictures of pro-gay protesters shouting obscenities and even physically assaulting elderly ladies wasn’t exactly the imagery that most major news organizations had in mind for coverage of the gay community.
Racist statements by gay advocates about black people (who mostly voted for Prop
never hit the news either.
And not a single news organization bothered to question the appropriateness of websites that did map out donors homes. I mean, that’s just plain spooky sort of Orwellian stuff.
And no one bothered to report the facts on the picketing of businesses either. Like how the picketing of a restaurant was actually due to the fact that a relative of the owner (not the owner himself) had made a measly $1,000.00 contribution to the campaign.
And no one bothered to question why the Mormons were really the only ones being targeted for this. Sure, there was some token-whining about the Catholics, but aside from that - the hostility went purely against the Mormons.
Why, because we are one of the few minorities left in the USA that it is still socially acceptable to be a bigot about. No one gets the kind of verbal abuse anymore that we do or to the extent that we do.
If people said the sort of things about Jews that they say about us, they’d get nailed with a big fat lawsuit from the Anti-Defamation League and probably make the 10 o’clock news. Possibly even get a labeled by Keith Oberman as worst person of the week.
Did you guys catch that from Oberman, by the way? He just labeled Dallin H. Oaks his “worst person of the week” on his regular rant.
Now, read through Oaks’ speech carefully and tell me exactly where he earned that designation.
Comment by Seth R. — October 15, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
Suzanne, you haven’t been frequenting gay blogs and listening in on the conversation, have you?
One major such blog I listened in on had one commenter saying something along the lines of -
“The next pair of #$$%^ missionaries that show up at my door are going to leave with a few new orifices.”
Isolated comment?
No, he got pretty much universal “hell-yeahs” from the rest of the commenters - including the perma-blogger who put up the original post.
I saw similar language on places like the Daily Kos and other such places.
Other comments I’ve heard have talked about how we’re a bunch of child-rapists (insert obligatory Joseph Smith reference) and we ought to have our kids taken away.
Then you throw in a bit of John Krakauer and few cracks about how we’re all really insane murderers (obligatory Mountain Meadows Massacre reference).
Not to mention repeated statements that anyone stupid enough to believe in “a religion founded by a pathological liar who just wanted to have sex with young girls” ought to be automatically disqualified from holding any position of responsibility in society.
You see Suzanne, I actually follow what is being said about our religion. I have all the news stories and all the blog posts that use certain keywords aggregated by Google in daily digest format and sent to my email inbox.
I think you are a little naive about just how deep the hatred of us runs out there.
Comment by Seth R. — October 15, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
Oops… I just realized that I trust Keith Oberman more than Elder Oaks.
Comment by Ahhh... — October 15, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
#104 - .
And no one SHOULD be fired for campaigning for a political cause. In fact, if anyone is fired for it, they have good grounds for a wrongful-termination suit. HOWEVER, if someone works primarily with a gay clientele, one should not expect to have one’s business frequented. Why should people against whom one has practiced overt discrimination continue to patronize one’s business and give one their money? Kind of silly to expect it, if you ask me.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
To answer Derek’s #82 and explain why I don’t agree with Seth R when he says this:
The line in the SL Tribune article that is sparking this particular controversy is this:
He’s talking about “their” and “they”. If you go to the sentence right before that, it explains what “their” and “they” are that he is referring to:
If you read the rest of that paragraph and the one before it, you’ll see that “violence and intimidation” are the terms he borrowed from the New York Times (or more correctly, an ad place in the NYT). The examples Oaks gives are:
.
Look back at the original sentence and note that the comparison being made is not on the “violence and intimidation” itself, but on “their effect“. He is comparing their effect and says that their effect is like voter intimidation.
Plus, all of these paragraphs come under his second suggestion of “how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge”. The suggestion is Second, we must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described.
This is an objective summary of what he said.
Also, I find it interesting that this talk is linked to from the home page of lds.org. Obviously the church is not hiding from this.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Jeff #107 - 107..
What does that have to do with anything? Just because a group has faced ongoing discrimination for over 200 years, that makes it “right” to go on discriminating against them into infinity? Not a logical argument, I’m afraid.
Only if your church steps outside the bounds drawn by the federal government for tax-exempt status. Your church can conduct its business as it sees fit and teach whatever it wishes. In fact, you’ll probably get away with telling members how to vote, unless it is with regard to a particular candidate, since the Roman Catholic Church has been getting away with it for years, particularly with reference to abortion and gay rights issues.
Your tax exempt status is far more carefully protected that my civil rights.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Jeff - 108.
Things do not have to be specifically referenced by name in the constitution in order to be “civil rights.” Marriage was declared a civil right by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Jumping in late here. I don’t have much to add to the arguments already well made here, particularly by Derek, Lorian, and Allie. Whether or not Oaks’ analogy was apt, it was insensitive and draws attention to the church’s unpopular positions on gay rights and African-American rights.
With all the vitriol in some of the last comments, I just feel I have to defend here the gay couples I am friends with, some of whom have been married in Canada or California, some of whom have been together for decades. They are exactly the kind of people I want as neighbors. They are the kind of people who really get involved in improving the community. They are the kind of people who understand how important it is to be a good friend and to help people who are lonely. Many of them are parents, and they are the kind of parents who are involved in their kids’ school, who take them to libraries and museums and concerts and who support their kids no matter what challenges they’re going through. Although they know I’m a member of a church that opposes them being married, none of my gay friends has ever judged me or treated me unkindly for it. Because they have been denied marriage for so long, they value and cherish it, and make me appreciate that much more how special my own marriage is. Rather than undermining marriage as an institution, they are aching to take part in it, because of what it means to their relationships and their families. How can letting them marry possibly hurt anyone else?
It’s really hard for me to hear messages on Sunday about sharing the gospel with my friends and then hear talks like this from church leaders. I don’t have any friends who are bigots, but I feel like right now the main things our church is known for are polygamy, discrimination against black people, and opposing gay marriage. So why would anyone who doesn’t support those things be interested in hearing more about the church?
Comment by Sofia — October 15, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Adam #110 -
Maybe before YOUR God, but not mine. Mine created me the way that I am, loves me the way that I am, and wants for me to live a moral and loving life within the sexual orientation with which I was created.
If more people worried about how their actions pleased or displease their idea of who God is, and less about whether other people’s actions were pleasing or displeasing to God, the world might just be a better place.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Thank you for that, Sofia. Much appreciated.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
re: 123
The assaulting of ladies didn’t happen at the rallies I went to here in SLC. There were few obscenities, not that those bother me much. It’s speech. Were those you’re talking about elsewhere?
As to why we (the Church) were targeted, the Church set itself up as the leader. It was very vocal and very prominent in eliciting support. We make ourselves targets to be scapegoat.
I hadn’t seen Olberman’s thing, and that’s his schtick; he goes on silly tirades. It’s stupid, but whatever. I suspect it had something to do with the reference to blacks, and there again Oaks shot himself in the foot. While it may not have been the main point, it is contextually relevant for an organization which has a history of discrimination against blacks–and which has never apologized for that discrimination–to then use that analogy sympathetically. You can’t expect people not to notice or to see how tacky that is.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Ryan -
No. Voters during the black civil rights movement faced intimidation because of their skin color. They were physically kept out of polling places because they were black and could be presumed to likely vote in favor of black civil rights laws.
Voters during Prop 8 were not kept away from polling places at all, for any reason. In fact, they were brought in in droves. They were not intimidated or prevented from the free exercise of their right to vote.
Not even close.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
I saw Olbermann’s show last night. Actually, Oaks was a runnerup; Glenn Beck was labeled “Worst Person in the World.” A great day all around for Mormons. Basically, his point was that Oaks’s comparison of intimidation against Mormons to intimidation against blacks during the Civil Rights Movement was way off the mark, and that it was ironic given the church’s previous positions on both blacks and non-traditional marriage. And I have to agree.
Comment by Sofia — October 15, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Adam #119 -
Absolutely incorrect, Adam. If you’ve studied the history of the desert tribes living in the middle-east during Abraham’s time, hospitality was probably the most crucial social expectation. Towns were few and far apart, and hospitality to strangers was a moral code which outweighed nearly every other. Even in New Testament times this was still true.
The book of Ezekiel, chapter 16, verse 49, even specifically states that this was the sin of Sodom:
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
re: 127
A good summary and statement. I think it is very tricky to suggest that political activism such as boycotts (a prominent action involved in ending slavery in England, and in working to end discrimination here in the US) can be considered (even just in effect) as voter intimidation. I also think the suggestion he made is problematic: religious freedom cannot be enhanced by maintaining efforts (not being deterred in or coerced into inaction from) limiting the religious freedom of others.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Seth 123, 124 - I was at one of the epicenters of the Prop 8 aftermath — the Inland Empire in Southern California. Incidents of vandalism and even racist comments were fairly and properly reported in the newspapers, but they were as rare as they were reported to be. In fact, one of the first protests I attended after the vote was scheduled to be held at the local Mormon Temple, and was moved at the last moment to city hall, specifically out of consideration for the local LDS population.
Are you responsible for every bad thing another Mormon person has ever done? No? Then no more are all the gay people who behaved responsibly in their anger responsible for the bad actions of a few hotheads.
Comment by Lorian — October 15, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
re: 110
Elder Oaks recently spoke in my stake and mentioned the same thing - the way people are perceiving same sex unions as ‘good’ because Satan is hard at work in the battle against all things good and godly.
My experience differs from yours in hearing these words from an otherwise inspiring apostle. You know in the movies when the airlock is opened on a spaceship and everything goes “whooosh!” out the window? That was the spirit for me right then. Interestingly, it came right back when he started talking about a topic that I rarely feel a confirming spiritual witness of.
Is my experience, a profound lack of spiritual testimony upon hearing the same apostle speaking on the same topic, less valid than yours? Is it because I wasn’t on hallowed BYU grounds? In fact… SSM is already legal and practised here in Canada (with no detrimental effects within the church or outside it). Could that be it?
I appreciate your invitation to prayer on this topic. I don’t appreciate that you claim to know the answer I have received.
Comment by Emma — October 15, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Seth R.
You wrote,”I think you are a little naive about just how deep the hatred of us runs out there.”
Maybe, but I suggest turning your obsession with collecting derogatory comments about Mormons and looking at anti-gay comments from Mormons.
Here’s one of my favorite lines from the book Cry,the Beloved Country,
“I have one great fear in my heart, that one day when they are turned to loving, they will find we are turned to hating.”
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 15, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
The whole thing is completely ludicrous because our persecution earlier was mainly on account of polygamy, for being a type of marriage not recognized or approved of by the larger society in which we live.
So now we vehemently oppose polygamy and also same sex marriage for being types of marriage not recognized or approved of by the larger society.
Then during the civil rights era we opposed extending civil rights to blacks, and stood staunchly in the way of building a fair and just society. Then we turn around and complain a few decades later that we’re being discriminated against and vilified the way we formerly did blacks, and that it’s very wrong.
Well, at least this serves as a roundabout way of repenting for how the church treated blacks during and before the civil rights era.
And, like you say, it’s not coming from someone too young to see the dissonance there.
I love Elder Oaks, and the church, but I think there are several disasterous things the church has done in its history, several very bad positions it has taken.
1) For slavery (in Utah) and against blacks having the priesthood (later corrected, thank goodness).
2) Against the use of birth control (later corrected, thank goodness).
3) Against the ERA (still uncorrected).
and 4) Against same sex marriage (still uncorrected).
So it seems to me to be all kinds of crazy that we should mix and match arguments for and against former positions entrenched in the church and later recanted. It makes me giggle, but also makes me happy. We have a church that can change doctrines when it realizes it has made a mistake. I love that! Elder Oaks’ talk is living proof at how deep the change that can occur. History is forgotten entirely. We now know which side was right about civil rights for blacks. I can’t wait until we finally change doctrines in favor of women’s rights and same sex marriage rights as well. I’ll be overjoyed when that happens.
Comment by Tatiana — October 15, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Derek #137 - Analysis and opinions of what Elder Oaks said are appropriate - I just want to clear up exactly what he said. From Sofia’s summary of Olbermann’s remarks, it sounds like Olbermann was mischaracterizing what Oaks said as well.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
“And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good”
says Adam as proof that gay people should be treated really really badly.
Hey, Adam, eating shellfish, wearing “a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together,” and “harming the edges of your beard” are all abominations according to the same book of the Bible (Leviticus) that you quote. So… can you guarantee that all your clothing is of a single fabric, do you ever eat shellfish and do you have a beard? What???? You don’t follow those rules? Then you, like your gay brothers, are an abomination. Suck it up. And read with a bit of comprehension.
Comment by djinn — October 15, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Lorian, I don’t see a lot of reasonable gays showing up to turn down the rhetoric.
Tatiana, I kind of done with the LDS Church being the whipping-boy for every outdated or harmful idea that has ever been popularly held in America. Yeah, we had some messed up ideas. So did a huge swath of our contemporaries in the rest of America at the time. But for some reason, we seem to get most of the historical burden for it.
Comment by Seth R. — October 15, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Having grown up in the Church (in California) and served a Mission, I was stunned and saddened by Oakes’ remarks. It’s heartening to see members and others with LDS backgrounds who were similarly offended or outraged.
Really, those of you who think it’s appropriate to compare supposed intimidation against LDS people with intimidation of blacks during that ‘bygone era’ [Oakes] — I implore you, please ask a black person.
And do you really think intimidation of black voters only happened in a bygone era? That’s a convenient whitewash. And do you really think more people have been killed or beaten up for being Mormon than for being gay?
Seth — You seem to believe that what you read in blog comment sections is representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Turning this around, is everyone supposed to believe that Glenn Beck is a representative LDS member? I do not defend hateful rhetoric, but taking the temperature of blogs is not good sourcing for your conclusions.
I live in California and was around for all the brouhaha, and I think all the bad actors on both sides got plenty of coverage. (Not ‘horribly under-reported’ as Seth says.) Even the ‘assault of elderly ladies’ in which overly boisterous demonstrators lost their balance and tipped into some older women… this got wide coverage on TV and on the web.
Unlike the LDS Church, the LGBT ‘community’ does not have a hierarchy, but plenty of LGBT leaders spoke out and condemned inappropriate demonstration or anything resembling violence.
Also contrary to what you say, the black vs. gay issue got stunning, national, and long-lasting coverage. The flames were fanned for days on Bill O’Reilly and similar conservative shows, and even over-reported by the actual journalists (who took an exit poll from a single source and ran with it).
Comment by A Man Zed — October 15, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
Thank you, Seth. That’s it exactly.
Comment by Katie P. — October 15, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Seth says “Yes, we had some messed-up ideas.” This is correct; however Mormonism only allowed Black people into the temple to either be married and to take out their covenants in 1978, 14 years after the Civil Rights act was passed by the US Congress.
Mormonism’s “messed up ideas” were institutionalized up until I was an adult. You (Seth) also say “I think you are a little naive about just how deep the hatred of us runs out there.” This worries me deeply. But Elder Oaks talk correlating tagging Mormon Temples (”Heavens!) as happened in the aftermath of Prop. 8 (cost, roughly $50.00 to remove) with the murders of black children and other black people trying to achieve the rights that white people take for granted is just bad bad bad bad, uh, bad. Really. Bad. Unless you’re a racist, which Mormons, at least those that I know really really really really really really aren’t.
Comment by djinn — October 15, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
re: 144
Are you suggesting that Lorian and Suzanne here are talking “like a bunch of neo-nazis” here on this blog? If theirs is the sort of language which has gotten under your skin, I’m less inclined to take your protestations about the reaction of the homosexual community seriously. They are firm, but pretty reasonable and haven’t used extreme rhetoric.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Seth R.
Really. I have a few US history texts, and Mormons don’t get much of a mention.
I love to stay and chat, but (showing you aren’t the only one engaging in over the top rhetoric) I have to go have a gay ol’ time and plot the over throw of everything decent and good, and somehow also manage to say something nasty about Mormons. Maybe I can phone my parents and express my appreciation for the Church and it’s actions.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 15, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
I second what A Man Zed said.
Comment by Allie — October 15, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Okay, again. Is this what he said? Did he say, “[Oaks’ list of “violence and intimidation”] are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South”. No, that’s not what he said. You are making the comparison about the acts of intimidation itself, and it is not.
Look, the reason I think it is important to correctly characterize what he said is that you lose credibility when you don’t. Your comment sounds like hyperbole. Like I said earlier, I am surprised that this is the thing in his talk people are choosing to attack. When I read it, other parts stood out to me as much more offensive to gays (like “perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights”).
Half the comments on these threads are on whether the right to marry is a “civil right”. In another sentence, he says:
Um, wow. I think that is the strongest language I have ever heard from the church about this, and it leaves no doubt where the church stands on that argument. I’m surprised that’s not being talked about more.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
Is Oaks a polygamist?
Comment by Carlton — October 15, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Yes, Carlton. He has four wives.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
This is why separation of church and state is so very essential to me.
Keep your Law outta my religion and I will keep my religion outta your law.
I think the churches involvement of the prop 8 debacle was a BAD idea. We were asking for it when we poked our little religious noses where it don’t belong. We should just leave it as “I think homosexuality is a sin”. That about covers it. But we got no business saying “I think homosexual marriage should be against the law” I file that under nunya.
I had to separate myself from church at that time because I could no longer say that I disagree with the First presidencies stance and remain a member in good standing. Cus I can’t stand next to or up for a group that tries to legislate discrimination and take away free will. That was Satans plan and I got no room for that in my playbook. So me and the LDS church have to part ways. I still love the gospel, and thats the sucky part.
PS I love you lawyers on the blog (yep I do…) but this isn’t a courtroom and no ones opinions are gonna be swayed by evidence and precedence. It can get a bit tedious and really I am more interested in how you feel about things than what you think about things. No offense meant y’all its just I’m not on a jury
lol Same goes for those who can’t help but parse every word in a comment. (thats me BTW) I have to suppress those urges for the sake of a lively and interesting convo.
Comment by ..just call me cassandra — October 15, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
#94 Derek ~ What can I say. I’m a busy working graduate student now. Less time to play on teh Intarweb.
And besides, even I get tired of discussing feminism and gender roles sometimes. I’m sure I’ll be back to more regular reading eventually.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — October 15, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Whoops, comment #155 should be directed at #102 Derek.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — October 15, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
“153.Yes, Carlton. He has four wives.”
Thanks for the info, fine Christian person.
Comment by Carlton — October 15, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Who are you, Carlton?
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Yes, I am Carlton.
Comment by Carlton — October 15, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
You are correct, Allie. The Church needs to grow a pair and wear a cup.
Comment by Apogee — October 15, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Carlton, if you want to be an ass, go away. If you genuinely want an answer to your question, read this.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
re: 151
I thought we were addressing it by talking about civil rights, but you’re right, we never actually mentioned it.
Oaks is wrong. As I mentioned earlier (66), if freedom of conscience is a civil right, then marriage must also be considered a civil right. There is no pretending about it; we are concerned that our brothers and sisters who have not chosen to join our church be allowed the same freedoms we wish for ourselves. The early modern prophets condemned the federal government for interfering with the Church’s religious dictates (polygamy). How can we now say it is morally and ethically acceptable use government to do the same thing to others?
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Hey, Stephanie, Oaks statement was:
To what acts of “violence and intimidation” was he referring? If he’s talking about “voter intimidation,” then it’s prior to the vote. Name them. I can’t. There was a single instance I can think of, of a family that spent five figures on “yes on 8″ with a car parked in front of their house saying “Bigots live here” or some such like. One family, not any connection to the Mormon church–rather their donation. Only a single family, no violence. Plus, if you’re taking someone’s right to marry away; that is you are actively working against a civil right, then the someone gets to be angry.
So, tell me about the serious voter intimidation, and I’ll reconsider. Were pale people stopped at the voting booths? I somehow don’t remember that.
Comment by djinn — October 15, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Is that really Carlton? Please add your two cents, we need it!
As for the last 50 comments or so, all I want to add is that, having taken a lot of Mormon history from the top historians of the church while at BYU, it is well known that the early church members’ behavior was a big cause of their persecution and subsequent expulsion from many places….the way they kept to themselves, dominated voting, etc etc….and it seems this could happen again…..the church needs to work on COMPASSION and CHARITY—our #1 RS lesson topics–or risk losing members and losing the respect of the world.
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
oh, wait—already losing members AND the respect of the world—we might be too late, eh?
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
re: 163
Seth shared some examples of intimidation. I question how widespread it might be, but I’ll grant it does exist.
re: 164
If his exchange with Stephanie is an example of his two cents, I rather think we don’t need it. I’m obviously passionate in support of civil rights and separation of Church and State, but I’d like to think that we can do so without getting as nasty as it’s been descending here.
Comment by Derek — October 15, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
djinn-
I don’t believe there was any voter intimidation that took place leading up to election day. However, if I put myself in the position of someone who donated money to this effort (or any effort), a website that publishes names, gives addresses etc. as an effort to expose the other side would feel quite intimidating, no? I realize this was all technically public information, but putting it out for the world in such a manner would seem like a shot across the proverbial bow.
However, other than this example, I can’t think of any actions that would approach “intimidation,” in my mind.
Comment by Euclid — October 15, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
then you don’t know Carlton. trust me, we use him here
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
COULD use him here.
now it’s too early here to type i guess…back to bed lol
Comment by Army_Wives_Don't_Whine — October 15, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
djinn, he says what he considers “these incidents of violence and intimidation” to be in the paragraph before that:
If you don’t consider that itself to be voter intimidation, fine. But, I don’t think that’s even what Elder Oaks is saying. He’s saying that they are “anti-democratic” - that “their effect” is like voter intimidation. In the paragraph previous to the one I quoted, he said:
I get the point that Lisa (and others) made about invoking a comparison to the civil rights era at all - probably not a wise idea. But, some of the comments ranting and railing about his comparison seem off the mark to me because they are putting words into his mouth that he didn’t say.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
When you want to be upset about something, when you want the high that comes from indignation about a terrible injustice, it is easier to argue with what you want your enemy to say, rather than what he really did say. Human Nature 101.
Comment by sam — October 15, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
I complimented her for clarifying if Oaks was a polygamist (or like unto it), being sealed for all time and eternity to more than one woman. I remembered him doing it twice but she has since informed me he’s done it four times. To me that is relevant because the Church has defended its stance against SSM based upon its “traditional” understanding of what God considers ideal marriage (reinforced by the Proclamation to the World). If he, Brother Oaks, believes he will have four women in heaven then he might not be as concerned with the modern definition of ideal LDS marriage. I hope his polygamist status would motivate him be more open and charitable to his neighbors; I know from experience many good gay folks live in SLC as I served my mish there many moons ago.
Comment by Carlton — October 15, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Then I need to apologize, Carlton, because I thought you were asking if Elder Oaks practices polygamy. I was being facetious in my answer. I believe you are right that he married again after his first wife died. I am unsure about sealings.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Thanks Stephanie, I like you.
Comment by Carlton — October 15, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Well, thank you.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Oops, after re-reading I just noticed this, “Judeo-Christian scriptures established the marriage of a man and a woman thousands of years ago and those who would change this ancient order “should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.”
This causes me some cognitive dissonance as he himself seems to, by being sealed to more than one woman, contradict this ancient order. Many intersting paradoxes in this church.
Comment by Carlton — October 15, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Or maybe just an ironic situation….
Comment by Carlton — October 15, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
Stephanie — I praise your close parsing of Oaks’s words, but this statement is breathtakingly tone-deaf at best. This is really simple to verify — ask a black person.
Oaks is free to say what he said. And I’m free to say this statement is racially insensitive and historically inaccurate. And that his previous statements in support of Prop 8 were bigoted. That doesn’t make me undemocratic.
When a church takes an official, political position, it is not ‘undemocratic’ for the other side to frame their actions as discriminatory and wrong — even bigoted. Charges of ‘undemocratic’ are old, weasel tactics for demonizing the other side.
Let’s say you call me immoral. Then I call you a bigot. Then you call me unfair for calling you a bigot. All legal, protected speech. But ‘free speech’ doesn’t protect you or me from sharp criticism or accusations of bigotry in the public square. You are only protected from government censorship and certain kinds of discrimination or retaliation.
IMHO, this sharp criticism is what finally brought about the revelation and Official Proclamation in 1978.
That is what politics and free speech are about. Boycotts are fair game. What’s not allowed is violence, unfair firing or denial of housing because you’re Mormon or because you supported Proposition 8.
Oh wait! Except in Utah where it’s still perfectly legal to fire someone because she’s gay. But illegal everywhere to fire her because she’s Mormon (whether she’s anti-Gay or pro-equal-rights).
You have the right to speak (and vote) without government censorship. You don’t have the ‘right’ not to be called a bigot.
Hypothetically speaking.
Comment by A Man Zed — October 15, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
I’m not arguing with you, A Man Zed.
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
Nor am I, with you! I hope I did not come off sounding rude. I can’t abide rudeness in discussions, which makes blog comment zones a pretty dangerous place to live.
Comment by A Man Zed — October 15, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Carlton — ironic indeed! One of many ironies in the last couple days.
I have always wondered why Mormons have traditionally been so hard and disapproving of other sexual minorities. I understand the ‘moral’ argument from those who claim to ‘know’ what’s best for everyone else.
But if you count the theological implications, Dallin Oaks is part of a fairly small and marginal sexual minority by mainstream public standards. ‘Ancient order’, indeed!
(You had me going there at first, though. Like Stephanie, my troll-dar was tingling.)
Comment by A Man Zed — October 15, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
No, sorry, I didn’t mean to sound so abrupt. What I meant is that there is nothing in your comment I want to argue with: I either agree or it is your opinion (which I may agree with, but I don’t argue with opinions).
Comment by Stephanie — October 15, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
This issue hurts to even talk about. I’ve avoided commenting about it much in the past.
Someone above said they were more interested in how people FEEL about it than in a dissection of legal and moral definitions.
In the wasteland of discouragement, anger, and cognitive dissonance concerning the church’s activism in Proposition 8 last year, I finally had a personal, powerful spiritual impression, one of the strongest I can remember in the recent past, that the Lord was very, very aware of how I felt and how much it bothered and pained me. There was more to it than that, which I don’t really want to go into. But it came in a moment of quiet, at the beginning of a sacrament meeting, unprompted by anything the Bishop was saying. I felt a lot of peace just in that moment of contact, of spiritual comfort, even though it didn’t resolve anything definitively and did not include a directive to think or feel a certain way.
Since then, and after much reflection, I have felt comfortable in saying that if it were up to me I would simply vote NO on any similar proposition. I’m not going to stir up dissension or speak ill of the leaders of the church. But speaking for myself, I cannot in good conscience vote against gay marriage. I will gladly lend a sympathetic ear to anyone who is genuinely struggling with this issue, regardless of what decision they finally make. My husband and I can calmly talk about all sides of the issue, and I will fully respect whatever his stand is because I know he will come to it thoughtfully and honestly, and because he respects my opinion too. We’ll do our best to manage our disagreement if there is any.
The worst parts of protests and campaigns on both sides, the parts that make me want to vomit up my broken heart, are those where unthinking, vicious language has been applied to groups as a whole. Gay marriage having been legal in Canada for some time, I have yet to personally see how it has affected my marriage in any way. I’m not saying it can’t conceivably do so, but it strikes me has hyperbolic to say the least when it is suggested that gay marriage will somehow “destroy the traditional family”. That phrase is meaningless to me and it really chaps my a&& when members repeat it without seeming to think about it (maybe some have, but some sure haven’t).
On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder how I’d feel seeing gay activists screaming at the gates of the temple as I went inside, condemning me as a bigot. I’d want to go up and say I’m so sorry for their hurt, that I didn’t vote against them and their families, that I was there when my sister and her partner welcomed their baby girl into the world and that I rejoiced for them and their family, that anyone who dares to suggest that they are NOT a family is going to get an earful from me, that I love my gay friends and don’t want to harm them but I also love my church and want to be able to worship there peacefully and could they please try to understand that? Could they please not scream at me and lump me in with everyone else? But that’s too much to say to (rightfully) angry people across a gate. I could never communicate fully what’s in my heart and mind, nor could they to me about theirs. That kind of heart-to-heart is not the purpose of a protest anyway.
I’m sorry if this comment is meandering, illogical, or has offended anyone. I admire all of you so much for your debating skills, careful logic, and consideration of this issue. I long ago realized I will never be able to stack up to anyone on the Bloggernacle when it comes to intricate, detailed discussion. But I can tell you how I FEEL. For what it’s worth.
Comment by xenologue — October 15, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
I’m still unclear as to what Religious Freedoms are being threatened. It seems to me that overall, with the exception of the Prop 8 controversy, the church and it’s members are better respected now than they have been in at least the last 20 years that I’ve been cognisant of general public opinion toward Mormons. I don’t hear us being called a “Cult” so much any more, and for the most part, I think polygamy has become known as a ‘has been’ feature of the church. My guess is that things are better for us now than they’ve ever been in the history of the church, as far as persecution goes, and we might focus more on helping other countries who DON’T have as many freedoms, rather than harping on the victimization of supporters of Prop 8. But maybe that’s my naivete showing up.
The thing in Elder Oaks’ talk that really rubbed me the wrong way was this:
His example of “aggressiveness”?
Sending a free book to public institutions is “aggressive”??!? I’m pretty sure that’s standard practice for anyone marketing a new book. When I worked at a podunk weekly newspaper office, we got free books all the time for reviews and such. Hardly a war on God if you ask me.
I’m willing to listen to a warning voice, but when it’s backed up hollowly with weak citations, it’s hard to take the whole thing seriously.
Comment by Whirlygirl — October 15, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
I was certainly irritated by Oaks’ comments about voter intimidation, but I was somewhat more alarmed by this:
I realize this is off-topic. Feel free to ignore my comment. I just haven’t seen this particular segment discussed anywhere, and whooboy! does it deserve discussion! Anybody care to address it in its own post? Anyone? Bueller?
Comment by Chandelle — October 15, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
Chandelle,
Yes, I think that’s an interesting comment. It seems like it should be discussed. I will just observe, because I know nothing about the US Constitution.
On another slightly off-topic note: Does it seem to anyone else that Senator Reid’s criticism of the church’s involvement in Prop 8 has received far less press (and far less attention on the Bloggernacle) than Elder Oaks’ talk? I know there are some very obvious differences between the two men’s spheres of influence, but I do wonder if there is a reason nobody seems to be talking about Reid’s comment. I was expecting more.
Comment by xenologue — October 15, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
From what I’ve observed in my friends who are atheists, they are more likely to avoid discussion of faith and religion rather than try to tear down other people’s faith. For the majority of atheists, religion is a non-issue, and I’m sure they’d be just as happy leaving us alone. Atheism doesn’t scare me. It’s the general animosity that believers have toward them that causes problems in the other direction.
But that’s just me.
Comment by Allie — October 16, 2009 @ 12:07 am
well said xeno
I know that I feel icky associating with a group that campaigns for legislation to take things away from sinners, because I am a sinner too. What if they made a law that stated that only those who enter a pure marriage could have families. As a previous fornicator, that frightens me. This smacks of morality legislation. That is the churches stance, right? That homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed? But me having heterosexual sex with my husband and becoming pregnant outside the bonds of a “sanctioned” marriage is fornication. Perhaps as a sinner, I should have my rights to a family held out of my reach. How do I deserve it more than my fellow fornicator, the homosexual?
murky murky waters, morality laws are….
Comment by ..just call me cassandra — October 16, 2009 @ 12:58 am
I guess it’s all ok because I have a vagina and my partner has a penis… phew.
Comment by ..just call me cassandra — October 16, 2009 @ 1:00 am
Marriage:::. I personally don’t think marriage should even be something where we continue to get benefits from. I admit the 2500 tax credit was pretty great for having those kiddos, but ultimately I think all civil marriage should be abolished. Lets just stick to spiritual marriages. Sure the state can recognize them but no perks. the only perks should be purely spiritual. And yes atheists could get married too, they have spiritual conviction . Also people can be mean everywhere. It was so crazy last week a group of guys sitting next to me at a coffee house overheard my comment on the phone about visiting teaching. For about 35 minutes they talked very loudly directed at me about how ignorant and horrible all mormons are. Especially blond girls who just marry men for their money. Anyways it was pretty funny at first but finally I just left because they would NOT let me just study. In any case I will just continue to care about my own marriage and let others be…
Comment by CZ — October 16, 2009 @ 1:18 am
Stephanie #170 -
Free speech is not “anti-democratic.
Peaceful public protest is not “anti-democratic.”
Boycotts of businesses which give money to causes which harm one’s family is not “anti-democratic.”
Elder Oakes’ calling gays “anti-democratic” for protesting the actions taken against us by the LDS Church and other religious groups is a big, steaming pile of pucky. I can think of no better term for it. At least not one I’m going to use here.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:41 am
Oaks is actually a *technical* polygamist. He’s been sealed to two wives. His first wife is dead, but he’s sealed to them both. So Carlton’s question, even if it was only meant to be cheeky, turns out to be legit. It ain’t four wives. It’s two. But he’s still a pliggie.
Comment by Molly — October 16, 2009 @ 1:45 am
Re: #167
“a website that publishes names, gives addresses etc. as an effort to expose the other side would feel quite intimidating, no? I realize this was all technically public information, but putting it out for the world in such a manner would seem like a shot across the proverbial bow.”
Welcome to the information age. It is wonderful that such public information is finally readily accessible to average citizens. Especially I like the maps. Isn’t this how it should be?
Comment by Steven B — October 16, 2009 @ 1:46 am
Xenologue #183 - Beautiful post, and very well-spoken. I hope you speak up more.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:50 am
Whirlygirl #184 -
Excellent point. I guess that would make the Gideons a veritable lot of bloodthirsty huns, then, by comparison, for their persistent and avid distribution of Bibles throughout the world, in every hotel room drawer.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:54 am
Chandelle, #185 - You’re right. That comment is way off base. Considering that the reason this nation was founded was because the governments of England and other European countries were excessively dominated by the religious authorities to which the various nations subscribed by way of their “State Religions,” making it impossible for anyone to freely exercise their own religious views (or lack thereof), it would seem fundamentally clear that the Founders of this nation intended to provide a form of government free of the influence of a State Religion, in which no religion was permitted to dominate the actions of the state or of the citizenry, but each was allowed the free exercise of his/her own conscience, whatever that conscience might dictate.
If religion is to have “more free exercise” than those who do not believe in religion, then again, we have a situation where religious authority is permitted to dominate the free exercise of the individual conscience.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:58 am
CZ #191 -
The state has a legitimate investment in recognizing and rewarding civil marriages. Couples who commit to staying with and supporting one another in sicknes and health, for richer or for poorer, etc., and who legally assume responsibility for the care and raising of one another’s offspring, take a tremendous potential burden off the shoulders of the state. All the religious conservatives who say how special marriage is and how it helps families be strong, and how the family is the basic building block of society — they are quite correct. What they fail to understand, however, is that gay people form families, too. Gay people make lifetime commitments to care for and love and support their spouses, and to raise their children together and be responsible for one another. Gay people contribute to and strengthen society in exactly the same ways as straight people do, and therefore, deserve the exact same rewards, rights, protections and benefits with which society supports straight marriages and families.
Society has a legitimate investment in families. Not just opposite-gender-parented families. ALL families who commit to love and support one another.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 2:05 am
Incidentally, anyone who thinks racism is over and done with, a thing of the distant past, should get a load of this crap:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 2:11 am
All three ending paragraphs above are actually part of the block quote. Sorry.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 2:12 am
For what its worth, quite a bit of the civil rights movement in the USA consisted of Black people in the south attempting to register to vote, and White people “intimidating” them by committing a wide variety of hate crimes against them, including, yeah, murder. Voter intimidation. Oaks’s analogy is truly unfortunate no matter how you parse it.
Comment by djinn — October 16, 2009 @ 2:56 am
#199-Lorian: I was also shocked to see that. If couples that get along want to get married, I don’t care what races they are. A former Elder Quorum President I had was black, and his wife was white. They met in Roller Derby, got married, and both later joined the LDS Church. He later became a High Councilor We also have several white-asian couples in our current ward.
Comment by Mike H. — October 16, 2009 @ 3:26 am
Whirlygirl (184) and Lorian (196): You really ought to read what Elder Oaks said more carefully.
“atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show”
It is the publication that demonstrates the aggressiveness, not the distribution of said publication. I haven’t read ‘6 Ways’ to comment on its aggressiveness, but I’m guessing neither have you.
Comment by gomez — October 16, 2009 @ 5:34 am
Further: ‘6 Ways’ is just an example. Do you really want to argue that ‘The God Delusion’, ‘god is not GREAT’, and generally accepted spokesmen such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are not aggressive?
Comment by gomez — October 16, 2009 @ 5:39 am
Violence against people who support a particular measure is anti democratic. No matter how you put it. Voter intimidation can happen after the vote when there will be another vote on the same measure…it’s a clear stand that if you support this measure again…such and such will happen. It’s threatening.
Churches have every right to tell their people how to vote, and they have a responsibility to do so at times. It happens so rarely in the LDS church they are obviously not a political body. The law is clear on what they are allowed to do and they are well within their rights. Politics are not the focus of the church, not remotely.
I can’t tell you how many times I have heard people say that the constitution says you can’t vote your religion. That is absolutely untrue. The constitution protects the right of voters to vote their conscience. EVERY voter is voting according to what they feel is right, whether that is based on the Bible or Darwin, or just intuition. All sorts of things go into influencing that. No voter is forcing their views on another any more than ANY voter. Prop 8 isn’t about forcing beliefs onto people.
This is not codifying religion. Codifying religion would be codifying the practices of religion, such as everyone must pray a certain way or to a certain person….this is voting a moral stand, just as people think it is morally wrong to commit murder, or morally wrong to abuse a child. Many people get their ideas of what is right or wrong from the Bible…are they only allowed to use the Bible as their basis when it ..what? agrees with you? People can make their moral decisions based on a whim or careful pondering or religion or all three at times.
What a strawman excuse to attack Elder Oaks. Parsing out one phrase. He didn’t say the voter intimidation was to the same degree, he didn’t say members of the church had suffered the same amount.
Comment by britt — October 16, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Lorian, “Potential burden off the shoulders of the state.” Is a very popular point and a good one at that. Yet still not enough for me to sway. Look I don’t see rewarding people whom most likely would do what they are doing essential. YET Recognition of rights, community property, spousal rights,and inheritance. Those are essential yet can be awarded without a tax breaks. Sure we shoulder the financial burden for our children, and it benefits society, but it begs the question why we should get rewarded for taking the burden off the state. That doesn’t stop us from giving benefit to poor families with children. But again we all have our beliefs and I believe marriage and religion should be far away from the state.
Comment by CZ — October 16, 2009 @ 6:54 am
I think that this discussion is very interesting. I guess I just rolled my eyes at his speech and left it alone. I thought some of his comments were inappropriate and as soon as he made the racial persecution comparison I knew that was going to come back to bite us which is unfortunate. But I guess I have always viewed anything that comes from Elder Oaks very carefully since I was in high school. I vividly recall the controversy with Oaks, Packer, and the September Six. It was pretty frightening to me that at least one elder was willing to fudge the truth to protect another elder even though what was done was really wrong and hurt a lot of people. So for what it is worth, I think that Elder Oaks really is doing and saying what he believes to be true and right. We as members have the solemn duty to remember that we as individuals are not perfect and the only difference between us and the apostles is in geography, calling, etc… I am not trying to express that I believe others views are wrong or right, just that apostles are fallible men just like the rest of us.
By the way, up here in Maine the fight to keep the new marriage law in place is going strong. I spend about six hours a week calling people and reminding them to vote and discussing the issue. So for those who are like minded please pray for our efforts.
Comment by Sonia — October 16, 2009 @ 7:56 am
Wow, I’m really sad that I missed this entire conversation. I read the transcript of the talk a couple of nights ago and was hoping someone would post about it.
I’m surprised, like Stephanie, that this is the part of the talk that we’re discussing. I think I can get at what Elder Oaks was trying to say with his analogy. I think it was insensitive, ironic, etc. (for the reasons mentioned above, especially agreeing with whoever stated that we mistreat african americans for years and now suddenly want to cozy up and compare wounds…), but hardly the topic I think he was the farthest off base on. Thanks 184 and 185 for bringing those up. I had the same reaction to the aggresive atheism thing. I felt like he was saying that while we protect religion, it only applies to the religious because atheism is undermining society. Why do we like to forget about protection from religion as well?
And the whole idea that the fact that the religion statement comes first in the bill of rights makes it more important than the others? Really? That seemed really strange to me and not really important, even, in the context of his talk.
My biggest issue was the dichotomy that Derek alluded to (sorry, can’t find the specific comment # now). He starts off beautifully with the story of the woman in Mongolia, throws out stuff like:
(in fact this whole part has a lot to say about the “blind obedience question brought up at the beginning of this post)
and
and
(still supporting minority rights, here)
and then he comes out with:
How did we go from stating the need of the religion clause of the bill of rights to protect those with minority opinions to using that as a justification to impose religous will? That’s the thing I’m finding most troubling with his talk…
Just a couple comments, since so much has already been covered.
Lorian, do you have any details on this? I saw the link above to the judge who wouldn’t perform the marriage? Does anyone know if he’s been disciplines? Certainly if a judge (a tool of the government) can withhold a marriage liscense based on race, a church can withhold a marriage blessing based on sexuality… I, too, am confused by the rhetoric I hear about legalizing gay marriage causing all religious marriage into question.
I think this is a misunderstanding of the legal system in this country. I’m not a government person so forgive my bungling of it, but the 10th amendment protects freedoms not specifically mentioned in the constitution, right? Don’t we have a precedence in this country that *something* is legal until we decide we don’t like it and make that *something* illegal? I would say that gay marriage has been legal for the past 190 years or so (whether or not anyone would be willing to do it) and has only become illegal when these traditional marriage laws started getting passed. I think it’s an incorrect caricature to say that this started with the gay community. This was always a legal right, when someone started trying to act on that it was conservatives who started moving to make it illegal.
Suzanne (in 140) - I really like that quote.
Xenologue (183) - beautiful post, thanks for sharing that.
Comment by Enna — October 16, 2009 @ 10:08 am
gomez # 203 -
Um, the Bible’s pretty aggressive. Lots of unbelievers get slain in there, if you haven’t noticed.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 10:08 am
sorry for the typos, I didn’t read it before I submitted…
Comment by Enna — October 16, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Enna #208 - I had, last year sometime, several links to a story about an interracial couple somewhere in the midwest who were denied marriage by a Baptist pastor. I can’t seem to locate the story anymore, but I’ll keep trying.
The main point, though, is that, to my knowledge no church has ever been successfully sued for refusing to perform even an interracial marriage, with as many civil protections as we have against racial discrimination. That being the case, I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly believe that a church would be successfully sued for refusing to marry a gay couple. Again, sacramental marriages are different and separate from civil marriage, and are dispensed solely at the discretion of the religious body granting the sacrament. Just like any other sacrament (eucharist, holy orders/priesthood, etc.), the government cannot and would never compel a religious group to dispense a sacrament to someone it did not deem fit or worthy to receive that sacrament.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Enna -
Exactly so. Unconstitutional laws restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens are actually simply roadblocks placed in the way of a citizen’s right to exercise that freedom.
This is demonstrated by the fact that, when the USSC declared antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional, interracial couples immediately had the freedom to exercise their right to marry. There was no need for states to pass new laws specifically granting them those rights. The rights already existed, but had been unconstitutionally withheld from these couples by misguided and prejudicial antimiscegenation laws.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Some of these posts make me sick.
If you are not a member of the church you are entitiled to your opinion. If you ARE a member of the church you are also entitled to your opinion but, if you are doubting the words of the prophets and apostles you should check to make sure you still have a testimony. No man can serve two masters. Since when are we smarter then God? Since when has anyone recieved revelation for the world besides the prophet? I think we should all take a step back and ask ourselves where our loyalty lies, with God or the world.
Comment by Adam — October 16, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
I’m drafting a post for my own blog about Oaks’ talk, so I won’t be continuing to participate in the details of this conversation (don’t worry, Chandelle, I’ll be focusing on your concern). There is just one last thing I want to address here.
re: 205
Yes, it does, Britt. And if voters use that right to deny others their right to follow their own consciences, then they are abusing their constitutional rights to violate freedom of religion, another important Constitutional right. The right you talk about does not supersede freedom of religion; rather, the freedoms of the Bill of Rights should (according to the men who drafted the Constitution) overrule the former. No one, not even the majority, has the constitutional right to infringe on the religious practices or lives of the LDS Church, even if they do so in accordance with their consciences. It was done many times in the first hundred years of the Church, but it always violated the Constitution. Similarly, we do not have the constitutional right to do unto others what has been done unto us. It remains unconstitutional, and is in addition hypocritical.
Comment by Derek — October 16, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Adam,
C’mon, now. It isn’t as simple as that. Are you stating that the prophets are infallible? Do you think God gave us our agency and our brains or did he make us robots? Do you think this life serves as a trial where we will have doubts?
No one’s comments sickens me as much as yours (okay, except maybe Katie P).
I have loved, loved, loved this post and the comments. By and large, this group of people is thoughtful, educated, wise and concerned. All trying to learn, understand and cope. I don’t think this is the time for judgment and I certainly don’t think any of us (yes, including you, Adam) have the authority to judge each other.
Keep on thinking with your bright minds, folks - I’m enjoying it all.
Truly.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 16, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
britt #205 -
But britt, what violence? There were a tiny handful of incidents between individuals, well-documented, immediately after the vote. There has been NO organized campaign of violence instigated by leadership within the GLBT community (such as it is) — in fact, quite the opposite. Leaders within the community have repeatedly and loudly urged peaceful protest and continued work within the legal and legislative system.
And yet, people keep referring to “violence” and “intimidation,” as if there were roving gangs of fairies going about bashing Saints over the head every time they tried to attend a Sacrament Meeting. Please. This is hyperbole and misrepresentation and smear tactics. People are attempting to invalidate the legitimate complaints of the LGBT community regarding the harm done to us by the LDS Church and other religious groups by repetitively referring to unspecified “violence and intimidation” of nebulous and undocumented origin.
That’s not right, britt. Not right at all.
Um, not if they want to retain their tax-exempt status. They are not permitted to endorse particular candidates. They can get away with endorsing particular issues, as long as they don’t make significant financial contributions to particular campaigns for those issues (but even there, the IRS is pretty lax).
The point is, government is giving churches a break by making them tax-exempt organizations. This is to maintain separation of church and state, and the agreement is, “We won’t tax you, and you won’t try to run the government.” When a church involves itself in politics to an extreme degree, then it risks losing tax-exempt status. So, you are correct to a certain level, but churches do NOT have absolute and unrestricted rights to instruct their members on how to vote, unless they wish to be reclassified as political organizations subject to normal taxation.
You are correct that every individual voter has the right to vote his/her conscience, whether his/her views are based in religion or not. The problem is, measures should not be on the ballot which, if passed, would restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens based solely upon a religious test or qualification. And, if such a measure DOES make the ballot and religious groups get them passed, it is the judiciary’s responsibility to overturn them as unconstitutional, because they inhibit the rights and freedoms of citizens, not based upon any harm those citizens are causing to other citizens, but based solely upon the rules and beliefs of a given religious group.
Thus, if an Islamic group got a measure on a local ballot which would compel all women in the jurisdiction to wear a head covering when in public, and, by encouraging their members to financially support this measure and turn out to vote for it, were able to get it passed, it would then be up to the judiciary to overturn the new law, as it unfairly restricts the rights of women in the district based upon no better reasoning than simply the religious views of a group of citizens residing in that jurisdiction.
You are incorrect, here. Our laws are not based upon the moral teachings of any given religion. They are based upon the principle of demonstrable harm. Does a particular action inflict demonstrable harm upon another citizen? Yes? Then that action must be declared illegal. Murder is illegal, not “because the Bible says its wrong,” but because it infringes upon the rights of another citizen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that many of our laws also coincide with the moral codes of various religions does not prove that our laws are drawn from those religions. It simply proves that many different moral codes are based on that basic principle of not harming others, not unfairly depriving others of their rights.
Many of our laws coincide with Islamic law, too. Does that mean that we need to accept all Sharia law as the law of this land? No, because our system of laws is not based upon Sharia law, anymore than it is based upon Biblical law. There must be a non-religious “test” for the laws of this nation demonstrating that the law does not unduly and for no secular reason inhibit the rights and freedoms of citizens. Laws must be in place to prevent individuals (and corporations) from inflicting harm on others, or infringing upon the rights of others, without the law, itself, unduly and improperly infringing upon the rights of citizens.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Okay, sorry, I lied, one more one last thing:
re: 208
Theoretically, I would agree with you. In practice, I think it is a bit more tricky than that. As I understand it, during the first half of the twentieth century there was a a great deal of social and legal turmoil over the meaning of marriage, as marriage was rapidly evolving from a primarily economic and reproductive institution to one about love. As the laws attempted to grapple with this, people did begin to raise the issue of homosexual marriage as far back as the ’20s. The issue was largely dismissed out of hand. It was assumed, based on long history and tradition, that marriage could still only be about the relationship between the sexes. It was seen as so preposterous that few deemed any laws making the definition necessary. So technically, I would agree that homosexual marriage was legal for the majority of the nation’s history, but the spirit of the law, or at least the consensus interpretation of the law, still restricted marriage to heterosexual relationships.
Comment by Derek — October 16, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Adam #213
Adam, regarding that sentiment, I can heartily and with a profoundly sad heart, agree.
I prefer, though, to focus on the wonderful, thoughtful and deeply spiritual posts of people like Derek, xenologue, Lawyer Lady, Enna, Sonia and many others, who realize that their religious beliefs should not be used as a yardstick to dictate the civil rights of their fellow citizens.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Derek -
I would agree with the bolded portion, Derek. I think the spirit of the law is actually a great deal wider and greater than even those who drafted it could necessarily conceive, viewing it from the limited framework of 18th century experience. But I suspect that more of them would likely have supported the broadened framework we see today, than not.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
re: 204
As an Atheist turned Mormon (bet you don’t see one of those too often
), I just wanted to put my 2 cents into the ‘aggressive atheist’ argument.
When I was an atheist I was absolutely incensed (actually how I felt would be better expressed with a long string of cleverly interwoven profanities) by the few ’spokesmen’ for atheism who publish books with inflammatory titles, like ‘The God Delusion’ etc. As an atheist who shared their general point of view on the nature (or lack thereof) of divinity I was offended at the pushy, insulting, bigoted nature of such works.
Yes, some atheists feel the need to spew their bigoted, hateful, freedom-squashing rhetoric and political/religious agendas all over anyone who gets within range. So do some LDS. The percentage of each group is about the same, in my experience. I never accepted those atheist writers and speakers as leaders of any movement I was involved in. Importantly this is not because they didn’t mostly say things I agreed with, but because they wasted my time and theirs making hateful statements and branding me as a jerk by (non)religious association.
Now, I love Elder Oaks. I loved hearing him speak in person last August. It was mostly a deeply inspiring experience (even if I didn’t get a handshake). But It sure bugs me that his speech just did exactly what I rejected those commonly accepted atheist spokesmen for doing with their ‘aggressive’ campaigns. Even if I was to agree with the essence of the content, the form and delivery was still inappropriate.
We who are LDS all choose to be LDS. Whether or not we consciously admit it, we choose to put ourselves in a ‘persecuted’ social group. I would hope that we could show a little more Christ-like compassion for the those in the LGBT community (whether active and out or not), who have no choice in being part of a group that we continue to persecute, deny rights to, and behave condescendingly towards. Similarly as a group with our own painful historical memory of persecution, I would think our leaders could exercise a little more sensitivity when bringing up the history of racial persecution and the civil rights struggle. Especially since we were contributors to it. Ugh.
Comment by Emma — October 16, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Enna, I’m still looking for a link on the interracial couple refused religious marriage by a baptist pastor, but it was back in 2000, and most of the links are now dead. The situation was actually referenced in a book on interracial marriage. Here’s a link to the book on Google Books.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Enna #220 - Absolutely agree. Most atheists I know are not at all into “proselytizing.” They simply want religious people to live and let live, and stop trying to convert them or to insert their religious beliefs into every aspect of the daily lives of others.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
CZ #206, I’d agree that an excellent compromise would be for ALL civil marriages to be replaced with civil unions, leaving the word “marriage” up to churches to determine dispensation or withholding. The net effect, then, is that all couples, gay or straight, would go to the government and obtain an identical civil union (not separated into “gay civil unions” and “straight civil unions”), and then, if they so desire, proceed to the church of their choice to receive a sacramental/religious blessing of their “marriage” according to the rules and dictates of that religious body. The net effect also, of course, would be that we would all end up with the same civil union AND the same title of “marriage” because there are plenty of churches willing to marry gay people.
On the other hand, we could just get over our little “sticking” point where people misunderstand the meaning and nature of “civil marriage” vs. “religious/sacramental marriage” and get on with the business of allowing all our citizens equal civil rights.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Okay, I’m just too damn addicted. Sigh.
re: 219
Nor would I be at all surprised if many whom we consider groundbreaking leaders of our nation would indeed support the expanded definition of marriage, at least from a civil perspective, were they around today.
re: 221
I’m not aware of the example you’re referring to, Lorian, but this link seems relevant.
Comment by Derek — October 16, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
gomez #204
No, gomez. Do you really want to argue that the Bible and many of the Christians who have represented it to the world in the past 2000 years are not aggressive?
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Derek # 224 - Yes, extremely relevant. Though the relevancy is a bit different, because in the case of this JOP, he has no more right to deny civil marriage to interracial couples than the public officials in Iowa who object to gay marriage have the right to deny civil marriage licenses to gay couples. Government officials must represent the laws they have sworn to uphold. If they feel they cannot do so in good conscience, they must step down and allow someone who will to take their place.
The situation in Ohio to which I was referring, however, was one in which a baptist minister was denying sacramental marriage to an interracial couple, and had every right to do so under the law. He can deny sacramental marriage to Jesus Christ, himself, if he so chooses. He is the arbiter of what sacraments will be dispensed in his church and can allow them or deny them at his own whim.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Derek #224.
Wanna join my 12-step group?
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Lorian,
I have to meet you. Seriously. I think I may be your biggest fan.
And Derek, if you hadn’t been proposed to so many times, I think I’d take my shot at it (well, that and if I wasn’t already married
).
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 16, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Thanks Lorian and Derek for the links. If you happen to come across the Ohio story, I’d love to see it, but it was mostly for my own curiosity, so no worries.
Derek, I think this is really the important point. I think you and Lorian are right on the money with this one. Thanks for expanding the thought even further.
I want to address Adam’s comment a little. Partly because this has been an issue I’ve been struggling quite a lot with (as you may have noticed in posts that touch on prop 8 over the last few months). The first time President Monson addressed the church, I felt an overwhelming (literally) witness that he was called to lead this church. I have ALWAYS (and I don’t throw around superlatives lightly) been blessed when I have been obedient to counsel I have received from the prophets. But my obedience has ALWAYS been preceding by a whispering of the Spirit to fall in line.
Can I be completely arrogant and link to a post I wrote about this? It’s not like you can say no
I have to tell you Adam, and others who have been concerned about the righteousness of those of us that dissent, or discuss, or are concerned, I have been praying about this. A lot. For a long time. And do you know what I’m getting in answer to my prayers? Quotes like what Chris commented on in #69 on this thread and:
“I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent—if you are informed.
…Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that … in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, ‘From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth—O God of truth deliver us’.” - Hugh B Brown
and articles in the Ensign and in conference about following promptings of the Holy Ghost. Even President Monson’s first presidency message last month in the Ensign was about being obedient, but it was about being obedient to God. No where am I finding any answer that is telling me to sit down, shut up, and fall in line. I’m only finding that I’m being encouraged to use my mind and my heart and figure out what God wants me to do.
I have great respect for people who act according to their own integrity and for people who truly desire to do what is right and good in the sight of God. I do not criticize people that voted yes on 8 on any other of the ballot initiatives in other states, when they believe that they are doing the right thing. But please don’t question my loyalty to the church. I love this gospel with all my heart and it has literally saved my life. Being a part of my Savior’s church and feeling His love for me means more to me than anything else in the world or out of it. I do not disrespect Him or my Father in Heaven by being the person they made me, and trying to be a better me every day.
Comment by Enna — October 16, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Lawyer Lady, thanks! Same to you.
As to Derek, I’d get all territorial and say, “He’s mine,” but I guess polygamous marriages really can’t work that way, can they? Even virtual ones?
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Does anyone else hate the “I have piles and piles of ______ friends” justification for proving you have no prejudice in your heart. Always seems like the first thing out of the mouth.
I had a couple of friends do an “intervention” when they were concerned about some of the views I had on Prop 8 and that was the first comment, “I don’t have anything against gays, I have gay friends.”
I got into a heated argument about racism with another group who were trying to convince me that slavery was good for Africans because they couldn’t take care of themselves. But don’t you worry, these people had a lot of black friends, so they’re definitely not racist.
Man that bugs me…
Comment by Enna — October 16, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Yes, Enna. Did you see where this JOP said (paraphrase): “I have piles of black friends who come to my house and I even let them use my bathroom!” I joked that, after they leave, he has his black maid go in and flush a gallon of bleach down the toilet.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Lorian 227 - Your 12 step program doesn’t appear to be very effective.
Comment by Stephanie — October 16, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Yeah, Lorian, that’s what set me off. Honestly. If you have to qualify your statement with something like ‘I even let them use my bathroom’ I think the red flags ought to be going up.
Remember that couple that was fined for not paying their “servants” because they had a place to live? But no, it wasn’t slavery. They probably let them use the bathroom, too.
Comment by Enna — October 16, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Again re Enna #231 — Isn’t it fascinating how many Yes on 8 voters claim to have scads of gay friends, but very few gay people I know consider that they have scads of friends who voted yes on 8? Most of us have a family member or two (sometimes more). But of the people we consider our close friends who love us, I doubt many of us would be able to count more than a few (if any) who would vote yes on 8, who would qualify as being our “close” friends.
So who are all these gay people who make up the scads of friends of these yes on 8 voters? :puzzled:
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Adam,
I hate to be condescending. Really, I do. But I’m going to say something, and I don’t think you’re going to like it.
I don’t know who you are or where you came from or how long you’ve been at BYU-I, but the longer you live, the more you’ll realize that not every question can be answered by something your EFY counselor said. The Youth in the Church are taught that there is a clear right and wrong answer to everything and that, if you’ll just stick to those answers, you’ll be spared from the evils of this world. While it is generally a good idea to follow what the church leaders say, it’s never as easy as assuming that every interpretation of the scriptures is right and everything a General Authority says applies to everyone in every circumstance.
One of the first thing I learned when i came to BYU was not to believe everything you hear, especially in church. The gospel is true, and I believe that the church testifies of the gospel, but we, including the General Authorities, are all still just people who make mistakes and say some things that aren’t true. The history of the church has proven this again and again.
If we were really supposed to just trust every word that came out of the mouth of a General Authority, what would we need the Spirit for? What would we need our own consciences for?
I’m not going to tell you to pray, Adam, because I’m sure you’re a good guy and you don’t need some stranger like me judging your spirituality or telling you what to do. All I’m saying is that we’re all trying to do the right thing, and it’s okay to ask questions. That’s how we grow.
Comment by Allie — October 16, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Stephanie - :sigh: You’re right. I have yet to complete my 1st step: Admit that I’m powerless over FMH and my life has become unmanagable.
One day at a time, hm?
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
re: 228
One of these days my wife is gonna read this blog and decide to block this site…
re: 233
What do you mean? She’s quit dozens of times!
re: the right honorable Justice Van Winkle
Yep, the man doth protest too much. And the fact that he seems to have been getting away with this up to today in the secular world seems to show that the fears of the pro-marriage restriction crowd that the government will move on to force the Church to accept homosexual marriage is completely unfounded.
Comment by Derek — October 16, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Favorite lame justification #1 - But I have tons of ____ friends!
Favorite lame justification #2 - But I can quit any time!
Lesson to be learned here brothers and sisters, if you say either of these things, you know you have a problem.
Comment by Enna — October 16, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
“One of these days my wife is gonna read this blog and decide to block this site…”
Your wife can rest assured because
1) I’m all the way in Texas
2) I’m crazy in love with my husband and
3) If my husband gives up on me, I’m going after Lorian first
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 16, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Derek… :giggle:
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Lawyer Lady, you’ll have to work that out with my wife. I think she might be amenable, if you’re willing to do chores and general household repairs.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
re. #213,
The ironic thing about that statement is that the style of “prophet-hood” that we have now is nothing like what we used to have. In Biblical times, there were many “prophets”, who often were spontaneously called to deliver a specific message (think Jonah and Lehi). They didn’t habitually head any official organization (some did, like prophet kings, etc.), and they declared that their authority came because God called them to preach these words (think Nephi, in 3rd Nephi, in the BOM). I’m not saying that we don’t have prophets today, but I think we often use those words to mean very different things. The ancient order of prophets is nothing like what we have now today.
And as for the discussion in 231-234, that kills me as well. As I think some comedian put it, you won’t ever find a racist whose best friend isn’t black.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 16, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Can I join in with this Lorian-Derek-Lawyer Lady marriage?
And can we please include Regina Spektor?
Comment by Natalie K. — October 16, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Yes, Natalie, but I think there are quite a few more of us, as well, just to be sure I make full disclosure. I believe mfranti may also be a virtual sister-wife, plus several others. We may even have a few brother-husbands out there.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
I sure hope there are a few brother-husbands.
I mean, we are feminists, right? Gotta keep it equal.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 16, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
re: 213 (Adam), 243 (Natalie)
Adam — Excuse me, but I have a real problem with people aiming their sense of disgust at other human beings. Yes, I know it probably seems as though the arrow points the other way, as if those other people (and their sickening posts) are causing you to feel sick, but in reality you do have some control over this reaction you’re having.
Allowing your disgust to apply — unchallenged — to other human beings is the road to the most dangerous kinds of prejudice. It is unkind. It is incompatible with human dignity and mutual respect.
Natalie — I love what you wrote about “I can’t be prejudiced! My best friend is ___.”
Can I add another double-speak alert? “Love the sinner but hate the sin.” [–Gandhi, I believe, not Jesus]
I typically hear this from people who are just sickened by certain kinds of people. What they ‘love’ is a fictional version of the other person in which that person acts differently and is less disgusting.
Gandi’s quote was a tactic for manipulation, not a recipe for how to treat others in our personal life. His manipulation was justified in the case of the British occupiers, but it was still manipulation. It was a form of non-violent aggression against unjust tyranny.
Comment by A Man Zed — October 16, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
I just tried to post some links to the Interracial marriage story from 2000 for Enna, but it’s not showing up. Maybe stuck in moderation? Anyway, here’s a good link:
ABC News Story:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577&page=1&page=1
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
Zed, great analysis of “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” That’s one of my personal 10-most-nauseating phrases. Really near the top of the list.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Lorian + Derek + Lawyer Lady + Natalie K. + mfranti = Quite the Motley Crew. I like it.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 16, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Don’t forget our respective legal spouses…
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Which religion is being codified with prop 8? The mormon religion? How about the Mormons who voted against it-and donated big money for that cause? Was their religion represented? How about the Jewish people who voted for it? How about the pentacostals? It isn’t codifying any religion or religion in general. Some athiests voted for prop 8.
Every law restricts the freedoms of some and is based on the morals of the majority. Many religious and non religious people agree on a general standard of morality…murder is bad, no stealing…that sort of thing. Laws are in most cases reflective of that general standard, not based on any one religion, or even religion, but on the general standard of morality. It doesn’t always go my way…I really get that. No one is forcing religion on another by voting their conscience according to their world view.
The LDS church is not a political organization. It does not spend even 1/1000th of it’s time discussing even prop 8; this one issue they have chosen to be so involved in. It’s extremely disingenuous to imply the church can’t be involved on a rare moral issue they feel strongly about. Tax law is very clear on that. Churches do teach morals..and people do vote based on how they interpret that. I know it must hurt that this church chooses this particular issue, I know that this particular issue is more sensitive to some here, but right or wrong in your eyes, the church’s involvement is constitutional.
Yes there was violence..no it wasn’t supported by the general LGBT group. Yes there was vandalism and still are incidences. That is anti democratic. I mentioned the violence because everyone was conveniently ignoring the illegals acts Elder Oaks spoke about and implying he was against non violent demonstration and free speech. There were websites listing the donors with threatening implications..the actual list is public domain, the threats are anti democratic.
To say that we as a nation decide laws based on whether there is demonstrable harm is not true. We can decide laws based on whim if we choose. It’s not wise, but it is constitutional, and it wouldn’t take long to find some purely whimsical laws. We can also decide based on harm we perceive centuries from now or on immediate harm. Who gets to decide what harm means and to whom?
To continually imply that people cannot vote based on their religious world view is religious discrimination. To imply that to vote based on a religious world view is codifying religion, and that prop 8 is similar to Islamic dress codes, is … what is that really? Legislating that everyone wear garments=codifying religion, encouraging church members to vote on a moral issue every long once in a while is not a sliippery slope towards demanding everyone wear garments…it’s apples and oranges. The church obviously chapmioned the volunteer effort but the voting was not a majority Mormon by a long shot.
Look at this board! Many good LDS people feel quite differently and vote very differently. That’s great! We all have brains and hearts and choose what we feel is right and wrong. President Monson is clear how we should feel about anyone who votes differently-we should love them.
Comment by britt — October 16, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Nice post Britt!
Hey Enna and Allie, thanks for making valid comments on my post. You made some interesting points.
I completely, 100% believe that we can and SHOULD pray to receive confirmation of the truth of every gospel doctrine taught. If God told the brethren to make a stand on a certain issue, I am sure he would be more than willing to help us feel that is it true as well.
What is nice about our church is that we claim to be the one true church on the face of the earth. Thus, there is no middle ground. It is 100% true or it’s just a bunch of rules and customs that a bunch of guys with the first name of “elder” have made up over the last 200 years.
When I was a missionary a lot of people had doubts over the Word of Wisdom, or Tithing, or some other church doctrine or commandment. That is why we always challenged them to pray about the Book of Mormon before we asked them to live the commandments. Because if the BOM is true than the church is true. All of it. The same could be said for any said for any gospel principle.
I don’t like the “pick and choose” way of thinking that so many people seem to have. The gay marriage question is a hard one and I am sure we will see many other hard questions in the coming years. Satan is good at what he does. He will deceive many people, ever church members if he can, we will not be able to lean on our own understanding. We will have to put our trust in God and in his representatives.
The church is perfect. The PEOPLE in the church are not perfect. We make mistakes all the time. We say and do stupid things. Even GAs have made mistakes, retractions, and even fell away from the church.
None the less, I truly do not believe that this is one of those situations. The first presidency and quorum of the 12 have been completely united on this issue. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was presented to the public as a revelation from God. The proclamation is pretty direct.
I still stand by my statement. If we have a testimony of the church we will not doubt the council of the prophets and apostles
We should remember the covenant that we made when we got baptized. To stand as witnesses of God at all times, in all things, and in all places.-That includes internet blog rooms.
Comment by Adam — October 16, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Re: #253 *sigh*
I remember a time when I thought this way…
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 16, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Adam,
I have to disagree with how you put it here. I think the gospel is true, and I think the church preaches the gospel, but that doesn’t mean that everything said over the pulpit is true. (What is that supposed to mean anyway? “The Church is true.” That depends on what you consider “The Church” to be. Does that mean the fundamental principles are true? Does that mean everything that an GA says is true? Does that mean guys with pierced ears are evil?”
I also disagree with the idea that “the Church”, whatever that is, is 100% true or it’s not. I believe that the Church does me good in my life and that it preaches the gospel. However, there are certain things about it that do not sit well with me. There are certain things that my conscience tells me cannot be true as I understand them at this time. Does that mean I have to completely throw the church out of my life, regardless of how much faith I have in the other principles?
I don’t know if everything about the church is true. I don’t even really believe that all of it is true. What I do believe is that this church is where God wants me, and if that means that I have to accept a few things on faith or just wait until God reveals something better, so be it.
Comment by Allie — October 16, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
It sounds to me as though Adam believes the church’s leaders to possess “infallability.”
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
No (and I don’t mean this facetiously), I think it sounds like in Adam’s mind if a prophet acts infalliably (I’m making up words here…) then he will fall away.
Comment by Enna — October 16, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
One of the phrases I heard in a class at Ricks (BYU-I) was “you can make a white glove muddy, but you can’t make a mud bucket glovey” or something like that. The point was that you shouldn’t spend time with people who have lower standards than you because they’ll just bring you down. I was furious at the analogy and practically got into a shouting match with the girl who said it. She also used, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” I mean, how un-Christian can you be? Ricks had a severe case of “holier-than-thou-itis” and it made steam come out of my ears sometimes.
Comment by jen — October 16, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Adam (in 213) I thought I addressed this way back in my comment on 69. If God had wanted puppets he wouldn’t have objected to Satan’s plan. (And thanks for the shout out, Enna. I’ll add the Hugh B Brown quote to my “Rebuttals for Anti-intellectuals” list.)
Re #253 I would say the gosple if it is lived and understood in the way the Lord indents is 100% perfect. The church on the other hand is an organization and as flaws just like any other. How can an organization be true let alone be 100% all or nothing true? I don’t have a problem saying I believe the Book of Mormon to be God’s word, or that Joseph Smith was prophet, but what does it mean “the Church is true”?
I would recommend spending a little more time with a few good (i.e. non-apologetic) church history books before you try and make blanket sweeping statements about the perfection of the church (you can even parse some stuff from between the lines of the church history institute manual if you know where how to look.)
Comment by Chris — October 16, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
212 not 213 sorry.
Comment by Chris — October 16, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
This is one of those cases when words and context really matter. Here’s what Elder Oaks said:
[T]hese incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.
(Emphasis added.) Elder Oaks did not compare the harassment of Mormons and other Proposition 8 supporters to the evils inflicted on African-Americans during the civil rights era. He instead addressed the effect of those “incidents of violence and intimidation.” I think it’s rather plain what he meant, and there’s quite a lot of overreaction and misinterpretation going on here.
Comment by Lowell — October 16, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
Lowell #260 - I don’t think they (assuming these “incidents of violence and intimidation” really exist in any serious quantity) are, in their effect anything like the “well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.” Not even close, Lowell, no matter how you parse it.
Show me some specific, documented, verifiable thing that has been done to Mormons at large which can be demonstrated to have had the same “effect” as the beatings, lynchings, arrests, imprisonments and other voter-intimidation practices which are so well documented from the black civil rights movement, please.
I think there IS a GREAT DEAL of overreaction and misREPRESENTATION going on here, but most of it is on Elder Oaks’ part and the part of those defending his indefensible comment.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Lowell
So imaginary violence has the same effect as real violence?
And which civil rights era? Are we talking post civil war, when African- Americans were basically again enslaved and lost the right to vote, and attempts over the long years to achieve freedom. The !860s to now, a bit of time.
Some of the strange fruit, also included white stalwart christian leaders protecting their way of life by burning people alive. Now that an effect.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 16, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
britt #251 -
The OFFICIAL positions taken by various churches, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that same-gender marriage is “immoral” or “sinful,” and that God ordained marriage to be exclusively the property of one-man-one-woman couples. That is the religious belief which was codified by Prop 8. There is no secular justification for drafting such legislation. As for the Christians who rightly voted in support of their neighbors’ civil rights and freedom of religion by voting “no” on Prop 8, they correctly saw that there was no non-religious justification for taking away the civil rights of gay people, and could not, in good conscience, inflict the religious teachings of their various churches upon their neighbors who are not members of those churches.
You are correct that “morality” is not the exclusive property of churches, and has a valid place in the formation of our legal codes, but what you neglect is the fact that morality in legal terms in this country is defined by the determination of what things allow the maximum freedom and liberty to the individual without infringing upon the freedoms, rights and liberty of other individuals and society at large.
There IS no “general standard of morality” EXCEPT that which is defined by personal rights and freedoms not being infringed upon by others, or by the government or by society. Our laws are (ideally) designed to protect personal rights of all individuals from infringement, without due cause, by other individuals and by society. That principle failed in the case of Prop 8
But even a church is not allowed (or not supposed to be allowed) to inflict its beliefs upon those who are not members of that church without good, secularly-justifiable cause. For instance, Jews cannot pass laws forcing others to forego the raising, handling or eating of pork, because there is no reasonable, non-religious justification for such a law. Muslims cannot pass laws compelling women to wear burqas or head-scarves, because there is no reasonable, non-religious justification for such a law. Fundamentalist Christians cannot pass laws compelling other people not to attend R-rated movies, because there is no reasonable, non-religious justification for such a law. Fundamentalist Christians, and other religious people, cannot pass laws compelling children in school to pray before they eat their lunch, because there is no reasonable, non-religious justification for such a law. Get my drift? There must be a non-religious compelling reason for laws which would deprive others of liberty, choice, personal freedoms and rights. The reason cannot simply be, “Because the Bible says so,” or “Because my Imam said it’s a sin,” or “Because the Prophet said it should be this way.” The Prophet is not the arbiter of morality for United States citizenry. Only for Mormons.
Will you please provide a link to a verifiable, solid news source of the most recent 3 Prop-8-related incidences of anti-Mormon (or any religion) violence?
Not anti-democratic at all. Those lists of Prop 8 donors were provided for the purpose of allowing individuals to identify local businesses to boycott. There was no suggestion on those websites that anyone should commit acts of violence against any donor (nor have I been able to find any evidence that any acts of violence were committed against donors because of their appearance on those lists). There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING “un-democratic” about boycotting businesses who donate the money you spend with them to causes which harm you or your family. That’s about as free-speech-flag-waving-democratic-patriotic-American as it comes, britt. I personally found that an acquaintance of mine was on one of those lists. I no longer go to meetings held in his home because I realize now that it is part of his personal agenda to harm my family, and I do not want to be a guest in the home of someone who would deliberately donate money to a cause designed to harm my family.
Donations to political causes ARE a matter of public record. My donations to “No on 8″ are a matter of public record. I am proud to have donated to such a good cause, and am not ashamed to have anyone know about it, even if it should lead to a boycott of our family business by those who hate gays. Whatever. We’ll get by just fine, thanks.
Of course some laws are made on a whim, or on the basis of bad judgment or racial or religious prejudice. But those are not the principles upon which our laws are supposed to be based, AND when such laws are passed and are found to infringe upon personal rights, freedoms and liberties, they are eventually overturned by our judiciary, as was the case with mahy state antimiscegenation laws prior to Loving v. Virginia. Same with “anti-dancing” laws. Same with laws which inhibit freedom of speech. Same with laws which require the teaching of religion in our public schools. They are found unconstitutional and are overturned.
Where, exactly, did I say that people don’t have the right to vote however they choose, even if their vote is based upon their religious beliefs? In fact, I’ve said the exact opposite on this very thread. When a citizen walks into a voting booth, s/he has the right to mark the ballot in whatever manner s/he pleases, even if that is by playing eenie-meenie-minie-mo. That is his/her right as a citizen.
The point I actually made is that laws based on religious discrimination should not even be allowed on the ballot. Laws which decided the civil rights of discriminated minorities should not be put to a vote of the populace, since the prejudice of that populace is EXACTLY the reason that minority NEEDS its civil rights protected.
That’s EXACTLY what it is, britt. A Muslim majority voting to deprive women of civil rights is exactly the same as an Evangelical, Catholic or Mormon majority voting to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of civl rights.
Doesn’t matter if the voters were all Mormon, britt. They weren’t . The point is that the money and volunteer time Mormons were asked (and sometimes compelled) to donate, and the campaign of lies and distortions that money went to fund, were the reasons why Prop 8 passed. It was failing in the polls until the deceitful ad campaigns funded primarily by Mormon dollars kicked in. The LDS Church as a corporate entity is in great measure responsible for the passage of Prop 8.
Absolutely there are many good Mormon people on this board whom I have come to love, and who were in NO way responsible for passing Prop 8. The church as a corporate entity was responsible for its part in the debacle, and its individual members who got on the bandwagon and donated the money and time to the deceitful campaign were responsible as individuals for their part in the debacle.
I stand ready and willing to forgive anyone who asks it (who took part in this travesty of justice, and, as a Christian, I extend the love of Christ to such people, whether or not they ever ask my forgiveness. But I will not excuse the actions of the church for which it is plainly unrepentant, or turn a blind eye to it in future confrontations. The church deliberately and willfully attacked and harmed my family. I will not trust it.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Loran, whew, thank you! You took the time where I didn’t have the strength. I was just going to say that the view of the law in britt’s post is muddled. This is neither how the law is made, nor how it should be made.
What is this love, then? A warm feeling? A tugging in your chest while you pull the lever to dissolve another person’s family?
What is it worth, this love which is only felt and not acted upon? Or if acted upon, is used only to injure other parties?
I think I recognize this version of love. I hear about it regularly from one sister, from my grandmother — the more pious and sanctimonious of my family members.
This love you speak of, please take it back. I don’t want it. I would trade all the hard-line-Mormon love in the world for equal protection under the law.
Comment by A Man Zed — October 16, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Whoops, I mean Lorian. Sorry ’bout that.
Comment by A Mab "Zep" — October 16, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Thank you, Zed. I love your comments, particularly the ones in this last post. I completely understand what you mean about not having the energy (or intestinal fortitude) to address comments like the one britt made, above. Sometimes it just feels hopeless.
In any case, I love what you said about “love,” and, speaking presumptively on behalf of the other “spouses,” you are most definitely welcome to join in our little virtual polygamous marriage.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Hmm. No one has addressed the effect on children. Marriage actually is more of a social agreement than a personal one. Of course two people declare to each their commitment to stay in the union, but it’s really the society that declares it valid. And obviously the society can be in the wrong, but it also really has the legal say. This is because society makes determinations about what is acceptable for the creation of a family and the rearing of children. A recognized marriage becomes one that society has said it will accept. Why does anyone care what society accepts as a marriage? Because of the social costs and benefits. Those come from the society. If there were no social benefits to marriage, then I doubt many people would ever bother getting married, or at least wouldn’t care if others recognized it.
Does society have the right to say who can and cannot get married? It is not simply the matter between two consenting adults. Siblings can’t marry because of the genetic problems that result in the children. Gay marriage has not been traditionally accepted by society because of the perceived negative effects it has on children. Children do not have a say in how they are brought into the world, and not much in their rearing. There are several other situations that parents can put themselves in (like unwed mothers) that are detrimental to the child, so why shouldn’t society just pass laws against that? Actually there used to be laws against adultery and fornication for that reason, and there were social taboos that tried to discourage that. And when there is abuse of children, society removes the children.
Why doesn’t society have the right to say what it will recognize as valid? Do members of society have to accept any marriage situation at all? Does society have any say as to what it will consider a valid family formation? If marriage is inherently a social construct, not a private one, then society can choose to accept the form of marriage it wants. That’s why the church doesn’t have polygamy anymore. Society did not support or recognize it.
I don’t think that citizens of the US are obligated to support people engaging in a union that they don’t support. I don’t think society should have to acknowledge a child-rearing situation as legitimate when it disagrees with it. Gay marriage advocates are actually trying to get others to accept their marriages. It’s actually an imposition on everyone else in society. The mantra has been that marriage is between two people, yet everyone else must recognize it, protect it under law, provide the same support for child rearing in it as heterosexual marriages, and declare it as good as traditional marriage. I refuse to do that. That’s why I don’t support gay marriage. I refuse to acknowledge it as a member of society.
Comment by Bob — October 16, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Bob
I don’t even begin to understand what you’re talking about.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 16, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Suzanne, that would be a problem. To restate: I as a member of society do not have to recognize a marriage union that I believe is detrimental to children. I refuse to give endorsement to it or be compliant in children being adopted into it.
Comment by Bob — October 16, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
So your point, Bob, is that I, too, as a member of society get to determine which marriages are valid? You are aware that Mormons are only barely more popular than Muslims; if put to popular vote with a 20 some-odd million dollar ad campaign marriages between people who refuse to drink tea, say, could be invalidated. Kool beans.
Plus, I as a member of society do not have to recognize a marriage union I believe is detrimental to children. Yours, current or potential, as long as its under the aegis of the Mormon Church. I refuse to give endorsement to it or be compliant in children being adopted into it. You let your kids be interviewed by a bishop about their sexuality before their 18th birthday, that’s child abuse. You lose your kids.
Bob, the reason we have a judiciary is to prevent exactly the sort of tyranny of the majority that you (and me too in this post) espouse. You don’t get to be the final arbiter of someone’s marriage, and neither do I.
Comment by djinn — October 16, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Bob
Does this mean you support removing children from the homes of Gay people?
Because I wasn’t allowed to be legally married, I couldn’t put my spouse and child on my health insurance unlike my co-workers who could put on their families.
After I legally married and went to add my family, thanks to DOMA, the IRS wanted 1500 dollars a quarterly. I push a broom for a living, I don’t make that kind of money.
I don’t see how it is in society’s best interests, to have people uninsured who could be if they were in a straight family.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 16, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
That’s funny, Bob. You think it’s better for a child to languish in foster care than be adopted by a loving, stable parent just because they’re gay. Hey Bob, where did you get your social work degree? I’m curious to see the longitudinal research you’ve done on this. Because all the qualified professionals who have disagree with you. And all the children who are living wonderful lives with their gay parents do too.
Comment by Risa — October 16, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Bob, #269, Society DOESN’T have to endorse marriages which are demonstrably harmful to society, to children or to the gene pool (consaguinity being an excellent case-in-point). However, society must be able to clearly demonstrate the harm in such unions before removing from individuals their free right to choose a mate. Thus some states have outlawed the marriage of first cousins, while some allow such unions, because they feel there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that such unions are universally dangerous to offspring or to the genetic pool
Society clearly has a reasonable interest in denying marriage, and it’s related supports, to people whose procreation would be dangerous to society, and yet, we have wherever possible erred on the side of protecting reproductive freedom, rather than limiting it, even going so far as to allow the mentally-challenged and the genetically-disabled to marry and procreate. We draw the line at very close consanguinous unions, such as sibling marriage and parent-offspring marriage.
The fact is, our government and our courts hold a high standard for determining a necessity of infringing upon people’s rights to marry the person of their own choosing. Your argument that same-gender parenting could be harmful to the offspring was used for decades as an argument against allowing interracial marriages. The rallying cry was always, “What about the children??? They will face discrimination from BOTH races!!! They won’t be accepted ANYWHERE!!!” Clearly, such discrimination was a result of the very prejudice which sought to prevent the conception of these children, rather than from any innate societal factor which would forever refuse acceptance to bi- or multi-racial children (the President being a case-in-point).
Many people attempt to block gays from marrying by claiming that having two parents of the same gender will in some way damage the offspring. Such is not the case, however, Every major study of the offspring of same-gender parents has demonstrated clearly that children raised by two, loving, nurturing same-gender parents are equally as healthy and well-adjusted by all measures as their opposite-gender-parented peers.
The only studies which can be relied upon by opponents of gay marriage to support their biased position against gay parenting are inapplicable studies of SINGLE parents whose children are victims of divorce or parental abandonment, and who are usually being raised by a single-parent who works outside the home and lives well-below the median income. Such situations for raising children are in no way comparable to children being raised by two loving, involved adult parents who, almost universally, wanted their children very much, prepared for having children, and who are committed to the upbringing of those children. When antigay gropus, such as FRC and NARTH make claims that gay parenting will damage children, they rely on this entirely inapplicable studies to support their unsupportable position.
The fact is, gay couples and their families contribute to society in the exact same way as straight couples and their families. There is no distinction which you can draw between gay-parented families vs. straight-parented families which in any way detracts from their equal contribution to society. If you can think of one, please bring it up and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Incidentally, Suzanne makes an excellent point, Bob. Whether you (and I do mean “you,” since you have stated your personal refusal to acknowledge gay marriages, no matter what the rest of society does) allow gay people to marry or not, we still will procreate, adopt, and even raise the children of straight family members who abandon them or cannot care for them adequately.
Unless you propose to put in place draconian public policies which swoop down upon lesbian mothers as they labor in hospital delivery rooms and steal their children away to be handed over to nice, straight parents, you will not be able to prevent gay parents raising children. Certainly denying the protections and rights of marriage to gay couples will not prevent us from raising our children. And that being the case, all you are accomplishing by denying us those rights and protections which society put in place primarily for the purpose of ensuring the well-being of children in financially and socially stable homes, is to disenfranchise OUR CHILDREN and treat THEM as the very second-class citizens you claim to be concerned about them becoming.
Prop 8 harmed the children of gay parents far more than it harmed any gay person in this state. It disenfranchised children who are not themselves gay, but who were punished by religiously-motivated voters because of their parents’ gender and sexual orientation.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
Aw, Lorian, thanks! I’m new but I appreciate the warm welcome!
[Woohoo, an exciting Friday night for me at home in front of the computer because my husband is in San Francisco visiting his daughter.]
Bob, really? Seriously, have you ever actually talked with a gay person?
Okay I guess this is getting a bit far afield from Dallin Oaks’ comment likening the backlash against LDS support for Prop 8 to the intimidation of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement. But I’ll do my best. You deserve a forthright answer.
“No one has addressed the effect on children.”? Maybe not here, maybe not in the last 15 seconds, but no conversation I have ever had with a hard-line Mormon about human sexuality has failed to address the so-called “effect on children.” And the obligatory comparisons with bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia. (Mmm, good times! Just kidding.)
So from what you write, maybe you’d like to pass laws against unwed mothers, or against couples who have children outside Mormon-sanctioned (or Bob-sanctioned) wedlock? Or against couples who get married with no intention of propagating the race? Or maybe homosexuality is bad because it’s contagious?
So, real quick, here’s the deal. You don’t need a law against everything you don’t accept. I’m sure you do tons of stuff that I don’t accept and I believe is harmful to children. But much as it pains me, I don’t need the law to treat you differently from me just because of your distasteful beliefs or practices. In fact, I’d like the law to give you equal protection as me, in spite of our mutual distaste. Much as it pains me to say so. (Seriously, suggesting I’m bad for children puts me in a bad mood.)
You don’t need to support gay marriage. Just abstain from it and tell others to do likewise.
And you’ll forgive my well-meaning questioning, but usually the argument, “What about the children!?” is an alarmist ploy meant to arouse all the meanest, crudest, knee-jerk prejudices in the listener. Like Adam’s disgust reaction, above.
So! Let’s unpack some of those prejudices, shall we?
Hmm… how about… [drum roll please] pedophilia! Pedophiles are heterosexual, as it turns out, even the overwhelming number of those who prey on boys (and most pedophiles actually victimize young girls). By the way, just so you know, most people find this comparison offensive.
How about… gay contagion! In reality, children don’t turn gay because other gay people get married — not even the children of gay people. That’s not how it works.
Also, even if it were true, isn’t this a teensy bit circular? Gay-is-bad-because-it-makes-more-Gays-which-(as-we-know)-is-bad.
And finally… incest, bestiality, necrophilia, marrying your dog! (Gotta love it.) Seriously, here we are called upon to exercise a little moral judgment.
The thing is… (and here I’m dropping the playful face…) There is a clear moral difference between two adults who are born a certain way and who love each other and want to spend their life together… and these other disgusting cases. Can you see a difference? I really hope that you can.
Even if you experience a feeling of disgust when you think about people… um… doing it. The remedy is the same as when you tell your doctor, “Doc, it hurts when I do this.” — Stop doing that.
Exercise some self-restraint. Stop thinking about that. That’s private. That’s personal. Do you want other people obsessing about your sex life or your underwear or your child-rearing choices? Or passing laws against them? Or removing protections from your family or your children because society disapproves of some of your practices?
Please, and I really mean it, please find out more about human sexuality. Science still has a lot to learn, but we do actually know more on this topic than we knew 40 years ago. And talk with more gay people, in real life.
I know I still have a lot to learn.
Comment by a man Zed — October 16, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Excellent post, Zed. And I’d just like to add that the (blatant, humongous, waving-in-the-breeze) difference between loving, monogamous commitments between person of the same gender, and pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and all those other disgusting things, is that none of them involves two adult, human individuals who are capable of giving mutual consent. Legalizing gay marriage cannot possibly lead to legalizing child marriage, pet marriage or any other ridiculousness because they are not remotely the same from either a legal OR a moral standpoint.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Gee, maybe you should have homosexuality declared a religion, then you could say and do all sorts of stuff and the law won’t say squat. Plus, you won’t have to pay taxes.
Comment by Slim — October 16, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
I’m confused about your point, there, Slim. Care to elaborate? I’m picking up a certain 3rd-grade “If-you-love-ice-cream-so-much-why-don’t-you-marry-it?” vibe, but maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
Comment by Lorian — October 16, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
Well, admittedly the third grade vibe may be there, but it’s probably because I’m a cynic. I spoke mostly in jest. My point (such as it was) was that if being gay was declared a religion, then presumably homosexual marriage would be protected under the same umbrella as other religious practices. Then maybe everybody would leave each other the heck alone (not likely I know, but one can dream)
Also it should be noted that the “you” in my post was a general one, not directed at you specifically
Comment by Slim — October 17, 2009 @ 12:43 am
It is a good point, Slim. An angle I never considered! And that’s saying quite a bit, really.
If I pick up 3rd-grade vibes readily, whether they exist or not, it could be because I have twin 3rd-graders. I hear a LOT of 3rd-grade humor!
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 12:46 am
Lorian - sorry for the threadjack, this goes back to interchange re. atheism ages ago. You miss my point. I took exception to Whirlygirl’s comment (184) because it seemed a deliberate misreading of Elder Oaks - almost as if she is trying to take offence. The vast majority of atheists may very well be ‘live and let live’, but currently the most vocal atheists are aggressive. That was Elder Oaks’ point and it seems unarguable to me. I don’t know why that would rub someone up the wrong way. He made an accurate observation about the state of play. The bit about distribution of ‘6 Ways’ wasn’t even in his speech. And Emma (219) can try all she likes to read aggression into Elder Oaks’ speech, it doesn’t come close to the rhetoric of Dawkins et al.
Comment by gomez — October 17, 2009 @ 2:58 am
gomez
I think this is rather a truism, and could be equally well applied to Fundamentalist Christians, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Muslims, and pretty much any other religious/theological/philosophical group. “Currently, the most vocal Mormons are aggressive.” I might substitute “assertive” for “aggressive” in both sentences, since “aggression” implies violence, and I’m not aware that the majority of outspoken atheists are behaving violently in any way. But if you don’t think Mormons could properly be described as “outspoken” and “assertive,” I’d think again, were I you.
The plain fact is that far more Evangelical/Mormon/Catholic people are outspoken and assertive about proselytizing others to their beliefs than are atheists. Just because there are a handful of assertive, outspoken atheists at the moment does not mean that they should be described as “aggressive,” or portrayed as doing something to Christians that Christians haven’t been doing to them (and far worse) for over 2 millennia, now.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 3:59 am
And I think, by definition, the “most vocal” are always going to be the aggressive/assertive ones. The non-aggressive/assertive ones, even if they make up the vast majority, are usually pretty quiet.
But, until atheists start sending out missionaries by the tens of thousands to literally knock on as many doors as possible in order to spread their message, I don’t think one can make the argument that they are overly aggressive without seeming a bit silly. Obviously, I like the missionary program, but I don’t think 3 authors with a handful of bombastic books comes even close to matching it in aggressive recruiting.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 17, 2009 @ 4:07 am
You’re arguing against points I have not made. I’m not interested in what fundamentalist christians or catholics are saying or writing. Elder Oaks is a spokesmen for the LDS church. He is not aggressive, IMO. The missionary program is not aggressive, IMO. And I think his statement that atheist spokesmen are aggressive is accurate.
And I can make the argument that atheist spokesmen are aggressive in comparison to the missionary program without seeming a bit silly. You can try and downplay the new atheism movement as a ‘handful of bombastic books’, but ask yourself what has had a greater cultural impact in the last few years, the LDS missionary program or a few authors and their handful of bombastic books.
Comment by gomez — October 17, 2009 @ 5:31 am
Gomez, affectiveness doesn’t equal agression; when was the last time an atheist knocked on your door with the specific purpose of converting you? Actually, why do you think Dawkins, say, is agressive anyway? What specific statements?
Comment by djinn — October 17, 2009 @ 6:08 am
gomez, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no less assertive/”aggressive” than the handful of prominent atheists you name. I’m not arguing against points you haven’t made. I’m pointing out that there are any number of religious organizations which are every bit as, if not more, assertive/”aggressive” (if you will) than the atheists you reference in your argument, including, quite prominently, the LDS Church.
I have never in my life had an atheist come to my door to hand me a tract or book explaining why I ought to become an atheist. However I turn away callers on a regular basis (including the occasional LDS Missionary — despite my gay flag
) who are standing on my doorstep, eager and even determined to explain to me why I MUST adopt their religious beliefs or face an eternity of unpleasantness ranging from “separation from God” all the way up to “eternal damnation in the flames of hell.
I consider those folks assertive almost to the point of “aggression.” Never once have I encountered an atheist determined to go out of his or her way to convince me to adopt his/her philosophy. Atheists only occasionally attend organized “atheist meetings” (and not all do so, by ANY means). They rarely affiliate with an organized body (though certainly some organized groups of atheists do exist, mostly for mutual support in a rather hostile society). And they NEVER, to my knowledge, go door-to-door witnessing.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 6:29 am
It isn’t about effectiveness. Whether ‘The God Delusion’ is read by one person or by 6 billion doesn’t alter at all its aggressive tone. Whether missionaries knock on one door or 6 billion isn’t a determinant of aggression. It is my opinion that knocking on someone’s door offering to teach a message about Christ or families is not aggressive; but writing a book which implies people who believe in God are deluded is. I’m fine with you disagreeing with me.
I’ll bow out at this point - not because any of you are being argumentative, I just think to some extent we are going round in circles. I’ll just state my position:
I think Elder Oaks gave an excellent talk on the subject of religious freedom. I think it is a bit of a shame that some people wanted to focus on one sentence rather than the thrust of the message, but I can understand why some sensibilities would be offended. I only commented back at #202 because I thought Whirlygirl was reaching. I think Elder Oaks’ statement regarding the aggressive nature of the writings of many modern atheistic spokesmen is accurate and can’t understand why you someone would particularly take exception to that. You can all try and argue that Mormonism is equally or more aggressive but I think it is a weak argument. I don’t see any modern statements or books by church spokesmen that even come close to the tone of statements or books by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Thanks.
Comment by gomez — October 17, 2009 @ 6:42 am
Ok, so now the discussion is at least dealing with child rearing in gay marriage. I didn’t hear any rebuttals that society in fact decides what a valid form of marriage is, and that the reason gays want to be legally married is for the social and legal benefits. This is why marriage in a socially unaccepted form is not a civil right. There is no civil right to a form of marriage.Society must endorse the form. You can’t claim it.
So then the burden is on demonstrating that gay marriage is not detrimental to rearing children. I am aware of the studies that say it is not, but many people don’t believe them. They could be totally ignorant and wrong, but until they do they will not endorse gay marriage. The effort would need to be to show that children raised by gay parents are healthy in all aspects. That where the discussion should be, not about the right to gay marriage
Gay couples cannot naturally have children. So even if they procreate (and we can’t stop them according to Lorian), they can only do so using the procreative powers of someone else. Gay couples cannot themselves have kids, but must either adopt or artificially inseminate. We don’t need to have draconian laws to swoop down and steal a baby from a lesbian woman giving birth in the hospital, but we don’t have to recognize her union to a woman as a form of marriage that is acceptable. We don’t have to consider gay parents as desirable as hetero parents in adoption situations.
Of course people will argue, “what about couples that can’t have kids?” and about whether gay marriage is good for kids or not. But that’s fine. That’s where the discussion needs to be, not whether it is a civil right.
Those of you reading should ask whether you would be comfortable having your kids be adopted by a gay couple in the event of your untimely death. If you are ok with that, then you support gay marriage. If you aren’t then you don’t support gay marriage, and there must be some reason why that involves child rearing.
Comment by Bob — October 17, 2009 @ 7:08 am
I won’t reply line by line. The vandalism against LDS meetinghouses is rampant enough to be considered intimidation. Vandalism on LDS Temples or fires started …intimidation. The interesting court case challenging the google maps version of the donor list discussed violence, death threats, envelopes with white powder and property damage based on that list. Boycotts are one thing and death threats another.
http://www.mormonlawyers.com/2009/01/prop-8-maps-and-naacp-v-alabama.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=1
As for recent.. http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_13539639 The date is interesting…the investigation is obviously not finished so I could be absolutely wrong in connecting the timing.
I’m not at all saying this violence compares to other violence or intimidation at other times..I’m surely not saying it’s more rampant than violence against homosexuals.
How do you balance free speech and the important right to information on campaign donations?
The point I’d like to address is love. President Monson did say we are to love those who vote differently than us. Jesus said to love our enemies. What does that mean? warm fuzzy feelings? attraction? allow them to do something you feel is wrong? Love is charity. “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not;charity vaunteth not itself. is not puffed up. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth.”
That is love. That is what President Monson was talking about. It is also the kind of love that makes marriage wonderful. It’s the kind of love you don’t fall out of, it’s not an “I can’t help it” or pop rock-hollywood version. It’s simple and beautiful. It’s more of a “when I’m 64″ version of love.
Comment by britt — October 17, 2009 @ 7:53 am
djinn (#285) - I didn’t get through “The God Delusion” cover to cover, but what I read in the beginning included quite a bit of Dawkins promoting aggressive atheism… in fact I believe much of it was a call for more “militant atheism” (in his words).
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2009 @ 8:08 am
Coming into this quite late, just had a few thoughts.
In response to those posts rebuking all of us for questioning the words of one of the GAs, the best way I can think to explain how I feel is this: The church is not my God. God is my God. The church offers me a medium through which I can try to understand God, who I revere and worship, but the church itself is an entity that I feel no drive to worship or revere. I think there are many members out there who lose sight that the church is a means to the end of understanding God, rather than being the end itself.
So when the church presents a policy, an authority, or an opinion that the membership is “supposed” to take on, I reserve the right to take it to the Lord and find out for myself. And I believe it is absolutely possible (and in this case quite likely) to receive a different answer than the majority. That’s the beauty of having direct communication with the Lord. I love having that ability. This whole prop 8 business was an opportunity to take a tough subject, wrestle with it in your mind, come to an understanding, and communicate with God til you were satisfied. It’s a shame people passed that opportunity up “cuz the prophet told them so”.
Whether the Yes-on-8 LDS want to admit it or not, we needed faithful members to be on both sides of the political fence on the matter. An absolute 100% agreement on the matter would scream cult, would support any argument that we don’t think for ourselves, and would suggest that those in opposition faced some type of punishment for disagreeing. For the curious, I don’t know a single No-on-8 LDS person who faced any sort of problems from church leadership. Of course there were negative comments from some, as to be expected, but I was glad to be able to tell my bishop how I felt and not be guilted about it.
In the hope of bringing this post back to the original issue, Oaks could’ve chosen a better analogy for his point. To bring up the civil rights movement in any sort of comparison is ill-advised and in poor taste, at best. I almost feel like that choice of analogy was intended for shock value… and I don’t think shock value is necessary if you stick to the plain truths of the Gospel.
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Bob - I wish that I could be compelled by your argument, but stating that you don’t believe the studies is a little like… well it doesn’t really work as an excuse for me. Selective belief is a term that is usually used for fundamentalist or extremists so i will leave that there and go on to a few other points.
1. Like you mentioned, there are many hetereosexual coples that need fertility treatments so that part of your arguement doesn’t hold wtaer.
2. Many heterosexual inidivualad orcouples have children that they cannot or will not take care off. That is why ever state has a foster care/audoption program. Many heterosexuals will not adopt children and those that do in my experience go over seas to do so. So many children in this country languish in foster care until their majority. Have you adopted a child from this country Bob? Let’ assume that gay sex is wrong for this argument. Would you truly wish for a child to be bounced from house to house until their majority (or stay in only a few houses but know that all of them are PAID to have you) or have them stay with a single or gay couple who i grateful to have them, feels blesed to have them and will sacrifice what they need to so that child believes that it has a family that love them. Before I was married I lived in a very large area and I worke in adolescent social work/detox. From personall expereience (and the statistics back this up), children in foster care and detox tend to be from heteroexual families. Allowing gays to adopt and marry gives children a home (many who would never get one) and with marriage gives the couple the benefits to raise them like other children. Your argument will not work for me until there are no children in foster care or adoption status. I have seen too many bitter and ‘harmed’ children who just want a HOME for that to count for me.
And on the legal/moral point…a true story. My neighbor desperately decided that he wanted to have children. His wife did not and told him so before they were married. Friends of his including me suggested that he adopt because it was babies that his wife objected too. He refused because he could never “love” a child that wasn’t his. After ten years of marriage (and lots of tricks including punctured condoms and losing the pills), he divorced her and dated until he got a woman pregnant (about six months later). He then allowed her to move in until her eighth month and then married her. He waited to make sure that “she didn’t get an abortion”. He has a child, he has continued his same lifestyle except that the infant is in the way Apparently he wanted a child that could immediately fawn over him and farm with him which he probably will not get for at least five years. This was perfectly legal, however I think that most individuals would find this bad for the child and morally reprehensible,.
To end, I would happily allow a gay couple who wanted to adopt my son and treat him as their own to do so. In some ways, a gay family would be more prepared to understand the prejudice that my ‘different’ son will get as they too have had to deal with bigots and prejudice.
Comment by Sonia — October 17, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Sorry that came out so strong… I clearly feel strongly about it!
Comment by Sonia — October 17, 2009 @ 9:08 am
I will be praying for Elder Oaks and others allied with him on these issues to see their way through to what the Lord wants. Elder Oaks is most capable, bright, powerful, and apt. I have no doubt he knew exactly what he was doing by speaking these volatile, emotive words.
I hope he, and so many others like him, including so many who have commented here, will end up having a Bruce R. McConkie reversal. It appears from his speech that he clearly wanted to “stir the pot” and to elicit a closer examination of all of these issues. Like I said, he is most capable and bright. He knew the power in his words and the breadth they would be reported on and considered, and their ability to elicit passion.
Of course, we all need honest humility to learn the facts, both present and past, and a willingness to learn to follow our consciences (the spirit of Christ and Holy Ghost) and love one another. You know, we need to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. To that end, I empathize with my SSA brothers and sisters, with their long and difficult struggle for assimilation and acceptance among the majority who don’t have such attractions. I wish you all only the very best for both your temporal and eternal wellbeing.
Comment by wreddyornot — October 17, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Oh I see, Bob, so people’s personal comfort levels (prejudices and all) around their own kids should decide how the laws apply outside their home, to the rest of the population.
For ‘Gay couple’, try substituting the word atheist, Mexican, Jehovah’s Witness, or — God help us — ‘Black’.
What you are articulating and appealing to, Bob, is pure prejudice.
Comment by a man Zed — October 17, 2009 @ 11:53 am
britt #289 -
Again, britt, you’re not showing me any evidence whatsoever of anything approaching widespread or “rampant” vandalism or acts of violence against LDS that can be demonstrated to be related to Prop 8. The couple of incidents you cite that are specific to Prop 8 occured many months ago, and have not been repeated. They were a couple of individual, isolated incidents. As for the current case you reference, I read the link you provided and it said nothing about this being related in any way to Prop 8. The vandal certainly did not state that s/he was retaliating against the LDS Church because of Prop 8, or even because of anything to do with GLBT issues. And the fact is, I’m not aware of ANYTHING like this happening anytime in recent months here in California, where Prop 8 happened, so holding Prop 8 and its supporters responsible for an act of vandalism that occured in SLC and which made no mention of Prop 8 seems a bit prejudicial to me.
That’s good, because it isn’t even in the same ballpark. There are REAL acts of intimidation happening to gay people all across this country on a daily basis, some of which go as far as murder. I have yet to hear of a Mormon murdered for his or her support of Prop 8 (and I pray that such a thing will never happen).
It is a fallacy to put forth that the right to freedom of speech is not inextricably linked with the right to privacy. In fact, I would suggest to you that they are completely separate and in many ways opposite rights. We have the right to privacy (within certain legal limits), but we also have the right to choose NOT to exercise that right. When we exercise our right to free speech, we are in some measure voluntarily giving up that right to privacy, at least insofar as it relates to the opinions we choose to share in our free speech. We have the right to a private ballot when we vote, but if we share what votes we have cast with reporters on the way out of the polling place, we are voluntarily dispensing with that right to privacy concerning our voting choices.
Acts of free speech are, by their very definition, not acts protected by the right to privacy. Contributing to, or publicly supporting a political campaign is an exercise of free speech rights, not something protected by privacy laws.
I wish that you would share those thoughts with the many supposed “Christians” (some of them undoubtedly Mormon, since we live in the area of CA with the highest Mormon population, who waggled their behinds and made “in-you-face” type comments to me and my children as we drove past them on street corners during the Prop 8 battle, and who drove past our protests screaming hatefulness and obscenities, and having their little children flip us off, all the while displaying their Jesus stickers on their cars. I wish you would tell it to the many so-called “Christians” who came up to me as I stood outside the polling place (at the legal perimeter limit) telling me I had no right to be there (I absolutely did), and that I was an immoral pervert and should have my children taken away, and should burn in hell, and should go to Sodom and Gomorrah. Somehow, none of that felt very loving to me. My reply to them? “God loves you. I will try to forgive you for trying to harm my family. I will pray for you.” And I have.
Here, I can agree with you. It is the kind of love I have for my spouse of nearly 19 years, and she for me.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Overediting Error - I stated: “It is a fallacy to put forth that the right to freedom of speech is not inextricably linked with the right to privacy.” I meant: “It is a fallacy to put forth that the right to freedom of speech IS inextricably linked with the right to privacy.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
…or Mormon, for that matter… I adore my liberal Mormon friends, and respect my Mormon family. While I’m sure that any of them would bring up my children lovingly and well, still, if I was dying and was offered a choice between having my children given to an unspecified Mormon couple where they might be brought up to believe that I was a rather disgusting pariah who should never have given birth to them, vs. by a gay couple who would love and cherish them and bring them up with love and respect for the mothers who brought them into the world, I’d choose the gay couple. Hands down.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Bob #288 -
Saying something over and over does not make it true, Bob. The United States Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, declared that interracial couples have the undisputable
to civil marriage, despite the fact that much of society found (and some STILL find) interracial marriage socially unacceptable. Marriage IS a civil right and “society,” meaning “the majority,” does not have the right to willy-nilly deny civil rights to the minority. That is discrimination, plain and simple. In order for society to deny someone their civil rights, society bears the burden of proof that there is just cause for denying that person his/her civil rights.
Society has failed to demonstrate any good cause for denying civil rights to GLBT persons. But we’ll talk more about that after the egregious comments you make in the next paragraph…
“Many people” as you define it, do not have to accept the validity of a scientific study for that scientific study to be rigorous and valid. What is required is that such studies be peer-reviewed and found to be rigorous and to have reached valid conclusions. The scientific evidence that children raised by same-gender parents are equally as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as their opposite-gender-parented peers is overwhelming, and has been accepted by every major professional medical, psychiatric, psychological and social work organization in this country. It is not necessary that Bob “agree” with the studies for them to be valid. It is not necessary that the bloggers at FreeRepublic.com agree with them for them to be valid. It is not necessary that NARTH or the “Family Research Council” agree with them for them to be valid. In fact, it’s not even necessary that Elder Oaks or President Monson agree with them for them to be valid.
To simply disregard any legitimate evidence which contradicts your personal opinions seems to me rather arrogant, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you have simply not understood the weight of evidence contradicting your opinions.
Nope. You can refuse to recognize my nearly 19-year commitment with my spouse, and you can withhold the civil rights which are meant to provide protections and supports to my children, but the people you are punishing are the children. How does that make sense? You claim to be all the welfare of the children, and yet, there are thousands upon thousands of children in this country who are LEGALLY parented by gay couples, but to whom you and those who share your viewpoints deny the very civil rights, protections and supports intended to contribute to the financial and social stability that helps a family provide a home for those children.
If you feel those rights are unnecessary to the wellbeing of the USAmerican family, then take them away from all the married straight couples and see if they agree with you.
Do you honestly BELIEVE you can stop us from procreating and raising our children? I’d appreciate it if you would elaborate upon the means by which this would be accomplished. Yes, you can deny us the right to adopt children, but how will you keep us from giving birth to them? Are you actually proposing that there should be laws which automatically remove babies from their lesbian mothers for no other reason that the gender and sexual orientation of the parents? And, with regard to second-parent adoptions, do you honestly believe that it is GOOD for children with two same-gender parents to be denied the right to form a legal relationship to their second parent? Do you honestly believe that a child born to a gay couple in a state where the second parent must forever remain a “legal stranger” will be better off, should his bio-mom die, to be ripped away from the only living parent he has ever known and handed over to actual strangers? Or maybe you would simply avoid such tragedies by doing the whole draconian-swooping thing. But please, share with me your real-life suggestions on how you would accomplish the goal of not having any children raised by gay parents, please. And explain how it would be better for the children, and back up these opinions with peer-reviewed, applicable scientific evidence.
So discuss it, then. Please.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
gomez #287 -
But gomez, what you are missing is that no one’s religious freedom was or is in jeopardy. There is no “attack on religious freedom.” There is concern that some have used “religious freedom” as an excuse for unwarranted intrusion into the rights of their fellow-citizens. Taking civil rights away from one’s fellow citizens in an attempt to make them conform to one’s own religious beliefs is NOT “the exercise of religious freedom.”
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
It’s not a fallacy to consider free speech and right to privacy, as sometimes balancing positions.
Things like this…
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904146-1,00.html
Is it legal to write letters to all this man’s neighbors? Is it legal to add slander about how obsessed he is? Is $1500 obsession? Are the letters intimidating? How about the the comments in the letter? It’s certainly dancing on the line where privacy and free speech meet.
Is that not REAL? Or do we wait until someone is killed to call it REAL and everything else is just what happens? Really in America? This is how our republic works? As long as it’s not “widespread and rampant” (what does that mean? vandalizing one temple is okay? There is some sort of magic number of temples at which point it’s not okay?)
Some people on this site have expressed that although they harbor no ill will at all towards homosexuals, they prayed about prop 8 and supported it, and were then proclaimed bigots…which technically is an act of bigotry.
We have people from both sides imploring people to pray harder or better or something so they get the “right” answer. People from both sides are sure the other person prayed wrong or got the wrong answer.
Lorian, I’m sorry people said those things to you. I really am. I really don’t get how people can think they know who is damned.
Comment by britt — October 17, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Gay relationships will not endure after this life. If we continue the downward spiral with regard to our morals, we will only see an increase in things such as economic upheavel and global conflict.
Comment by Henry — October 17, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Henry, not to mention hurricanes, floods and earthquakes. Just ask Jerry Falwell.
Seriously, this kind calamitous talk is as old as the hills, and ‘morals’ were declining just as fast in the time of Socrates.
Comment by a man Zed — October 17, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Britt, so to answer what love is, you quoted words from the King James Version of the Bible. Pretty words, but I just have the funny feeling you don’t know exactly what they mean. I mean, I know you love your 8 kids. But that’s not compassion. Neither is condescending sympathy in one hand while you wield a (metaphorical) hammer in the other.
I’m open to being convinced otherwise. Persuade me with your own words and actions. Or maybe by repeating 1 Cor 13: 4 like a mantra, it will give you the feeling of having love. Still and all, you can keep it. It won’t save you or me.
So… let’s see, calling bigotry is equal to bigotry? Really? Being compared to a child molester or being called an abomination is the same as being called prejudiced?
Or put another way, being called on the carpet because you take personal religious conviction and use it to advocate against actual families with real children… You are telling me this is the same as being accused of being a mortal threat to the welfare of children?
This smells like a high-flying persecution complex to me.
I think you are using a misshapen yardstick of moral equivalency. And the short end of the stick is conveniently aimed at your neighbor.
Comment by a man Zed — October 17, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Yes, it is. Children are not always that easy to love, even when they are your own. It takes enormous amounts of compassion.
Comment by Stephanie — October 17, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Lorian,
This whole topic is one that I have thought about long and deeply. I respect your thoughts and your efforts at respectful dialog. If you have a few minutes I would like to invite you over to my blog to read my post on the issue (I’ve linked to it below, and of course anyone else is welcome check it out too), I am curious as to what you think, but the post would be WAY to long to copy into here (not to mention something of a thread jack). I am always a little frustrated that I can’t find a way to express the way I feel about this issue in a space as small as a comment on a blog.
Thanks for helping everyone remember that it is possible to be passionate and vocal about a cause without being caustic.
Comment by Chris — October 17, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
so vandalism is just “being called on the carpet”? really?
death threats are just what ? what any person deserves who donates for prop 8?
Standard issue to send out the white powder envelopes when someone donates against a cause you really believe in…or just the special causes that are more personal? That’s just being “called on the carpet”.
I really get that vandalism isn’t murder, and neither is a death threat. I do. It is religious persecution, and voter intimidation though. I don’t understand why not denounce that and still be very strongly on your own side. I’m not saying violence is the main party line, or that there is a main LGBT party line even.
What is real voter intimidation then if not this sort of thing? We all know this is going to come on the ballot again at some point. No one will remember that the last time this happened all of their neighbors were mailed a slanderous letter along with the donor information? No one would be influenced by that or feel any fear? no church going person-even one voting against a prop 8, would feel a tinge of worry about their church buildings or temples? that’s all good? just being called on the carpet for having a church that once in a blue moon makes a moral stand?
Comment by britt — October 17, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Man Zed:
We are warned repeatedly in the scriptures of sexual immorality and its consequences. Humans have no power to decide what is sin and what is not. Sexual immorality, more than anything, has been the downfall of society. The same sex notion is untenable much like holding a live wire with 1 million volts. It cannot be done and go much farther you will be sorry. It really surprises how many members of the church on this blog.
Comment by Henry — October 17, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
are advocating for this lifestyle. Very scary,
Comment by Henry — October 17, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Derek, your free speech argument makes no sense here because Oaks wasn’t calling for legal suppression of lawful protests.
To picket and use bullhorns against a place of worship, a wedding, or a funeral, is persecution regardless of whether it’s protected by the first amendment. That type of activity falls under the tradition of pogrom. When Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist church picket funerals, the issue of whether his act is protected by the 1st amendment is an entirely separate issue of whether it’s contemptible. The ACLU recognizes this principle, and has sent Jewish attorneys to defend the free speech rights of Nazis to rally in a Jewish neighborhood. But just because they have free speech rights doesn’t mean that we can’t denounce their blood libels and their appeals to fear and hatred.
Oaks wasn’t imputing persecution of the church to the LGBT community.
Comment by Christian — October 17, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
In #308, Henry says:
That’s interesting.
So, if men just had sex with their wives and women just had sex with husbands, society would be ok? And here’s me thinking that it’s all the racism, sexism, poverty, homelessness, discrimination against people with disabilities, polluted environments, crime, unequal access to social, political and economic power and all that. Silly me, eh?
But you’re on to something, Henry. It’s so much easier conceptualising social ills as simply being about who’s boinking whom.
Comment by barmy stoat — October 17, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
barmy stoat, it does make an interesting new sunday school answer.
Comment by britt — October 17, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
britt #301, I think my comment re free speech vs. right to privacy was not sufficiently clear. I can see where you would misunderstand me as saying that one person’s right to free speech trumps another person’s right to privacy, but this was not at all my intent. This is absolutely not true.
My point was that a given individual’s right to free speech can trump his OWN right to privacy. The two are not compatibly cited by the same person regarding the same incident or issue. You cannot claim, “I am exercising my right to free speech and speaking out in a public forum on this matter,” and then turn around and claim, “I am exercising my right to privacy on this very same matter in which I just exercised my right to free speech. I forbid everyone to tell anyone else what I have spoken about freely here in the public square.” You have, by exercising free speech on the issue, tacitly surrendered your right to privacy as regards the issue about which you spoke publicly.
This can be pretty clearly demonstrated by the hounding which celebrities face from paparazzi. While there are certainly some privacy laws which come into play as far as how much the News Media can invade the privacy of private citizens, celebrities who have volutarily placed themselves in the public eye are found by the courts to have a lessened right to privacy from News Media representatives, particularly when those celebrities present themselves in a public venue. Do lines get crossed? Yes, of course. But the courts generally allow a good deal more latititude to the “public’s right to know” about public actions taken by those who have deliberately placed themselves in the public eye than they do in the case of a private citizen
People who made donations, especially large ones, or who took part in the public campaign either for OR against Prop 8 gave up their right to privacy as to the position which they took on the issue of Prop 8 in the course of that public exercise of their free speech rights.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
I’ve been restraining myself from commenting. But. This conversation, for a person who teaches the sociology of marriage and family and the sociology of law, is fascinating.
It’s also fascinating as the product of one of those dire “what about the children” marriages (quite apparently still freaking out justices and those holding separate proms in 2009), from 1969, contracted in a state (Missouri) where two years earlier it was illegal for my parents to even date, although they met in a fairly recently desegregated high school. Regarding Bob’s arguments: Every. Single. Argument. You’ve made about same sex marriage? Was (and is, from a moral if not alway legal, standpoint) made about interracial marriage. IMNSHO, all those kids (like Lorian’s twins) are just going to become sociologists. Which. You know. Might be really, really frightening. My students might agree with that.
Comment by SarahNicole — October 17, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
*sigh* And now my comment looks extra dumb, because I kept hitting “submit” or something.
Can someone delete one of those? Thanks.
Comment by SarahNicole — October 17, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
britt #307 - You continue to misrepresent the things which I and other say. I haven’t heard one person defend the criminal actions of those who have vandalized property or sent threatening letters or “white powder” to anyone. What I HAVE said, is that such incidents were relatively few and were concentrated in a brief period in the aftermath of the vote, AND were the individual responsibility of the criminals who perpetrated them, NOT of the “LGBT Community” at large. Using a handful of individual bad acts committed by a handful of criminals as a means of condemning the entire LGBT community, and making the claim that the LDS Church and its membership is under some kind of organized attack on its rights and freedoms from some nebulous evil empire of fairies, queens and dykes is every bit as gross an exaggeration as calling the Mountain Meadows Massacre “proof” that the LDS hates all “gentiles” and wants to exterminate us all. Can you not see that?
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
And, yes, I realize you did not use the terms “fairies, queens and dykes” or “evil empire.” Those were my own literary fancy.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Henry #308 -
And yet, humans have done so and continue to do so in the case of committed, monogamous same-gender relationships, which are NOwhere condemned in the Bible, and certainly not by Christ in the Gospels and yet some who call themselves Christians continue to pass their own personal judgment on them.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Christian #310, can you please provide me some examples of where LGBT groups have disrupted LDS weddings and funerals in a manner which crosses the boundary of free speech rights into harassment? I’m aware of one incident in which a small group of Anarchists disrupted a church service (I don’t believe it was LDS) by making noise, throwing pamphlets, kissing and posting banners. But that’s the only even incident I can recall which even remotely resembles what you are describing here. Can you post me some links to news sources describing these incidents to which you are referring?
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
barmy stoat #311 - Pithy and absolutely right on the money. Thanks for that.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Britt, churches were vandalized on both sides of this issue (remember?), and I categorically denounce those cowardly acts of violence and vandalism. Some gay folks yelled the N-word to innocent bystanders. Some ugly things were said and done, but they did not rise to the height or breadth of the intimidation of Blacks (no, not even ‘in their effect’). So high-profile figures like Dallin Oaks should be more careful what they say.
That’s all I’m sayin’.
You don’t have to take my word for it. At the risk of repetition, ask any black person or read the history for yourself and tally up the numbers, rather than relying on an initial gut-reaction where you identify with one side—your ‘team’. This kind of group-sympathy is the easy, instinctive reaction.
Christian, you are right to separate what is allowed under first-amendment free speech and what we should call praiseworthy or socially acceptable. A lot of people get this wrong, and assume that since they are ‘free’ to say something, that they should suffer no rebuke for saying it.
But the problem that started this thread is one of degree and exaggeration. Don’t you think using the word pogrom (which in every traditional meaning of the word involves mob murder or violence on that scale) is continuing the trend towards the over-blown and tendentious? What if we called it genocide? There is a limit.
I am not defending the indefensible on either side. Are you, here?
Are you defending Oaks’ comparison (whether exact or not) between perceived intimidation for the public Prop 8 stand, and Westboro or widespread violence against Blacks? (effectively racial terrorism) Have you conducted a sanity check on this comparison? (Yup, the easiest way is to ask a black person.)
Because I’ll be honest with you here: on my side, I have openly questioned a lot of LGBT people when they have been overly quick to wrap themselves in the Civil Rights Movement. Sometimes the comparisons are useful. Rarely. Most times (as Lisa said at the start of this thread) it’s just bad writing and sloppy thinking to liken your efforts with any iconic struggle, or to compare the other side to Hitler or Stalin. It weakens your point and makes you look foolish.
Henry, I am sorry to say it, but your words here, at this time, are dripping with innuendo and paranoia. If you think sexual immortality is the cause for the downfall of civilizations or some other last-days panic talk, then I’m afraid we’re really on different planets. Vaya con Dios.
Stephanie, I didn’t mean to disrespect mother-love! Loving your kids still takes work, but it’s a lot easier than effective love of those who you disagree with, or the prison population, or injection drug users, or others marginalized by your (or any) ‘in-group’.
At least, I have a terrible time of it, and I’m trying to improve all the time. It’s really hard to love your enemies (or those who you perceive as your enemies, usually from a wrong view of the situation). I know I’m a little racist (even though my husband is Black), and I struggle against this character flaw all the time. I know I’m a little bigoted against others who don’t understand the ‘correct’ point of view (the one God has confirmed to me, of course), but I am working to combat this weakness.
We all have to live together and that is why it’s helpful to learn how where to draw the line between my sphere and the sphere of my neighbor—where I do not need to interfere even if I cannot accept their point of view.
I guess I’m calling for reasonable rhetoric and effective empathy, rather than the rote, sunday-school variety.
Comment by a man Zed — October 17, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
SarahNicole, excellent. Thanks. And yes, it would be particularly…interesting if my Rose became a sociologist. As a High Functioning Autistic child, her social perceptions are quite fascinating if at times highly unusual.
It would probably be very interesting to hear her opinions as a professional social observer when she becomes an adult.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Oops, I said ’sexual immortality’. If only.
Comment by a man Zed — October 17, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
#288
As a heterosexual mother of 3 I would be very comfortable with a few of my gay friends raising my children in the unfortunate event of my death. My gay friends and family members are the most loving, nurturing people I know. And also because I’m not a bigot who hides behind my religion to spread hatred of other people.
Comment by Risa — October 17, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
Re #308 -
Even if you really, truly believe that sexual immorality is the cause of society’s downfall (and it’s hard for me to grasp that anyone could truly believe anything that simplistic) and even if you really, truly believe that homosexuality is so brutally harmful, do you really think that the way to combat the immorality and “save society” is by passing laws that try to bully people into behaving the way you want them to?
Seriously! As though refusing the right to marry to homosexuals would cause all of them to say, “you know, as it turns out I’m actually only attracted to members of the opposite sex!”. Like they’d just drop the gay thing, join the LDS church, repent, marry in the temple, because society won’t let them get married. I’ll go out on a limb and say that there’s probably not a single homosexual person out there who experienced some sort of epiphany and changed their ways as a result of Prop 8. But if you truly believe what you’re saying, wouldn’t changing their “immoral behavior” be the goal?
I’m not at all on board with anything suggesting that homosexuality is the cause of society’s downfall. Just wanted to point out that even if that were the case, it’s not as though Prop 8 was going to magically steer people down a more righteous path. It’s a pretty backwards way to go about things if increasing public righteousness was the goal.
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Way back in #287, even though it’s probably been covered already:
Um. How about a book which definitively states (rather than implying) that people who don’t believe what it says are going to suffer eternal damnation, or are routinely slaughtered by the believers? Seems slightly more aggressive to me than “delusion”.
Comment by Natalie K. — October 17, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
It’s amusing that some folks who have problems with Oaks’ analogy between anticipated future persecution, and past racist prosecution, have no problem making even more extreme analogies such as “bullying.”
If anyone had said anything of the sort, that would not be an foolish, grotesque, and unreasonable inference. I don’t agree with #328, but that’s not what it said.
————
I specifically said that few if any actual LGBT groups were not the culprits, so why do you ask me to source something that I never said? Like I’ve said repeatedly, gay families are just human shields. The target for the haters isn’t rights for gays; it’s the destruction of the notions of fatherhood and motherhood, the neutering of the marriage concept. Gays are just a pretext. Most same-sex couples would accept the rights associated with marriage under the name of same-sex unions if this movement really was about them.
Comment by Christian — October 17, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
It was ordinary gay couples wanting to get married, not the gay rights organizations, that started this road to marriage equality.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 17, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Natalie #327 - Excellent point. No matter how assertive an atheist might be about his/her beliefs, I’ve never once heard one say that if you do not agree with them, you will be damned to hell for eternity, or face the judgment of God almighty. Or suffer any kind of eternal consequences at all, really.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Christian #328 -
Not true. Not at all. The people seeking rights are not “haters.” They are gay people who need civil rights protections. You’re talking to one of them right now, remember? There is no nebulous “them” who are out to destroy religion and take away your right to practice your faith according to your own conscience. That’s really kind of paranoid, you know? No one is trying to “neuter” marriage. No one is trying to “destroy motherhood or fatherhood.” The fact is that many of us ARE mothers and fathers, and we NEED those civil rights protections to help us raise our families. We pay more taxes on average than straight parents. We pay more for healthcare benefits on average than do straight parents. We often pay out exhorbitant sums in legal fees trying to put together a handful of protections for our families which are granted automatically to straight married couples and their families (and some of them even to straight couples who AREN’T married).
Please don’t belittle our attempts to protect our children, who are not responsible for their parents’ sexual orientation or for society’s prejudice against their parents, by attempting to turn our battle for equal civil rights into some kind of paranoid fantasy about unseen bad guys who you believe want to take away your right to call yourself a Christian or a father. It has nothing to do with you, Christian. It’s not ABOUT you. It’s about me, my family and my children and our rights to be together as a family and my right to protect my spouse and children with the same protections which you, your spouse and your (presumed) children take for granted.
Most same-gender couples WOULD accept the rights and privileges of marriage without the name “marriage,” though we’d feel a great deal more comfortable if we all, gay and straight, shared the same civil institution, whatever we may choose to call it. But groups like the National Organization for Marriage are determined to make sure that we don’t get those rights, whether they are called “marriage” or not.
Here in CA, they maintained that they weren’t “trying to hurt gays or take rights away from gays,” just trying to “protect the word, ‘marriage.’” They have since demonstrated that this claim was a flat-out lie, because they are now up in Washington state, attempting to take away the rights about to be granted to gay couples there to engage in Domestic Partnerships similar to those offered here in California. Washington doesn’t allow gays to marry, but just passed legislation to grant them some of the state-level rights and protections of marriage, by way of Domestic Partnerships. So now NOM is up there telling people that Domestic Partnerships are a “slippery slope” which will lead to gay marriage, and must be done away with .
They are determined not only that we never be able to legally marry, but also that we never obtain the rights of marriage by any other means. Are you aware that of the 29 or so states which have outright gay marriage bans, 18 of them also have laws or amendments preventing gays from obtaining civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other “marriage-lite” institutions? The are Virginia, Idaho, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan. Virginia probably has the most draconian policy. Theirs could conceivably be used to prevent two people of the same gender (even if they were straight) from holding a joint bank account. It has yet to be pushed to this extent, but it is worded so broadly as to exclude almost any type of business transaction or contractual arrangement between individuals of the same gender which could in any way possibly mimick rights which would be obtained by marriage. So not only will they not grant them civil unions; they won’t even let them make civil contracts to protect their partner and children from the eventualities of life.
You think there is some nebulous, hateful “them” out there, looking to harm you? Well you might be right about the first part, but I don’t think you are part of the group “they” are out to harm.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
Um, source? This sounds suspiciously like as the “feminists want to abolish separate bathrooms.” rhetoric that was so popular during the ERA era.
Comment by Slim — October 17, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Re #328
I wasn’t saying or implying that #308 was making such a claim. I was exaggerating to point out that while many feel so high and mightily that Prop 8 was a big victory for those trying to postpone an imminent, homosexuality-caused doom, the proposition doesn’t accomplish much on that front. The proposition refused homosexuals the right to marry, it didn’t manage to discourage homosexuality. Again, I didn’t vote for Prop 8 and I was in no way hoping it would discourage homosexuality in any way. This was just in response to the “homosexuality is an abomination and prop 8 was the way to fight it!” crowd.
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
By the way, Christian, I just realized you are female, not male. I apologize for any gender-related confusion in my comments to you.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Jessica #333, I thought your point was very clear and well-taken. I think it was (possibly intentionally) misrepresented in #328.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Also, I can’t help but be curious. What definition of “fatherhood” and “motherhood” are you so worried about “being dissolved”? because at it’s most basic the definitions are thus: Mother = female parent Father= Male parent. And I do believe you’re assigning homosexuals far too much power if you think them capable of changing that. So what is it?
If it’s the man goes to work, woman stays home model… I think thats already gone, for the most part, and gays had nothing to do with it.
Comment by Slim — October 17, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Lorain, (#331)
Very well said. I’m quickly becoming a fan of yours!
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Thanks, Jessica. Same goes.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
Lorian #335,
Thanks! and whoops on misspelling your name last time! And I love the simultaneous cross-complimenting we had going on!
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Slim, I suspect that Christian isn’t actually so worried about the disappearance of fatherhood and motherhood as her comments sound. I think what she is concerned about is what she sees as the possibility of disappearing “opposite-gender-pairing-parenthood.” She discounts the roles of motherhood and fatherhood unless they are practiced in direct tandem, and I suspect (based on other conversations with people who hold similiar views) that she considers two mothers parenting in tandem or two fathers parenting in tandem to be inferior to a mother-father pair parenting in tandem, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that this view is incorrect.
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
Re 330 Lorian - I know you said this seriously, but it is also kind of funny. Can you really picture an athiest saying, “God will damn you for that”? It’s an oxymoron.
Comment by Stephanie — October 17, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Stephanie - precisely. Christian proselytizing is therefore typically more forceful by degrees of magnitude than atheist proselytizing could ever be, since atheists don’t hold out a promise of either eternal reward OR eternal damnation. All they offer is whatever logic they find in their position. How “aggressive” is that, really?
Comment by Lorian — October 17, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
Re: #341 and #343
And add to the irony that those who believe in the commandments and feel justified “damning someone to hell” are also supposed to know that to make such a final judgment is really really really not their place.
Comment by Jessica — October 17, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Hi Slim (332), hi Christian (328)—Slim asks, “Um, source?”
I was wondering about this, too. Also I was wondering about the ‘human shield’ argument you (Christian) allude to. So rather than make you rehash it, I did a search through the fMh archives to find your previous posts. (I love Google site search. Try ‘human shield’.)
Christian’s human shield point. As I read up, it became clearer. I don’t want to put words into your (Christian’s) mouth, but as I read you, you consider yourself a moderate and believe same-sex couples and families are pawns (since I find ‘human shield’ a bit overblown) in a cultural struggle in which some very bad actors (or shadowy ‘movements’) are seeking to erase the age-old roles of mother and father and destroy the concept of marriage. You take particular issue with the way people throw the word ‘equal’ around. And you think this is part of a grander attack (maybe tied to post-Modernism [my guess] or Eastern schools [your words, I think]) on meaning, writ large. You know, Meaning with a capital M. Also you think we—or the movement—want to undermine the rule of law.
First, is that a fair reading of what you wrote? (albeit condensed) (By the way, I agree that people treat the word ‘equal’ sloppily.)
Second, I know this topic has been hashed out on mFh before, but with apologies and returning to the here-and now, I don’t think we are ‘human shields’ (now that I looked up what you meant). I believe you are sincere in your beliefs on this, but there is still some grandiosity in the way you paint the threat. In the way you paint us. For instance, ‘cultural genocide’ is overkill, don’t you think?
The shadowy Movement. I am pretty close to a lot of ‘movement’ folk, to use your terminology, and they—we—really don’t want to overthrow either the concept of family (except the ahistorical, 1950s sitcom version) or anyone’s actual family.
As you might guess, the ‘movement’ is not monolithic. Actually, as Suzanne (329) says, the marriage aspect is just one side of it. Many same-sex couples have yearned for marriage and pursued it in the courts, even against ‘movement’ advice. And after all, marriage is a pretty conservative personal choice. As you know, not all LGBT folks are conservative in their personal choices.
Most of us see it pragmatically. The law is a messy thing, and perhaps we can reach ‘equal protection’ more quickly by pursuing it on multiple fronts than by pushing only for an exotic, non-portable chimaera called ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partnership’.
We—I—really do want fair treatment, a legal standard of ‘equal protection’, not an erasure of the differences between men and women, mothers and fathers, or the concept of marriage.
But speaking of the concept of marriage, aren’t marriages already pretty diverse? I mean, the opposite-sex kind. And families? Are you advocating that we take your personal toolkit of social criticism (well-thought-out though it might be) and use that as the yardstick for what is allowable in marriage?
Or maybe we throw in some more natural-law or evolutionary-psychology arguments (which seems to be where you’re coming from) and decide that’s natural and everything else is an abomination?
[Sorry, my word, not yours.]
And for that matter, although I honor maleness and femaleness, that’s a complex issue, too, isn’t it? With a large number of intersex births throughout history, isn’t it fair for us to see people—not as equal in every sense, but as deserving of equal protection under the law? And deserving of equal opportunities to pursue life, liberty, and personal happiness as they see fit? Within reasonable bounds?
(The percentage of intersex births is not large… Maybe 0.1% or somewhat smaller, but multiply that by hundreds of millions or billions and you are talking about a large absolute number of human souls.)
I do not want to destroy Meaning, masculinity, femininity, Motherhood (or apple pie). Or the rule of law. In fact, most movement people I know (like movement folks in most minority groups) see the rule of law as our friend. Just as it is a friend of the LDS Church.
And I am a movement person. Or at least my husband is. (He has more energy than I do. Who has the time to attend all the meetings?)
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Psst, Lorian (334), I think Christian is male.
[Newbie? Introduce Yourself (125)
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2554#comment-727133]
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 12:43 am
334 Uh uh. He is mos def male. Nice gender-blurring though, Lorian. And you say the Gay agenda isn’t aggressive; I guess if total emasculation of the Mormon Warrior Male isn’t aggressive…
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 12:46 am
I love the irony here of confusing CHristian’s gender in this particular post. Can’t you people tell who is female and who is male by their comments?
The destruction of gender differences has already begun…
This makes me smile because I am constantly wondering about the gender os people’s posts. And then I think to myself, “Why does it matter?”
Zed, LOVED #345. So when is the fmh reunion?
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 18, 2009 @ 9:32 am
Sorry for the typos. Sloppy, sloppy…
Comment by Lawyer Lady — October 18, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Zed 346 - Okay. I dunno. I thought I saw a comment on Reese’s thread indicating Christian was female. But it can be so difficult to determine gender online.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:54 am
CWC -
:lol: 
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:55 am
I agree. Generally, those actually seeking substantive rights (as opposed to the rewriting of our language) are not haters. They don’t generally spread blood libels against us, vandalize our churches, or disrupt our meetings or weddings.
Those that do vandalize, disrupt, and spread blood libels. use gay rights as race issues were used in the Romney campaign — as a pretext for hatred. I’m surprised that you of all people would have a problem with my saying that.
Last time I checked I am male, but please don’t apologize; your error was neither offensive nor germane. And while we have little if any theology in common, I enjoy your comments and have seen nothing that would make me classify you a “hater.” I would hope that you’d say the same for me.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:43 am
I don’t. If same-sex couples and their families had set the agenda, we’d already have a national compromise on same-sex unions. Hell, even Bush said he’d support that, but no one was listening because they were all fighting over the word “marriage.” Legal postmodernists and cultural nihilists have constructed the debate so that anyone that resists the neutering of the marriage concept, ends up hurting same-sex couples and their families. This is an exact parallel of placing military targets within an innocent human shield population.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Spread “blood libels?” Can you please elaborate, Christian.
And thanks for your reading and appreciation of my comments. I spend a great deal of time (at times, more than I should) on the internet, hoping to find places and ways to dialogue with those who may not have the opportunity in their daily lives to spend time getting to know someone who is gay. Having the opportunity to share my perspectives and experiences with others whose experiences and beliefs differ from my own, but who are willing to engage in meaningful and substantive conversation, is something for which I feel deep gratitude. This type of dialogue is something to which I feel God has called me.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:00 am
Getting weirder and weirder, Christian. You mean when the queer landlords teach the peasant heterosexual gentiles that Mormons are responsible for all their ills and as cherry on that hate-cake; Mormons kill virgin gentile heterosexuals to make their Cosmopolitans (that’s the gays, lesbians use the blood in their Gatorade when they play their unholy Softball)?
That blood libel? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, normal. I guess.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 11:07 am
As far as “seeking a rewrite of our language,” I presume you are referring to those of us gay people who have gotten married or who seek to marry our partners.
My partner of almost 19 years and I were finally able to marry a year ago last June, three days after the first gay couples in California were allowed to obtain marriage licenses. We treasure our marriage, even though it is only recognized at the state level and one of the 18,000 or so which were able to be performed between June and the November vote.
We are legally married and will remain so, and, even though it is at this point a “second-class” marriage, in that it is not portable from state-to-state and is not recognized by the federal government, it is more than we had two years ago, as Registered Domestic Partners, or 10 years ago, as “legal strangers.” It is a recognition by the state that our relationship and our lives are just as real and as valuable to society as those of any other couple, and our children and ourselves just as deserving of the security that societal recognition brings to familial ties.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Um Christian, before you start accusing people of this or that you should really learn what the term means …..
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 18, 2009 @ 11:15 am
This is so not true, Christian. Did you miss my earlier post about the 18 states which have outright bans on gay civil unions and domestic partnerships? And one of the sticking points for conservatives on putting together and endorsing an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment at the federal level was whether it would only ban marriage or would also ban other types of unions for gays. Heck, Christian, there are still a significant percentage of social conservatives who believe that we are all child molesters and that gay sex should be recriminalized. Don’t you know that it WAS a criminal act in many states even up until just a few years ago? When I came out, back in the late 70’s/early 80’s, a gay person had to be really, really careful about being “obvious” in public, because in many states we could be jailed, and were sometimes confined against our will in mental institutions. Exchanging a kiss with our loved one in a public place could get us arrested, and there were cases where law enforcement actually spied on people in the privacy of their homes and arrested them for having sex with their loved one in the privacy of their own bedroom.
You think that all we have to do is humbly stand before congress, hat in hand and say, “Please sir, I want a few rights. I don’t care if they are the same rights as you give straight people. And you can call them Sodomrights, if you like. Just please, give me a couple of rights…” and congress would be all over it, passing laws willy nilly until we were all happy?
I’m sorry, Christian, but that’s just not realisitic.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Zed, your human shields paragraph is a refreshingly accurate summation of my argument on the topic.
However, I have based no arguments in natural law. Evolutionary psychology is an unfamiliar term to me, but might be accurate. Certainly the marriage culture seems to be an ecological niche of sorts, since every human civilization that has developed beyond the early agricultural stage, has developed a concept of marriage (a promise of a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman) and corresponding concepts of husband, wife, and father. Pre-marriage cultures already have a mother concept, of course; it’s the father notion that springs from marriage.
I appreciate your clarifying that “abomination” was your word, not mine, but the very concept has no equivalent in my argument. I don’t consider the English language to be an abomination, but when this country used the strong arm of the state to try to wipe out the Navaho language and replace it with English, it engaged in cultural genocide, no?
[neutered marriage] is not an “abomination”; it’s simply a different concept from marriage. Marriage itself is a concept that deserves preservation, and requires its own term in order for the idea to be preservable. And no other term would work for that effect.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:27 am
NO, before you accuse me of not knowing what a term means, and referring me to the wikipedia article, you should read that article in its entirety, not just the first paragraph.
Lorian, the conservatives on this issue are at most 40% of the vote, according to the last gallup poll I saw on this subject. The moderates oppose redefinition of the word marriage but would support ssus. If the issue was framed in terms of national recognition of same-sex unions (portable from state to state) the conservatives would be in the minority.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:31 am
I must say, Christian, that your substitution of your term, “neutered” marriage for gay marriage pains me, as well as making the conversation more confusing. There is nothing “neutered” about my marriage. Neither my partner nor myself is a “neutered” being. We are both women, very much so, and our marriage is a marriage between two complete, intact, loving women. When you speak of neutering, I think of space creatures of unspecified gender, or men who were made physical eunuchs by some cruel authority.
Gay people are fully human, fully intact, loving, sexual human beings, not pathetic, neutered creatures. Additionally, when we marry, it does not affect our straight neighbors in any way. It does not cause our straight male neighbors to become eunuchs, or our straight female neighbors to magically lose their reproductive organs. Allowing us to marry does not in an substantive way change or even affect the marriages of our straight neighbors. It simply grants us the basic civil rights and protections we need in order to care for our spouses in old age and raise our children in safety and security.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Lorian, I have never said that your relationship or anyone’s relationship threatens mine, and I would appreciate if you’d stop imputing straw man arguments to me.
I have to say, Lorian, that your assumption that “neutered” marriage = gay marriage pains me.
Marriage is an exchange of promises that a man and woman will be unified for life.
Neutered “marriage” is the redefinition of marriage in general foisted on us by the MA Supreme Court, i.e. a union of two persons of indeterminate gender. State imposition of a neutered marriage concept is what threatens our ability to communicate the real idea of marriage to the next generation.
(And please no one bore and insult everyone’s intelligence by asserting that what I call the “real” idea of marriage is just my opinion. That’s too bleeding obvious to require pointing out. I’m not saying that other relationships aren’t real, or that they aren’t meaningful. I’m saying that the term marriage as cultures have understood it over millenia does not encompass all types of relationship.)
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Christian #361 -
I’m sorry to have to keep disagreeing with you, Christian, but your opinion here is simply not bourne out by the facts. Eighteen states have outright bans on ANY state recognition of same-gender relationships, no matter what such recognition is called. NOM, the heavily LDS-funded “National Organization for Marriage” is in Washington as we speak, preparing to take away newly attained Domestic Partnership rights from the gay people up there, come the November elections in a couple of weeks.
There is no conservative or even “moderate” voice clamoring to grant civil rights protections to gay couples. As soon as such groups accomplish the goal of taking away any possibility of marriage from gay couples, they then proceed to blocking any possible recognition of our relationships, whatsoever. If they accomplish that goal, their next step will be recriminalization of our relationships, in the hopes that, if they make us criminals, we will be “motivated” to “change” our sexual orientation to conform to what they believe is “normal.”
I do recognize that there are some people who would support a “separate but ‘equal’” (though we’ve clearly stated as a society in other venues that “separate” is NEVER “equal”) status for gay couples, as long as it’s not called marriage. But such people who maintain this position are rarely if ever involved in actively working for such a status. It is often simply a comfortable aphorism which they can toss about in social settings as a means of excusing their lack of support for the civil rights of their gay neighbors. It’s a way of putting the onus of responsibilty on gay people for their lack of civil rights; a means of saying, “If you only would ask for civil rights respectfully, using exactly the right tone and words, you’d have gotten them long ago! Society’s discrimination against you is your own fault!”
It is very much like the “uppity nigger” comments people used to make during the black civil rights struggle, where they would blame blacks for bringing about their own discrimination hardships, because they weren’t respectful, and were out marching in the streets instead of staying home politely and respectfully keeping out of the way of their white “betters.”
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 11:55 am
360 I think she read it, I did and I still don’t see where you’re going with it. I thought the article was weird in a classically wiki way for eliding the concept of “otherness” that allows blood libel to spread and it’s bizarre blending of the UN and Emperor Frederick; they made it sound like the Emperor of Germany convened an investigative panel to respond to the United Nations! That kind of cracked me up - made me free associate about a steampunk style blended time jumping history…but I digress.
Let em take a stab at your intention.
I’ll start with my own (and I think most people’s) understanding of blood libel: it was, (as my awesomely funny *ahem* parody eluded to) a belief most likely perpetuated by wealthy landowners in Eastern Europe (who used Jews to collect their rent among the peasantry) that Jews used the blood of virgin gentiles in their matzo. This was wildly successful for two reasons:1) it kept the peasant ire pointed at the collectors (who were often denied any other job besides that or moneylending) and it exploited that very human distrust of foreignness. Jews ate matzo, gentiles didn’t. We fear what we don’t know.
So maybe what Christian was eluding to was that LGBT groups attempted to exploit the “otherness” of Mormons; they wear funny underwear, what really goes on in those “temples”, they aint like us red blooded, Americans, etc…
In which case, you probably should have said that, Christian. Because none of that rises to the belief of “blood libel” which, as the name seems to suggest, requires that someone is taking actual, physical, human blood for nefarious purposes.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
Christian #362 -
While this statement is literally true, still it does not prove the claim that marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman, that marriage has always meant essentially the same things to all people, or even that marriage has always meant exclusively relationships between people of opposite genders.
There is some good evidence to suggest that other cultures, historically have had periods of time where same-gender relationships were recognized as marriages.
Case in point is Daniel and Ashpenaz. Ashpenaz was the chief of the Eunuchs. Daniel lived with the eunuchs and was apparently one of them. Incidentally, in ancient Hebrew, the word “eunuch” could mean not only someone whose genitalia had been surgically or accidentally removed, but also, a man who was not sexually interested in women, or who had vowed himself to never have sexual relations with women. Ashpenaz is describe in the Bible as having been inspired by God to have a “tender love” for Daniel — a Hebrew term which is elsewhere used to describe the love of a husband for his wife.
There is also a ceremony described in some ancient documents of the Catholic church for formally blessing a union between two men.
Since “marriage” for many millennia was nothing more formal than an agreement between two people to have sex, or even simply a man choosing a woman to rape and then bringing her home to cook for him and raise his offspring (no real agreement required on her part, especially if her dad was okay with it), it’s really not accurate to describe historical “marriage” according to our modern terms. Additionally, the church did not involve itself too deeply in the question of marriage at all until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Prior to that, marriages were mostly a social/civil function administered by the state for civil purposes. The church involved itself at the level of forbidding or preventing their dissolution, but not in administering their initiation. In fact, in many places a man, particularly a landowner, could not legally marry a woman until he had gotten her pregnant or produced offspring by her, because it would have created mass societal confusion for a landowning man to marry an infertile woman and have no heirs, particularly since the church frowned upon divorce, and the production of heirs through adulterous relationships (not that this wasn’t done, of course).
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Hi cwc. I’m alluding specifically to folks that use the fact that one of the laramie killers was an (LDS-adopted) ex-mormon who had at one point been made a deacon, to impute the crucifixion of Matthew Shepard to the LDS church. That’s blood libel, and probably one of the ones for which the wiki articles lists mormons as one of the groups that have been subject to blood libel.
I agree that none of the “otherness” stuff you listed was blood libel, cwc. Blood libel involves false accusations of ritual murder, or more broadly, of religiously prescribed murder or child molestation.
And again, I specifically said that LGBT groups were not, AFAIK, the ones passing on the blood libels.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Hey Christian, I appreciate your openness, especially as I read back to a lot of your previous posts.
So many of us on both sides of any contentious issue are so accustomed to responding to the usual arguments that sometimes we substitute those for the actual arguments being proffered. We end up giving the right parry to the wrong thrust.
But in this case, I have to admit what you are offering is not one of the usual arguments. I’m not sure I could call it moderate. Not as stated here.
Blood libel, human shields, cultural genocide. Hey Christian, tell me if I get this right. Your blood libel idea in this case is related to your human shield idea. You are saying that the nihilist, anti-civilization movement has seized upon the sympathetic example—perhaps unwitting—of same-sex couples or families, especially those with children.
I believe you are saying that these families are a lie. They do not represent what gay people really want, or what the movement wants, hiding behind them. And you are saying that this is a despicable tactic, because these human shields are being used as a front to turn away artillery fire—justified, you imply—which would take out these avowed enemies of all we (well, society) should hold dear. The shadowy figures holding the hostages, they are the actual enemy.
This is the blood libel as you paint it. By pointing to their vulnerable hostages and crying, “You are tearing apart our families! You are hurting our children!” these terrorists (radical foes of civilization) are using the tactic of blood libel against their ideological opponents.
Terrorist is my word. But you use an even stronger accusation—cultural genocide. You justify this label because… well, here I get a little hazy… because the movement wants to redefine the word marriage to mean something it has never meant. And this is the moral equivalent to mass-murder with the goal of extinction of an identifiable (usually ethnic) group on a massive scale, because… well, because…
Shoot, I’m afraid I’m stuck…
Ah! I think I got it. [I am not trying to be flippant here by sharing my thought process, I’m genuinely trying to understand your points.]
You are using this term rhetorically, perhaps? With a bit of overstatement to make your point? We (the movement) are guilty of genocide (or will be, if we get our way), because we will extinguish an entire culture (thus, cultural genocide) on a massive scale. An entire way of life, wrecked, murdered, destroyed.
Do I have it right?
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
CWC #364
Or perhaps, to be fair to Christian, he was referring to actual, historical aspects of LDS history, such as the “blood oaths” which used to be made; and a handful of rather bloodthirsty threats against non-Mormons made by leaders such as Brigham Young, which are well-documented, but perhaps taken out-of-context; or to the popular perception of Mountain Meadows; and claiming that such issues are sometimes used (exploited?) by outsiders as a means of claiming that since Mormonism has such a bloody history, perhaps modern Mormons are capable of further bloodshed?
I could see where Christian might view such statements as “blood libel,” but since they are based upon at least a few kernels of historic truth, they really aren’t quite the same as the centuries-old claims that Jews make matzoh with the blood of Christian babies. It would seem to be yet another case of hyperbole, as has been seen so frequently throughout this thread. Claiming that Mormons may be in some way bloodthirsty based upon historical incidents is also hyperbolic and not helpful to thoughtful dialog — I think we can all agree on that. But comparing it to discrimination against the Jews in medieval Europe (and more modern Europe, as far as that goes) is also hyperbole (very similar hyperbole, in fact, to that referenced in Elder Oaks’ statement in the OP, interestingly enough), and not particularly helpful to rational dialog, either.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Lorian, please feel free to disagree with me about the facts or the law, but do allow me to represent my own position and point of view.
Your “uppity nigger” analogy not only insults me and impedes meaningful discussion, but trivializes one of the worst atrocities in history.
Black civil rights advocates were fighting over fundamental civil rights. The facts here are different here, because the issue that divides you from the moderates is a single word: “marriage.” You do not have a fundamental civil right to change our vocabulary, or to rewrite history.
Moderates stayed home or voted with the conservatives in those 18 states because they were presented with only two choices: eliminate civil unions, or risk having postmodern courts neuter the marriage term.
I would like voters to have more choices on the table. Why does that prospect frighten you?
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
#346 Newbie here - the one who submitted the OP to Lisa. Wow, what a thread! First, I love the enlightened comments. I grew up and still live in LA and learned about love and kindess to others from my neighbors, work associates and local ward members. I count all people of all colors and cultures and gender identities as my brothers and sisters because I interact with them EVERY SINGLE DAY and absolutely love all the good and wonderful things that diversity can bring. Second, I am sad for our church leadership. I am sad because they seem to be operating from a postion of fear. Fear of feminists, fear of gays, fear of blacks, fear of “so called intellectuals and scholars.” Fear that the “Patriarchal Order” that they have enjoyed might start to fall apart as technology shrinks our globe. My wish is for them to embrace people of all kinds, in all the church positions and become a church of love and service. I’m not a young member anymore, in fact, I’m a bit of an old one which means I’m not as easily frightened by people. I wonder why the church leadership is?
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Okay, Zed, you could be right. I may have misunderstood Christian’s point. I guess that’s why it’s important to define terms like “blood libel” and “cultural genocide” when they are used in drastically different ways from their typical context. I know I’m confused.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Um — this claim might politely be called strained
The wiki article is pretty clearly alluding to stories about the Danites and LDS temple rituals.
‘Nuff said.
Comment by obi-wan — October 18, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Newbie, please let me take this opportunity to thank you for a wonderful thread, even though we’ve probably taken it on quite a few turns no one could have seen coming…
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
I don’t like what I said in my above post about how I “interact with them”. Am I part of the problem, too? People are not a “them” - there is no “me” and “them” - that’s the problem. The reality is there is just “us”, all of us together, climbing the same mountain, just taking different paths. That’s all.
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Ah! Christian (366), thanks for that clarification. Then maybe I got your use of human shield right, but now I think you were using blood libel more specifically.
We Mormons, by the way, historically have also used blood libel (or at least accusations that persecuting groups had captured and murdered our children).
Sadly it’s a common tactic to get human beings aroused and motivated. Terrible, yes. Evil, yes. But historically repeated over and over again.
In fact, it is one of the only ways to get peaceful human beings to become violent or to commit atrocities, themselves. You warn them that their children are being attacked, regardless of whether it’s true. For greatest effect, you say they are not only being attacked, but their bodies are being violated or mutilated in some grotesque way.
I will say this mildly: I think the charges of blood libel are not justified in this case, and in fact are a bit irresponsible. Same with genocide.
We are going to have a very hard time hearing each other if fling around this screaming rhetoric. I am calling for a sense of proportion and that we conform more conservatively to the actual meaning of these words and phrases.
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Thanks Lorian - by the way, I am secretly one of your sister-wives. Shhhh. Don’t tell!
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
obi-wan, that makes sense. I guessed that it was the Danites and similar LDS history, and would have never thought it was about Matthew Shepard. I may recall having at one point heard about one of the killers being ex-LDS, but had long ago forgotten that information. I never would have specifically held the LDS Church responsible for Matthew Shepard’s murder, though in a larger sense, of course, ALL of the religious groups which foster intolerance against gays by their public positions share some responsibility at some level for the many acts of violence committed agaisnt GLBT persons. But yeah, I would never have hooked that up with the term “blood libel.”
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Newbie!!! Oh goodie!!! I love having such wonderful sister-wives!!! This whole polygamy thing is a lot more fun than I ever expected it would be. :giggle:
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Zed #375 -
Hear, hear.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Wow, I’m pretty surprised that this topic is still being allowed to continue. It seems (in my cursory skimming of the comments since I last checked) to have yet again devolved into the argument about legalizing homosexual marriage itself. I don’t want to get into that to much yet again, because I’m not sure there is much left to say which won’t just be a carbon copy of the other several dozen homosexual marriage arguments. On the issue of homosexual marriage per se, I will say only this:
The arguments of those in favor of restricting the right of people and religions to pursue their own consciences have frequently been inconsistent. They say that, as a civil matter, they have a right to take this stand. But their primary justification for the stand is religious (”God says homosexuality is an abomination”). If you are going to justify this as a civil matter, then you cannot use God’s will as the justification. If, on the other hand, you are going to claim that marriage is a religious matter, and so bound by religious arguments, then you cannot claim that government has a role in the issue: religions should be left to themselves in making that determination for themselves.
Those who claim that the goal of the homosexual rights movement is “The destruction of the notions of fatherhood and motherhood” need to get back to reality. It is true that the homosexual movement is rejecting the notion that certain attributes and certain roles in marriage are the domain of any given sex, but then, as the recent conversation on the post about Feminism shows, that is also the goal of many of us heteros (and is agreed to by at least some who consider themselves conservative).
And those who claim that the majority have the absolute right to dictate morality in society are not consistent with many of the most prominent founders of our nation. One of the major concerns of Madison, Jefferson, and Mason (just to name a few) was that the rights of the minority be protected from the tyranny of the majority. And freedom of conscience in religious matters (which most people here who support the restriction of marriage have indicated through their arguments that they believe marriage to be a crucial religious matter) was preeminent in their minds. These people need to consider the Golden Rule: Would they believe it ethical and politically acceptable if the majority felt that the “secret, nefarious” activities of the temple were contrary to the public morality and banned? What if the majority felt that proselyting of the Mormon faith were harmful to the public morality and decided to ban that activity? What if the “zero-population” crowd were to prevail, and the majority felt it was harmful to the public welfare for families to have children; would you accept that as politically acceptable? I suspect not. Above all, we must not be hypocrites. If we believe it is fundamental to the principles of this nation that we be accorded right to worship and act according to the dictates of our consciences, we must seek to protect that right for others, regardless of how we feel about how they use that right.
And with that, I’ll say no more in this conversation about homosexual marriage specifically. I have been dissuaded from posting about Oaks’ talk on my own blog, so I’ll share my thoughts on the aspects not related to the black civil rights analogy shortly (assuming the thread hasn’t been closed by then…)
Comment by Derek — October 18, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
368 Right, blood oaths and blood atonement are of course, real. And John Remy has written some great things about the old Temple rights that may be inappropriate to link her, but for anyone who’s interested, you can check out www.mindonfire.com .
Thanks for clarifying with the Matthew Shepard association. I strongly disagree with your characterization of it however. Here is how I see that: a young gay man was murdered in a particularly vicious way. People wondered what motivated his murderers. Did their schools teach them to be afraid or violent of gay people (for the record, having worked with many teachers and some of the schools that both boys attended, that is an emphatic yes) did they belong to a religion that encouraged homophobia, were they members of a fraternity or any other organization that encouraged this behavior? Had they been Episcopalian that would have been mined for possible explanations as well. Did their families leave the main body when gay priests were ordained? Was he taught that homosexuals were equal in the yes of God, beloved as they were?
But he wasn’t Episcopalian, he was quasi- Mormon. I know you are big on Society with a capital S, Christian and in this instance, so am I. As a Society we are invested in keeping this from happening again. That means we look really hard at ourselves, our churches, our schools, our souls; and we don’t f**king blink.
Well, that’s what we should do anyway.
Here in Wyoming, ten years on, Matthew Shepards murder has been downgraded to a drug deal gone wrong by two troubled kids who shouldn’t be in jail for what a fag made them do. We are close to Colorado so casual mentions of school shooting will get you suspended, but 45 miles from where Matt was propped on a fence and left to die, the consequence for calling a kid a f*ggot is…nothing.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Love marriage. Actually I think the biggest shift in marriage was from property-based and family-based marriage to love marriage. Adding the small minority of same-sex claimants to the cohort of the married is a minor change compared to the revolution of love marriage!
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Derek, all great points. And if your wives are getting out of control, here, I’ll take a goodly share of the blame.
I had been checking your blog for your post on Elder Oaks’ talk, and wondered why it wasn’t there. I’ll look forward to seeing your comments here.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Thank you Derek, for being an intelligent voice of reason. I have an incredible respect for your comments. Please, I would very much like to hear your comments about Oaks’ talk. In my younger years, I was a big fan of his. Now that I’m older and wiser to the way the world works, I’m disappointed if this is how he thinks. When I was young, I was under the impression of being a member in an innovative, progressive church. Currently the leadership and spokespeople are giving me the impression that it is much the opposite and it is a feeling that hurts very much.
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Oh, and Zed? You are awesome!
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Christian #369 -
I must respectfully disagree. The issues are extremely similar. Marriage is not the only civil rights protection GLBT persons are lacking. In thirty states of this nation, we can still legally be fired from or denied employment strictly on the basis of our sexual orientation; denied the purchase or rental of a home, or even evicted from our rental property, exclusively on the basis of the fact that we are gay; and denied access to public accommodations, such as hotel rooms, service in restaurants, etc., solely because we are gay. It is perfectly legal to do so in the majority of states in this nation. We are lacking FAR more rights than simply the right to call ourselves “married.”
Who is rewriting history? And as to changing vocabulary or redefining words in the dictionary, language is not a static science. It is, rather, an ever-changing, ever-evolving art form, in which old words are constantly taking on new meanings even as new words are being coined to describe old concepts. Suggesting that ANY word has meant the exact same thing “at all times an in all places” is, itself, historical revisionism, not the reverse.
Where did I say that it frightens me? No, I would say, rather, that it insults me, because it implies that I as a gay person, am less human, less valuable to society, less deserving of equal civil rights than my fellow citizens. It implies that my relationship to my partner is less noble, less valuable to society and less deserving of equal civil protections than are the relationships of my straight neighbors.
According a separate status to gay people is no different than according a separate status to black people by means of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Hi Derek (380), you’re right. I found this thread because my husband is Black and we heard the Oaks quote.
My husband gets along great with my Mormon family, but at that moment I think I was actually able to hear my his eyes roll back into his head.
Then Google led me here.
But I realize as a newbie myself, I am guilty of rehashing a lot of what was said on mFh previously as it arose once more.
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
It may sound like wishful revisionism but I really don’t see it that way. “They” are “us.” Our language reflects our new reality, the way it always has.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
If anyone needs directions to the best polygamist queer wedding EVER go here .
I hope you all have your plane tickets…
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Drat, CWC. It’s a bad link. I was really looking forward to seeing that!
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Really, Lorian, it’s not my fault that NO cited an article that states in paragraph 2 that mormons have been victims of blood libel. But I’m happy to drop that unnecessary tangent.
——
“Your blood libel idea in this case is related to your human shield idea.”
No. But Zed, you have made a real effort to honestly respond to my actual position, so if you read it that way, then I should have left blood libel out. There aren’t that many examples of it at this time, and I hope that the Shephard ones that I’ve recently encounted (off this forum) are abberations and not a growing trend.
I could link you other forums where I’ve used “blood libel” to refer to the way that some folks misuse Genesis’ account Sodom’s treatment of strangers, to smear homosexuals in general. I realize that usage of blood libel is arguably technically innacurate. But we’re talking about a lie that depicts acts that are tantamount to ritual murder, to smear an entire class of people. In that respect, blood libel seemed apt, if not precisely accurate.
My aims are moderate with respect to the current dicotomy of rewriting marriage vs. giving same-sex couples substantive rights. But unlike the 30-35% of Americans that hold my position, I’m considerably more outspoken; I’m not lukewarm in my convictions, so perhaps you are right that the word moderate doesn’t quite fit me. How about Menchevik?
There’s no one that pisses off the Bolsheviks like a Menchevik.
“Cultural genocide,” unlike actual genocide, does not necessarily involve any violence or even *malice.* Well-meaning american bureaucrats tried to stomp out the Navaho language, thinking the kids would be better off if they were assimilated, but this was cultural genocide despite the arguably noble intentions.
I suppose it seems inconsistent for me to defend a broadened usage of blood libel on grounds that it’s emotionally apt, while defending a precise usage of “cultural genocide” in the face of your criticism that (if I understand you correctly) I’m thumbing my nose at Godwin’s law. The common consistent thread is that I’m talking about significant and relavant issues where precise and non-inflammatory terminology aren’t readily available, and that my intent is to convey my meaning, not to deceive, equivocate, or to inflame.
I also recognize that many who use the term “marriage” for what I would call neutered marriage, do so because no other term is readily available, and not out of any intent to deceive, equivocate, or inflame. Equivocation gets involved when someone makes an argument like this:
1. Courts have recognized a fundamental civil right to marry.
2. Therefore same-sex couples have a fundamental civil right to marry.
3. Therefore refusal to apply the word “marriage” to a same-sex couple denies them a fundamental civil right.
That argument is equivocation, because the fundamental civil right assigned by the courts, is grounded in court reasoning that unambiguously denotes the longstanding gendered concept of marriage.
No. Genocide =/= cultural genocide.
Not quite. While we’re on the Wiki, “Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons.”
Marriage, including its gendered distinction, is a cultural heritage of many peoples. To deliberately destroy that heritage, by redefining terms (what Orwell called “newspeak”) is cultural genocide. But to me, the point isn’t the guilt of those trying to use newspeak to obliterate the concept that we now call marriage. I’m simply saying that reasonable persons and moderates can, and do, resist what they perceive as cultural genocide. That they can and do join forces with conservatives (restricting same-sex unions in 18 states and enacting DOMA which hampers federal and inter-state recognitions of SSUs) in order to prevent cultural genocide.
That these people would otherwise be on your side, and you would have a majority supporting equality of substantive rights, if the deconstruction of word “marriage” were not on the table.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Hi newbie! (370, 374, 376, 384, 385… not to mention original comment) Thanks! You too! And to all my virtual, plural sister-brother-husband-wives.
And thanks to people on all sides willing to engage, read, and write.
(I followed the blog link and discovered Christian is actually pretty darn cute… Oh! Sorry! I am so going to the Telestial Kingdom. This is why I tell my husband to hide the name page when he’s grading papers, so he’s not soft on the cute ones.)
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
a man Zed,
Great comment!!
Slight tangent: I get all hot under the collar when people talk about the qualities of marriage “throughout history” because I specialize in Roman social history. All our evidence suggests that their marriages could be entered into and disposed of quite easily, and were very frequently property-based and family-based. Not to mention the incredible double standard — women who engaged in extramarital sex could be severely punished (up to and including death), but it’s all fine and dandy if the paterfamilias wants to sleep with the slave girls. So when people talk about “marriage throughout the ages” I want to tell them about THAT age and see how they like it.
And don’t get me started on how “the Roman empire fell because they tolerated homosexuality.” Puh-LEEZE. I will be sorry for anyone who ever actually says that to my face. It’ll be like shooting fish in a barrel.
OH so many good comments here. And actually, pretty civil, considering how strongly people feel about their positions. I’m impressed and I’ve been enlightened by comments on both sides, but especially by comments from Lorian. I might want to get in on that sister wife thing.
Comment by xenologue — October 18, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Oh, and I was referring to #382 when I said “great comment”. My bad.
Comment by xenologue — October 18, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Christian, I would posit to you that the fact that people have not generally thought much about the possibility that two people of the same gender might participate in a marital relationship does not necessarily prove “unequivocally” or “unabiguously” that such a thing can (or should) never be the case. The fact that traditionally one thing has not been associated with another does not mean that no such association can EVER be drawn between them.
Nor does allowing gays to participate in civil marriage in away way deny to straight people their “cultural heritage” of marrying another straigth person of the opposite gender. You appear to be claiming here (#391) that allowing gays to marry effectively removes from straight people the possibility that they can engage in a cultural heritage of opposite-gendered marriage. It is as though allowing a gay couple to civilly marriage so “taints” the entire concept of “marriage” that the word is forever ruined for straight usage.
Why is the definition of CIVIL marriage so very important to you, Christian? Why do the actions of a few gay people and their use of the word to describe their relationships have such a drastic effect, in your view, upon the entire concept of civil marriage, and, really, what does that have to do with religious/sacramental marriage, which is, as we’ve established earlier, a separate institution all together?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
I think this is the most refreshingly accurate comment I have ever read.
Comment by Stephanie — October 18, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
So what is the record for the most comments on any thread on FMH?
Comment by Stephanie — October 18, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Trying to deprive Navaho children of their language was cultural genocide, because language is part of their cultural heritage.
Dynamiting up the Afghan Buddha statues was cultural genocide, because those statues were part of Afghan cultural heritage. Even if the Taliban left other aspects of cultural heritage intact.
I’m not making an argument based on guilt; that’s a poor persuader. I’m saying that people will vote to protect their cultural heritage, and that they are right to do so if there’s no fundamental civil right being hurt by that heritage. A word is not a fundamental civil right.
Brown v. Board of Education didn’t rule over the right to a word. The Court didn’t say that we had to call black kids white. Brown gave everyone access to the same physical institutions — schools. Here, no one’s saying that ssus need to use different courthouses.
Rationally, Marriage and SSUs should be similar in many respects but distinct both in a few internal regulatory respects, and also in the public function. Marriage isn’t merely a convenience for the couple, but also fosters a situation where a child is more likely to be raised by a father and a mother. SSUs don’t accomplish that. So there’s a distinction in public function.
As far as internal workings, it would be unreasonable and unfair
1. to apply the presumption of paternity, as designed in many states, to a same-sex couple. MA courts say that it’s now a neuter “presumption of parenthood” but that’s absurd in application to many couples, since a man could conceive a child with a woman without reasonable knowledge by his spouse (whether that spouse was male or female).
2. To apply to a same-sex couple the rules of some states that a marriage without vaginal “consummation” can be annulled.
Distinct social function plus distinct internal workings means that we can and should distinguish marriage from ssus, and that this does not implicate substantive equality between “straights” and “gays.”
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Xenologue - great points.
This in particular struck a chord:
You were speaking here of Roman civilization, but it occurs to me that the same can, I believe, be said of the early history of LDS marriages, in which, it appears, divorce and remarriage was quite common, and accepted with a good deal less prejudice than it was in the general population of the day.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Comment 400 should be:
“Mawwiage! Mawwiage is what brings us here togethaaaaa…. todaaaay….”
Comment by xenologue — October 18, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
I’m going to make this my only attempt to be snarky at Bro. Oaks’ talk: Is this the “ancient order” that needs defending?
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
And xenologue,
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Christian #398 - One problem with your argument is that conservatives are at least as hung up on the word “marriage” as are gays, if not more so. Most gay people are, as I’ve said, willing to compromise on the word if absolutely equal rights are attached. Most conservatives are perfectly willing to see gays permanently denied equal civil rights in order to “protect” a single word from an unnamed and undefinable (and really pretty spurious) “threat.”
I would be absolutely willing to have my civil marriage to my spouse renamed a “civil union,” on one condition: that every civil marriage in this country be changed simultaneously to a “civil union.” I am much less invested in the “word” marriage, than in the fact that we all enter into the same civil contract carrying the same civil rights, benefits and protections for our families. I don’t care what we all agree to call it, but it cannot be two separate entities, one for straight people and one for gay people, else we are establishing two separate (and thereby unequal) classes of citizenship.
Most straight people I’ve met who were hung up on “protecting the word marriage,” (with a handful of exceptions) were equally unwilling to give up having the word “marriage” no long apply to their civil union licensed by the state. Are you?
If we made all civil marriages into civil unions, then marrieage would be solely a term for sacramental blessings granted by various religious bodies and authorities. Incidentally, gays would still be able to obtain them, because there are any number of churches now who will gladly allow gay couples to obtain religious/sacramental marriage under their auspices.
The problem, though, ultimately — even if all of the above was resolved — is that we would still be out of step with much of the rest of the world, who still consider the civil contract they obtain through their government a “civil marriage.” But I suppose we could live with a little international confusion if it would relieve the minds of those who feel that their marriages are somehow tainted by gays being allowed to civilly marry. I don’t get why this is the case though. I just don’t get it. At all.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
I am aware of that, since I’ve been involved as an attorney on your side of those issues. Which makes me wonder, why are the resources of the gay rights movement being squandered on the redefinition of a word, when there are so many real civil rights issues on the table for gays?
You use the word as you like, Lorian. But when it comes to the government’s usage of that word, my voice is as valid as yours or anyone’s. The government represents me as much as it represents you.
The benefit that a father and mother bring to their childrens’ lives isn’t a purely religious issue, so I refuse to agree to confine the meaning of the word marriage within a religious ghetto, like the marginalized fringe tribes of Huxley’s Brave New World.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
How is that a “problem” with my argument? Other than the fact that you’ve substituted conservatives for moderates, that’s essentially my argument. By focusing the conflict on a word (which is of more value to moderates/conservatives than it is to you), you’ve deprived yourself of the opportunity to gain substantive rights today.
Marriages are a form of civil union. I’m saying that we should recognize other valid forms which have distinct social purposes, and require somewhat different internal equitable rules. (see above). The solution you describe might address Oaks’ concerns about future persecution, but would not address secular benefits of maintaining a distinct meaning of marriage.
If America had strong cultural institutions that were secular, then I’d consider your proposal. The idea of marriage is too important to leave in the hands of the churches. I don’t trust them with it, any more than I trust the courts to make sweeping redefinitions of cultural terms.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Christian, a couple more things re #398:
Are you arguing, here, that there is an advantage to a child in being raised by two opposite-gendered parents, as opposed to two same-gendered parents?.
Are you claiming here that it is not in the best interests of a child born to a gay couple that the child have from birth an automatic legal relationship to both of the people who will be parenting that child? The fact is that such presumptions of parenthood are regularly used (with regard to straight couples) to establish legal parenthood of persons who are not the biological parent of a child. For instance, when a straight couple has a child by way of anonymous gamete donation, whether egg or sperm, there is a legal presumption that the woman who conceives the child (unless she is a contracted, compensated gestational surrogate) AND her husband are the legal parents of the child, even though, in fact, either or both of them may actually be biologically unrelated to the child to which they are giving birth.
This is ultimately for the well-being of the child, because there can be no dispute of legal parenthood in such as case, nor should such a child be put at risk of being taken away from his/her parents at birth or thereafter because of questions of legal parenthood. The donor(s) relinquished parental rights at the time of their anonymous gamete donation. The only possible parents are the birth parents. The child’s interests will be best served by an immediate and undeniable legal relationship to them, not be being placed indefinitely in foster care while legal wranglings take place to satisfy a recalcitrant authority.
Additionally, any woman who becomes pregnant can declare any man the “father” of her baby, and there will be a legal presumption that he IS the father, and he will be accorded all legal rights (and responsibilities) of parenthood unless and until he denies her claim and submits to a paternity test.
At the point when I gave birth to my twins, 8 years ago, there was no legal presumption of parenthood for gay couples in California. I could have named any man, even George W. Bush, Tony Blair, or Osama bin Laden, the father of my babies, and his name would have been written on their birth certificates and he would have been given all the legal rights of parenthood (as long as he did not dispute my claim). But I could not write my partner’s name on the birth certificates, even though we had planned for our babies every step of the way, had gone through 7 years of (incredibly expensive) fertility treatments together, she had nursed me through a horribly difficult and complicated pregnancy, most of it on bedrest with bleeding, cramping, pre-term labor, and ultimately, pre-eclampsia and pancreatitis.
These were her babies, every bit as much as they were mine, but she had no legal claim to them. I nearly died giving birth to them by emergency c-section, and had I done so, they would have been taken from the hospital by CFS and placed in foster care, and she would likely have never seen them again, certainly not without years of expensive legal proceedings. In fact, she could not form a legal relationship with them for a minimum of one year after their birth, because “2nd parent adoptions” (at the time, the only means by which she could form a legal relationship to them at all) required a minimum of one year “acting in the role of a parent” before they would be granted by the court.
As it was, since our house burned down when the girls were 1.5 years old, my partner’s mother died later that year, and I had a recurrence of pancreatitis the following year which placed me in the hospital for 2 months while my partner had to take sole responsibility for caring for toddler twins, keeping our business running, and moving the household to our new permanent home, it wasn’t until the girls were 4 years old that she was finally able to complete the formal adoption. All during that time, they (and she) were at tremendous risk of losing one another had anything happened to me (which, considering the precarious state of my health at the time was not an unrealistic possibility). And when she finally did complete the adoption at that point, the experience was bittersweet, since the very idea of having to go through a series of social worker evaluations, pay fees, file papers and appear before a judge (who could possibly refuse your petition) in order to adopt your own children is really quite a slap in the face.
Had the girls been born about a year or two later, they would have had an automatic presumed relationship to my partner, because this right had then been added (piecemeal, along with other scattered rights in bits and pieces over the years) to our state’s Domestic Partnership laws (which still do not quite encompass all the state-level rights of marriage, some people’s claims to the contrary) (and none of the federal rights, incidentally). How much less risk they would have faced, and how much less fear and stress we would have gone through.
No, I cannot agree that the presumption of parenthood for gay couples is wrong or absurd.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Ah, yes, I figured this was what you meant by cultural genocide (like Americans did to the Hawaiians).
I would submit that extirpating a culture is fundamentally different than demanding equal protection. Co-existence is different than destruction of the other—either culturally or bodily.
The ‘definition’ argument applied to cultural genocide. Here is the crux of your cultural genocide point: You have framed the argument as being about the definition of the word marriage in order to claim that if I add 1–3 % more couples to the legal institution of marriage, then I have ‘destroyed’ the ‘definition’ of the word. So the very definition of marriage—as you would have it—is vitally and existentially tied to forever excluding certain couples.
Guilty of genocide. So I am guilty, by advocating for the ‘destruction’ of this definition (by adding this 1–3 % to co-exist under the word ‘marriage’ with others who may have their own, conflicting understanding of the word)… I am guilty of ‘destroying’ the culture of those with different understanding of this word. What is more, I am doing this for ideological reasons and therefore I am guilty of ‘cultural genocide’.
I am calling for a reality check. Even if my ideological program succeeds, I have not destroyed the day-to-day reality of ‘marriage’ for existing opposite-sex married couples. In fact, this reality is not significantly altered (other than the mentally felt ‘destruction’ of this definition).
In fact, the heart of this ‘destroyed definition’ is that other people have been allowed access to a word. True, the ‘definition’ has been extended, but it is only by appeal to catastrophe and homosexual panic (homosexuality equals ruination) that you can claim that this numerically modest extension (by numbers of couples) is semantically (and therefore culturally, according to you) tantamount to ‘destruction’ and therefore to ‘genocide’.
Male/female. From your earlier posts, you claim I must believe (or even genocidally impose the cultural view) that males and females are completely equal in order to request that marriage be extended (destroyed) in this way, but this is simply not the case.
This is how you have defended your use of cultural genocide, but again, going by the Wiki, I don’t think it works here. And I say it is needlessly inflammatory, if only because of the smoke and flame surrounding the word genocide.
The ‘definition’ argument. What’s more, I believe you are asserting that you are entitled to a definition of a word to be continuous through time and asserting the false proposition that ‘marriage’ has had a consistent definition through time and from person to person.
Further, you are saying that those who have bought into your (or their) definition of a word are entitled to be protected from those un-entitled others who have knocked on the door and asked to be let in—even if they are ‘let in’ only linguistically. (They will physically remain in their own homes and their only offense is against a mental image or definition.)
I would reply that your ‘right’ to join a club is not always defined by your ‘right’ to exclude others from that club. Especially a club like marriage, which courts (even conservative, Republican judges) have increasingly found as a matter of law to be part of the right to self-determination.
Right of association. People have used the right of association before to fabricate a ‘right’ to be separate from other, lesser persons. And here, the ‘association’ is much more ephemeral. It is a mental clubroom, a semantic swimming pool. The already-married couples don’t even have to soil their bodies in the water polluted by same-sex swimmers.
This would be noxious enough if it were only a club—”Hey! I paid for membership in a club without these awful people in it! Now my membership is worthless! I refuse to swim in this ruined swimming pool anymore and I want a refund!”
But in reality, as you point out, access to family protections is not the same as access to Savannah Country Club. Increasing numbers of conservative, Replican-appointed judges see marriage and procreation as special factors in self-determination, worthy of protections akin to the right to privacy. And these findings have been applied not only to gays and lesbians, but to questions of immigration, prisoner rights, et al.
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Argh, I wrote ‘Replican’ instead of ‘Republican’. Maybe I was thinking of Blade Runner or “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and left out the final t.
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Christian #404 -
Thanks very much for your services in that capacity, but I do not consider the quest for civil marriage rights a squandering of resources. It is just one part of an entirety of seeking dignified recognition of ourselves as citizens with full and equal rights in this society in exchange for our full and equal participation in and contribution to its success. Our relationships deserve full and equal dignity and rights just as do our contributions as individual citizens.
Yes, but the fact that the government represents you just as much as me does not give you the right to determine that I do not deserve civil rights equal to your own. The government exists to prevent BOTH of us from trampling upon one another’s rights.
That means, in this case, that you have the right to engage in a civil marriage that is consistent with your sexual orientation and I should have the same right with respect to a civil marriage consistent with mine. Civil marriage is granted for entirely different reasons than religious marriage, as you touch on, below (and I’ll get to that), and shouldn’t be defined by the dictates of religion.
I’m glad to hear that you do not wish to define CIVIL marriage on the basis of the dictates of any given religion regarding RELIGIOUS marriage, since the two are separate concepts entirely.
But I am concerned by your repeated hit-and-run references to “the benefit that a father and mother bring to their children’s lives.” It sounds as though you believe that male-female parenting pairs bring some extra-special parenting mojo to their children that a same-gender couple couple never measure up to. Is this what you’re saying? That there is an inherent advantage for children in having two opposite-gendered parents as opposed to two same-gendered parents? Please be more specific and tell me if this is what you are claiming. I’m curious.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Zed #407 - Amen.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
I’ve said that already. If 14th amendment equal protection required redefining the word “marriage,” this would be a different issue.
That’s an grotesque misconstruction of what I said. Destruction of a definition is not determined by the proportion of entities added to the added to the definition. If we neuter the definition of marriage, the damage to the culture is the same whether zero same-sex couples join up, or whether they all join up. The idea of marriage can no longer be conveyed to future generations, because there’s no means of communicating it.
No. I’m entitled to vote, speak, and assemble to defend the definition of a word that I consider essential to my culture. And you should not be surprised or impugn others with sinister motives when they do the same. They are exercising their constitutional rights to protect the survival of their culture. It would be foolish to take that personally.
Distinction of types of relationships does not imply that there are lesser types of persons.
No. That’s not my argument at all. When I argue against a change in the language, and you construe that as me arguing that same-sex couples are the offenders, that’s one of the tactics that I compared to the use of human shields. I said nothing against same-sex couples.
———–
Please respond to what I actually said. A neutered “presumption of parenthood” (as opposed to the actual presumption of paternity on the books before the court neutered it) makes some sense for FF couples, who should reasonably know when the other one is pregnant. It makes no sense for a MF couple where the male gets another woman pregnant, nor does it make sense in any application to an MM couple.
To have any sort of equity under the obvious birds and the bees facts of sex, you’d need separate sets of rules that recognize the distinction between male and female. Equal rules in this case do not result in equity.
No, and the question is absurd, because the presumption needs reasonable grounds to determine whether the child is born TO that couple in the first place.
To do that intelligently you need a different set of presumptions applying to different types of couples.
WRONG. Straight couples regularly use a gender-specific presumption of PATERNITY. If a married man gets another woman pregnant, the law does not presume that his wife is the de-jure mother.
To neuter those assumptions may work out equitably in some FF cases, but would not apply reasonably to many FM and MM couples.
And many of us don’t want the rules that govern our marriages changed because they would not make sense if applied to a same-sex couple. If the rules work for actual marriages, they should stay in place. Since other rules make more sense for other types of relationships, those relationships should not be classified as marriage.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Christian #405 -
This is a specious claim. I have already stated my personal willingness to forego the term “marriage” as applying to civil marriage, so long as we all, gay and straight, forego it together and enter into the same sort of civil union (no “separate but ‘equal’” status, in other words).
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Christian #405 -
Which are, specifically?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Sociological basis for depriving same-sex couples of marriage. Yes, Lorian, I’m curious too. But even if the assertion is true, how is this argument different from arguments against miscegenation? There are plenty of bad opposite-sex marriages (even identifiable populations of bad opposite sex parents or bad opposite-sex marriages) but where is the compelling state interest?
The mythical 30% of moderate opponents to same-sex marriage. Also Christian claims that if we’d only back off the word ‘marriage’, then we’d have equal rights—that the only reason for DOMA laws is that his 30% don’t believe we’ll stop at separate-but-equal unions.
This is false. And I’ll go one step further. Except for Christian and a few others, most of the same people saying, “Fine! Stop with domestic partnership! Are you happy?” in reality oppose any kind of accommodation. These are the same people who opposed decriminalization of homosexuality, opposed laws against discrimination, now oppose hate-crime legislation, and continue to oppose domestic partnerships (except as a last-ditch appeasement tactic, in those few areas where it’s a political winning strategy).
The vast majority of this group is unhappy with any accommodation. The only concessions from this group are tactical, in the face of a rising tide of political sentiment from true moderates, who see a biological basis for human sexuality, and therefore a human-rights and civil-rights basis for equal protection of LGBT people. Out of simple fairness. And without the simpleminded (and false, it turns out) sociological assertions which are applied only to the group they disapprove of, and no other.
I do agree that there exist others besides Christian who draw their hard line in exactly the same place, but this number is nowhere near 30%.
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
I’d be a hypocrite if I attempted to aswer Lorian’s question of why kids benefit from a dad as well as a mom, while ignoring my own kids’ pleas for my attention. So I’ll sum up by suggesting a look at the child development theorized by Freud, described anectotally by Piaget, and illustrated statistically by Ericson. Basically the four groups of boys without mothers, boys without fathers, girls without mothers, and girls without fathers each has its own particular set of problems. Most of the parenting same-sex couples that I know, go out of their way to get some opposite sex godparent to mitigate what they see as the child’s need.
Hope that helps
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
That’s a lie — I said no such thing. I’m very dissapointed, Zed, you began so well.
What I actually said is that if you’d back off the word marriage, and focused all those efforts into SSUs, that same sex couples would already have federal and inter-state recognition of same-sex unions with all of substantive protections of legal marriage.
I did not say that would be the end of the legal battle for gay rights, since employment, military, housing, and other struggles remain.
The only reason for DOMA to exist is that the moderate plurality don’t have a third option on the table, and as long as we’re forced to choose, we’ll choose the survival of what we call marriage over other considerations.
If your substantive rights aren’t more important to you than the word “marriage,” then why should they be more important to us?
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Look at the gallup polls on the issue. Whatever it is, it’s enough to make a majority if we side with the left or with the right. In the court of public opinion, we are Kennedy and O’Connor. If you want to win, play to the center.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Christian #411 -
All of your arguments here rest upon the unproven assertion that broadening the “definition” of marriage to include same-gender couples so distorts its actual meaning as to cause the “destruction” of that meaning. Hyperbole is a kind word for this sort of distortion. Before you use this argument again, please demonstrate specifically how “marriage” will be “destroyed” by the inclusion of same-gender couples.
As to this statement:
…it is beyond absurdity. The idea of marriage can no longer be conveyed to future generations, because there’s no means of communicating it??? How about all the male-female married couples still existing on the face of the planet being the means by which the concept of “marriage” is communicated to heterosexual next-generation members, and all the same-gender couples stil existing on the face of the planet being the means by which the concept of “marriage” is communicated to same-gender-oriented next-generation members?
Or, let’s go one better and say that my wife and I are every bit as great an example to our children of what marriage consists in, even if they turn out to be straight, which they very likely will, as any other couple. You and your eventual wife, too, would be (I’m sure) excellent examples to the next generation of what marriage consist in, whether my wife and I are allowed to marry or not.
You have overreached yourself here, I believe.
Again you reference the “survival of the culture” with no visible means of support for your claim that the culture will be destroyed by allowing gays to marry. It hasn’t happened yet, despite the fact that many gay couples in this and other countries have married.
No, but if the only distinction between the relationships is made on the basis of the gender of the participants, this DOES imply a lesser status of some relationships as compared to others.
For instance, if the relationship we are describing is that of teacher-pupil, and we define that a teacher pupil relationship between a male teach and male pupil must be accorded a different status from a relationship between a female teacher and female pupil, for no apparent reason, then there can and should be a strong suspicion of gender-based bias. Or if we make a distinction for legal purposes between a father and child as opposed to a mother and child, then one parent, either mother or father is at risk of having his or her parental rights discriminated against, as has been the case for so many fathers in divorce cases over the years. By making artificial separations among classes of people who have access to supposedly the same rights, we produce a major risk of discrimination (or continued discrimination, as the case may be).
Further, you are saying that those who have bought into your (or their) definition of a word are entitled to be protected from those un-entitled others who have knocked on the door and asked to be let in—even if they are ‘let in’ only linguistically. (They will physically remain in their own homes and their only offense is against a mental image or definition.)
No. That’s not my argument at all. When I argue against a change in the language, and you construe that as me arguing that same-sex couples are the offenders, that’s one of the tactics that I compared to the use of human shields. I said nothing against same-sex couples.
———–
No, I cannot agree that the presumption of parenthood for gay couples is wrong or absurd.
Please respond to what I actually said. A neutered “presumption of parenthood” (as opposed to the actual presumption of paternity on the books before the court neutered it) makes some sense for FF couples, who should reasonably know when the other one is pregnant. It makes no sense for a MF couple where the male gets another woman pregnant, nor does it make sense in any application to an MM couple.
To have any sort of equity under the obvious birds and the bees facts of sex, you’d need separate sets of rules that recognize the distinction between male and female. Equal rules in this case do not result in equity.
Are you claiming here that it is not in the best interests of a child born to a gay couple that the child have from birth an automatic legal relationship to both of the people who will be parenting that child?
No, and the question is absurd, because the presumption needs reasonable grounds to determine whether the child is born TO that couple in the first place.
To do that intelligently you need a different set of presumptions applying to different types of couples.
The fact is that such presumptions of parenthood are regularly used (with regard to straight couples) to establish legal parenthood of persons who are not the biological parent of a child.
WRONG. Straight couples regularly use a gender-specific presumption of PATERNITY. If a married man gets another woman pregnant, the law does not presume that his wife is the de-jure mother.
To neuter those assumptions may work out equitably in some FF cases, but would not apply reasonably to many FM and MM couples.
And many of us don’t want the rules that govern our marriages changed because they would not make sense if applied to a same-sex couple. If the rules work for actual marriages, they should stay in place. Since other rules make more sense for other types of relationships, those relationships should not be classified as marriage.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
#412, What I said is not a “specious claim” since your proposal still focuses the conflict on the word “marriage,” albeit in a different way.
Offering to evicerate the secular gendered meaning of marriage, is not the same thing as letting go of the conflict over the word marriage.
I do recognize that you’ve attempted to move towards the center, and for some moderates, that might be enough. I don’t think it’s enough to make a difference, though.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Sorry for the above — I accidentally posted before I was finished answering the post I was quoting. My comments end two paragraphs above the dividing line with the words: “(or continued discrimination, as the case may be).”
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
No, that’s not my argument. Regardless of who is included, what destroys the meaning of marriage is the removal of the gendered concepts. Period.
There are historical cultures that allowed for same-sex couples to be “married” without neutering the marriage concept. In modern legal english, what some Freemont tribes did with “two-spirits” terminology would be like saying that a man is “constructively female for purposes of marriage.” I have no objection to such construction. My purpose is not disinclusion: it’s defense against gibberish and cultural nihilism.
The fact that most ssm promponents would utterly reject the “constructively male/female” mechanism for including same-sex couples into marriage, proves that this argument is not really about inclusion, but about redefinition.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
I am afraid you have run up a semantic tree where I cannot follow. You have restated your position and say I’m distorting it, but I am at a loss to see where.
I do think I understand you: you take an all-or-nothing, absolutist, one-drop-rule, Archimedean view of what words mean, or what they should mean. Having thus found out the true meaning of words, any alterations to the populations or genera to which (you believe) they apply means they are being destroyed. And you believe that this view of verbal definitions should determine public policy.
No one is preventing you from this communication your view or your definition to future generations. (This is where I’m stuck barking at the base of that tree.) No one is confining you to a religious ghetto if they happen to have a marriage which does not conform to your all-or-nothing definition. And you will be free to preach this definition to future generations.
I still think your assertion that the definition of marriage will be destroyed is a psychological and paranoid projection of cultural destruction. The tort here is all in your mind.
I guess our fundamental disagreement is on what definition literally means, and what bearing your private, normative view of words and their meaning should have on public policy around groups to which you do not happen to belong. You seem immune to practical considerations, except to offer a relatively feeble sociological (I would even argue a priori biological or evolutionary-psychology) argument to prop up your particular definition. Or the definition.
At that, I think we have found our fundamental philosophical difference, and I guess—short of agreement—that is the goal of all good-faith discussion.
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Zed, I apologize. I was angry and dissapointed at your representation of what I said, but I should not imputed dishonesty. Misunderstandings happen.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Christian, simply linking to or regurgitating the (mostly disproven) claims of Sigmund Freud regarding the development of human sexuality and gender awareness will not suffice as proof of your claims regarding the purported “superiority” of male-female parenting as compared with same-gender parenting in the face of mountains of clinical and scientific, peer-reviewed evidence which demonstrates that there is no such superiority. Every major clinical and theoretical medical, psychological, psychiatric and social work organization in this nation has acknowledged and endorsed the fact that there is no inherent qualitative difference between two same-gendered parents and two opposite-gendered parents as demonstrated by the equal health, positive adjustment and well-being of their offspring, quantified on a variety of standard measures.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Christian #421 - So, you’re saying that it would be perfectly fine with you for gay people to get married, as long as we agree to play along with your concepts of gender-defined roles with some good old-fashioned Butch-Femme Roleplay?
This gets stranger and stranger. You claim to be a feminist, and have spoken elsewhere about the flexibility of male-female roles within “traditional” marriage (if I recall correctly), but when it comes to gay marriage, you’re unwilling to let us in unless we agree that one of us is the “boy” and one of us is the “girl”?
Huh?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
PS Are you the same Christian who wants to teach English in Korea? (from newbie introductions) You don’t sound 24. (Maybe that’s my ageism talking… I told you I still have some internal prejudices I am fighting. It’s a character flaw.)
Anyway, it’s been a pleasure to engage with your ideas, sir. I hope I have done so honestly.
Or maybe there’s more than one… ahem… Christian on this board.
Comment by a man Zed — October 18, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Lorian, if I had simply linked to or regurgitated Freud’s theories on gender development, your response to such would not be a waste of everyone’s time.
If you’re aware of any modern study that even addresses the specific development results that Erickson addressed, as between married couples and same-sex couples, please let me know.
And when a study comes out and says that there are “NO inherent qualitative differences” rather than addressing the specific areas where they found no difference, it’s obvious that one is reading a political tract rather than a scientific study.
The modern studies that I’ve seen seemed preocupied with whether the children of same-sex couples would end up gay. Well that’s stupid. Why is that even relevant?
One study cites same-sex couples for having kids who are “more liberal” in their sexual attitudes. Well what the **** does that mean? More promiscuous? Or more tolerant? Sorry, vague terminology is not respectable science.
Show me a study that shows that kids of same-sex couples, compared to kids of married couples are no more promiscuous, no more likely to get a venereal disease, no more likely to spend time in jail or a mental hospital, no less likely to marry, no more likely to become single parents, or to fail to pay court-ordered child support. No less likely to abandon or abuse their spouse or lover. That they spend as much time with their own kids, and that their own kids turn out as well.
I submit that if you can’t show a study that shows a significant number of those factors, that the supposed scientific consensus that you cite is politically driven gibberish.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
We all have prejudices; God’s not done with us yet, Zed. Cheers and thank you for the conversation.
Nope. Different guy.
———–
Lorian, I need to link you to a guy named Copernicus. Not everything is about you. I don’t care what you do in your homes. That has nothing to do with legal constructions. My concern is about the definition of the word “marriage.”
THANK YOU! At last I have something right here I can show Reese. That’s precisely why I *don’t* call myself a feminist — so people like you can’t pull off that sort of coercive bullshit.
And no, Lorian, I have never used the term “traditional marriage” in on this forum.
One reason that I insist that it’s called “marriage” rather than “traditional marriage” is that I’d rather not see the ideas of husband. wife, mother, father, mangled in with traditions like dowry and bride-burning.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I’d like to go back to your post # 411, Christian, which I was in the middle of addressing when I so rudely interrupted myself by accidentally posting before I was done.
I’d specifically like to adddress your arguments regarding “neutered presumption of parenthood,” and how it “may work for female-female couples, but does not work for mf or mm couples.”
It absolutely works without regard to the gender of the participants in the couple. It has always been the case for male-female couples that children born within the marital relationship were presumed to be the offspring of both the mother and the father. Of necessity, of course, such children could only be physically birthed by one partner to the marriage — the mother — but were always legally presumed to be the offspring of the father, unless a challenge was made to the contrary by the mother, the presumed father, or a male third party.
The same is true for a female-female couple, with the exception that either could be the birth parent from whose body the baby is physically brought into being. The legal presumption of parenthood allows both de facto parents to have an immediate, legal relationship to the child, regardless of who may have donated gametes to the process (the same is true for the male-female couple, incidentally, since the mother could have been the recipient of donated eggs, as well as having conceived by way of sperm not her husband’s).
In the case of a male-male couple, the situation is slightly complicated because of the fact that conception clearly takes place in the body of a third party, usually a gestational surrogate. Such surrogacy relationships are becoming legally less complicated as more case law establishes and supports the parental rights of the intended parents over the surrogate, thanks mostly to heterosexual couples who have made use of gestational surrogates due to female infertility, physical inability to carry a pregnancy, or emotional reluctance to do so). But the presumption remains the same — if there is no challenge from a third party, the male-male couple are the legally presumed parents of the child, because the gestational surrogate relinquishes her claim to the infant in her contractual agreement to carry (and sometimes be the egg donor for) the pregnancy.
There is nothing particularly confusing here which would require a separate set of presumed-parenthood laws for same-gender as opposed to opposite-gender couples. You referenced the possibility that a member of a male-male couple might impregnate a 3rd party (obviously female), who may herself be married to another man, who would be the legally presumed father of her infant. Of course this is theoretically possible. It is no different, though, than a situation in which a man who is married to one woman might impregnate another woman, who is herself married to another man. Her husband would be the presumed father of the infant.
Now, if her husband challenges his assumed paternity, she might well name the other man as the father, and he would be held responsible for paternity. Or, she might name him as the father from the get-go, and he would either have to refute her claim by way of a paternity test, or take resonsibilty for the child. Or, he might immediately identify himself as the father of the child, and sue her for his paternal rights. But in any of the above scenarios, his wife would not be the presumed mother of the child, no matter what, nor would his husband be the presumed parent of the child, no matter what. The situation is no different for a same-gender couple than for an opposite-gender couple The male or female spouse of the biological father might end up having parental rights at some point if the bio-father ends up with custody of the child and the bio-mother relinquishes her parental rights. But again, no difference based on sexual orientation of the couples.
There is one other possibility on which you did not touch. If a woman in a same-gender relationship becomes pregnant (in this state), her partner is the legally-presumed parent. But it would certainly be possible for her to name the man who impregnated her as the father at the baby’s birth (just as a woman married to a man could name another man as the baby’s father at birth, if her husband did not father the baby). It would also be possible for the man who impregated her to sue for paternal rights, whether or not she is married to another man or another woman. That’s why lesbians tend to use anonymous gamete donors, who have given up their parental rights by contract with the clinic at the time when they made their donation. The thought of going through all that only to have a sperm donor come back and sue for paternal rights or even custody after you give birth is heart-breaking.
But again, no real difference here in the implications between same-gender and opposite-gender couples. No need to make two separate sets of laws.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Christian -
I, like Zed, apparently have you confused with another poster who called himself “Christian.” Sorry for accusing you of holding any feminist principles.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Your heat/light ratio is tipping, Christian…
And a Man Zed,
hilarious!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
And you failed to address my requestion for clarification of what you appeared to be saying regarding it being acceptable to you if gays married so long as one of us plays the Butch and the other plays the Femme. That IS what you were saying, right? One of us is the “boy” and one is the “girl” and it’s all good?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
you are right, cwc. I need to take a break from Lorian’s misrepresentations (e.g. “Sorry for accusing you of holding any feminist principles”) and obtuse interrogatories like #432.
Christian is simply a name on my drivers’ license. In that sense, I would be Christian even if I converted to Judaism or paganism.
#432, It’s OK with me so long as the word marriage continues to mean a promise wherein a man and woman are unified for life.
Since man and woman are terms for biological realities (there is a teeny bit of grey at the edges), I am OK if society blurs the verbal definitions of man and woman. I don’t need the state or society to tell me what a man is and what a woman is. Let’s figure that out for ourselves. (If you think that’s an antifeminist position, I really don’t care.)
OTOH, since every post-agricultural society has independently evolved some distinct term for a promise wherein a man and woman are unified for life, I’m nervous about altering the very aspects of that term (that despite other variances) have remained constant.
If someone were proposing, as was done in Maryland in the 1970s, that marriage should include arrangements that were pre-set to terminate after three or five years, I would oppose such changes even more vigorously than I currently oppose the neutering of marriage. A promise for life (regardless of the facility of breaking such a promise) is another constant of marriage across cultures.
I said nothing that any reasonable and honest person could interpret as requiring roles of “femme” and “butch.” If you can’t tolerate a legal formality where one of you writes your name in as “husband” and the other as “wife” on a form, then we’re way out of the realm of fundamental rights.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
As far as studies of same-gender parenting, I’m not going to do your homework for you, but I’ll link you up:
(took out the link because my post won’t go through — I’ll try it in a separate post)
I will repeat, Freud’s work regarding gender and development was largely theoretical and observational, as was Piaget’s, and, incidentally, Erikson’s (I’m assuming you mean Erik Erikson, circa the 1950’s, not “Ericson” as you referenced above). None of these three men did any direct work with modern same-gender parenting populations (obviously, since Ericson is the most recent of the three). Any work that they did which even touches on same-gender orientation was done at a time when same-gender oriented persons were considered mentally ill or mentally defective, and cannot possibly translate to apply to modern understandings of same-gender oriented persons or relate in any manner to gay parenting studies except in the basic concept of how children achieve the various developmental stages (which are by no means agreed upon even among modern psychologists and psychiatrists).
In short, mentioning names from a freshman survey of psychology course does not in any way demonstrate or prove your claim for the superiority of opposite-gender parenting over same-gender parenting.
I’m still waiting for you to present valid, clinical, peer-reviewed proof of your claim. If you are going to use such a claim as your major thesis and defense for the denial of equal civil rights to an entire class of people, you must be able to back up your claim with actual evidence, Christian, or you just end up looking prejudiced.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Okay, I can’t get the link to post, but if you want to see an entire run-down of scholarly articles and peer-reviewed studies of same-gender parenting, you can google “gay parenting studies” and click on the “scholarly research” link.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Please do. Hold your breath, even. Your distortion of my claims does not obligate me to support your distortions. I said that a child benefits independently from a mom and a dad. If that wasn’t blitheringly obvious to everyone here, Erikson’s work supports that. If you’ve got anything that refutes or updates Erikson, please lay it out. Surely you can offer us something more relevant than pointing out that I mispelt his name.
Remember, you’re the one that has argued that there are peer-reviewed, clinical, current studies which support your position, but you have not responded to my request:
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Christian, I have a very difficult time believing that you would rather blur the definitions of something as relatively concrete and universal (with a tiny minority of intersexed and transexual exceptions ) as “male” and “female” than simply slightly expand the definition of something as already nebulous and culturally varied as “marriage.”
You and I would both agree to grant full and equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians with no further discussion, as long as half the lesbians would call themselves “boys” for the day, and half the gay men would call themselves “girls” for the day.
This conversation is starting to make me a little bit twitchy, I’m afraid.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Actually, the grey areas of sex trait definitions are a lot bigger than tiny. If you know someone with Down Syndrome, you know at least two people who were born with ambiguous sexual morphology. Their “gender” was literally chosen for them by either family or medical personnel; they were then raised to fit that gender. (see Caster Semenya for a sad, horribly public case) In ye Olden Dayes, such people might have been variously surgically altered, institutionalized, shunned, starved as children, or burnt at the stake. What we do with them now is at least marginally more civilized, but what *are* they? And what to do with them, with, say, poor Caster Semenya, when the POF says that “gender” is eternal, but they have actual, physical evidence of both sexes? Christian, do *you* want to be the one to tell the Caster Semenyas of the world that they are eternally female, because they lack a penis, or that they are eternally male, because they possess testicles? Perhaps, we let Christ be the one to judge all us goofy mortals, not his followers?
Comment by hero — October 18, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Your whole argument is based on that lie, Lorian. You can’t name a single substantive right that I’ve tried to deny to any class of people.
Like Zed, I openly admit that I’m prejudiced. That’s the trouble with your ad homeniem arguments, Lorian; even if proven true they mean nothing to a reasonable audience. Whether I’m prejudiced, or look prejudiced, has nothing to do with whether I’m correct that a child benefits independently from being raised by a father and a mother.
The fact that no scientific consensus exists as to the cause of gravity, or love, or good manners, or bad taste, does not alter the observed fact that these phenomena exist. If it was only one single culture, or a dozen, that had evolved to distinguish marriage as a union of husband and wife, you might dismiss this as cultural prejudice. But when every single post-agricultural human culture evolves the same, along with the concept of fatherhood, it’s irrational to deny that these concepts provide some sort of benefit to the culture. How can you even pretend to value science while ignoring the blatant parallel to an ecological niche?
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Um, my husband is a clinical psychologist who, because he did research on treatment of sex offenders, has also read more widely in the area of human sexuality. When we discuss gay marriage and gay parenting he usually can cite some interesting studies. I’m just about to ask him if there are studies on this topic that we could link to.
I’m not sure, though, that posting links to a few studies would change anyone’s mind in this discussion.
Comment by xenologue — October 18, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Christian:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1131517
“To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.
Charlotte J. Patterson - University of Virginia
_______________
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=2002-04521-007
Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000.
Anderssen, Norman; Amlie, Christine; Ytterøy, Erling AndréScandinavian Journal of Psychology. Vol 43(4), Sep 2002, 335-351.Reviewed 23 empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers (1 Belgian/Dutch, 1 Danish, 3 British, and 18 North American). 20 studies reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and 3 on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 yrs) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
There’s lots and lots and lots more, Christian. Again, I repeat, if you are going to deny an entire class of people access to equal civil rights based upon your own prejudiced assertion that they are inferior parents, then it is up to YOU to provide research supporting your assertions. Please feel free to do so at any time or concede that you have not proven your point at all.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Then I will explain my position again, with smaller words
Man and woman will continue to exist even if we don’t have clear words to describe them.
Marriage will not continue to exist if we don’t have a clear word to describe it.
I will happily fight for the right of any gay couple to “marry” so long as they can do so without affecting the definition of the word marriage. I have proposed one mechanism by which they might do so. Come up with another one yourself, that’s more to your fancy, and we’re golden.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Christian #439 -
The right to equal civil marriage (not as a member of a substandard separate class, and not by masquerading as a person of the opposite gender, or redefining the meaning of male and female).
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
Incredible, Christian. I simply cannot get over the idea that you would rather redefine the words “male” and “female” than redefine the word “marriage” to include couples of the same gender.
But, then again, I suspect an ulterior motive at work here, because you very well must realize that NO one is going to EVER agree to redefine the word “male” to mean “person of non-specified sex who presents in typically masculine attire” and allow people to marry on this basis. They are far more likely to allow gays to marry as ourselves (not dressed in drag to please Christian) than they are to redefine the meaning of man and women. And somehow, you find that threatening, so you’re willing to go to rididculous lengths to avoid agreeing that it should be so.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
This is really quite a fallacy, Christian. Marriage existed BEFORE we had the word “marriage” to define it. It will continue to exist should we ever somehow lose the ability to speak, or should our language morph into something else entirely.
As to not having a “clear word to describe it,” it’s perfectly clear, Christian, whether it is describing a man and a woman or two men or two women. Marriage is the union of two people in a committed, monogamous relationship. See? Not hard at all. Not unclear at all. The sky didn’t even cave in. Future generations are safe.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
More importantly, even if they did agree to it, they would not be able to follow through. But your paranoid and conspiratorial motive inferences are off-base, since my proposal doesn’t depend on a social, cultural, or even legislative consensus to redefine male and female. All that would need happen is for a judge to say, one of you is constructively male for purposes of marriage. That doesn’t affect the definition of gender for any purpose other than the threshold requirement for marriage.
Don’t get so excited; it’s not such a big deal. We’re talking about a legal technicality, not a revolutionary change.
Now IF it came down to revolutionary changes, I’d prefer gender ambiguity to a change in the meaning of marriage, for the reasons I stated above. You have registered your doubt in my sincerity on that tangential point. So what? Can we move on?
I said put your name on a form, not “dress in drag.” Still, if I lived in a culture where I had to put on a wedding dress to marry my wife, I wouldn’t go crying about violation of my fundamental constitutional rights. It’s a ritual. It’s supposed to be stupid. Next?
Civil marriage is a right. “Equal” civil marriage is not a right, unless you think that we’re all married to Dennis Rodman.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Seriously, is no one going to comment on how funny my #355 was? Because Lorian and CHristian are about to deplete the awesoemly exhaustable “which one is the ‘man’” debate and I for one would like to see this post hit 500. I modestly nominate my comment #355 as a worthy candidate for the next 55 posts.
These comments may include, but are not limited to:
If I marry cwc/lorian/derek/everybody else in the best queer polygamous union EVER, will I always enjoy her humor as much as I do now?
Can this scenario (blood- libel- seeking -gays) be made into an off Broadway play/rock opera?
Will CWC seek royalties if I do this? (the answer is yes.)
Oh CWC, you are a treasure, why they’ve not made you a perma, I’ll never know. Well, except for that whole “Mormon” thing.
I wish I could come hear you talk IRL (you can! attend the Mormon Women’s Forum this weekend!)
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Another logical fallacy, Christian. There is no body of scientific evidence proving that gravity does NOT exist, or that love, or good manners, or bad taste do NOT exist.
These are, as you say, observed phenomena. They are not in the same category as something which can be demonstrated false by scientific study, as can the prejudiced attitude that “straight parents are better than gay parents.”
You can claim that boys are better than girls all day, but unless you can prove it, it ain’t so. You can claim that straight parents are better than gay parents all day, but the experts disagree with you, and the scientific evidence refutes your claim.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Oh, really?
Please show me verified documentation of ANY period of human history where marriage contracts thrived in absence of any term to describe the arrangement.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
There is no body of scientific evidence proving that fathers and mothers DON’T provide their children with an independent benefit.
Scientific evidence is fact, btw, not the authority worship of persons with scientific credentials.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Christian #446
Um, no. Because different states already have different standards for who qualifies as “male” or “female” for the purposes of legal marriage, as you seem to be unaware. Some states consider only physical attributes (does he have a penis, does she have a vagina?). Some refuse to consider the results of surgical sex-changes, others consider only the results of such surgeries, but not genetic differences. Some states consider ONLY genetics (in cases of dispute or where the original birth certificate is in question). A person who has had a legal sex change could be married as a man in one state, married as a woman in another state, and have that marriage automatically desolved when she crossed the state line into the next state. Laws on gender and sex change are even more bizarre and inconsistent, if possible, than laws on gay marriage. I would have thought you’d be aware of that, having purportedly done legal work on behalf of gay civil rights. But then, you don’t really sound like someone who has actually done legal work on behalf of gay rights, unless it was as opposing counsel.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Um, yes. There is. Evidence which proves there is no significant difference in outcome between children of gay parents vs. children of straight parents effectively demonstrates that there is no significant advantage accorded to children by having straight parents as opposed to gay (other than the obvious social advantage that their parents don’t have to face discrimination at the hands of the anti-gay majority who would deny them equal civil rights on the basis of their sexual orientation).
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
cwc, I was more amused by your steampunk remark, and LadyLawyer’s quip about gender confusion
But come to think of it, your reduction of Lorian/Christian argument to “which one is the man” is probably the funniest of all.
—–
Wince. That’s one equivocation and misrepresentation too many, Lorian.
Please show me where I said that sexual orientation had anything to do with parenting. If we can’t trust you to accurately represent your opponent’s argument, then how can anyone trust you to sum up the scientific evidence?
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Are you intentionally equivocating fathers and mothers to “straight parents,” or do you honestly not grasp the difference?
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Christian #449 -
Um… who is misrepresenting whom, Christian? I didn’t say “any term to describe the arrangement.” Nor are we discussing a plethora of terminology. We are discussing the word, “marriage,” of which the first known occurrence of usage was I believe, sometime around the 13th century CE. Marriage existed for millennia prior to the word “marriage.” Getting hung up on a word coined in the 13th century and using that as a reason to deny equal civil rights to an entire class of people makes utterly no sense.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Christian #454 - There is very little that a mother or father can do for a child that cannot be equally well done by a parent of the other gender. Breastfeeding is certainly one, but many babies aren’t breastfed who are born to straight parents. So you really can’t use that as a basis for continued discrimination.
If parents are doing anything else to or for their children which relies upon them having a penis or a vagina, or a secondary sex characteristic such as breasts or a beard, chances are, it’s NOT a good thing.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
CWC, dear sister-wife, I am so sorry. I’m not ignoring you. I think you are hilarious. :kiss:
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
In case anyone other than CWC is still reading this, please read what I actually said, rather than what Lorian says that I said.
While I am aware that laws on gender and sex change are often bizarre and inconsistent (particularly in Kansas), I have never pretended to be an expert on the issue.
I don’t know what state you are from, Lorian, but in Nevada, attorneys do work on behalf of their clients, not on behalf of rights. I’ve done little work in this area, but the handful of gay rights cases where I have been involved, ranging from contracts to employment discrimination, I was on what we both (despite our other differences) would call the right side.
but since you seem eager to engage me in a gender-nonspecific peeing contest, let’s pretend that you did actually go out and found some legal tidbit that I was unaware of. Ah, congradulations. You hit the far wall. So what? Men are still men, women are still women, marriage is still marriage, the day is gone, and you’ve spent it fighting against someone who could otherwise have been fighting with you on issues that would make a real difference to your family.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
You all saw that right? She *totally* kissed me.
swoon
nice!
And back to Oaks, a tip of the hat to Kaimi for this:
http://www.sltrib.com/features/ci_13570937
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
Christian, 1st, I’m not going to spend time combing back through this thread to find all the many references you’ve made implying that having heterosexual parents (or “a mother and a father”) gives children an advantage over having gay parents (or two mothers or two fathers), and suggesting this as a valid reason for defining a separate class for gay people (which would clearly not even be a purportedly equal one, since it is based upon your presumption of inferiority). Anyone who has read the thread will clearly understand that I’m not making this up. The evidence stands.
As to whether you would have spent the day today trying to help gay clients obtain equal civil rights, had I not so selfishly engaged you in an argument in which you worked tirelessly to defend the status quo, well, I cannot possibly say what you would or would not have done were it not for my selfishly engaging you in this conversation. Only you can decide. I have to wonder, though, why someone who claims to want to help gay people obtain civil rights would spend the day arguing against them.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Wait, if Lorian hadn’t taken up your time by not capitulating her beliefs you would have spent this time working on gay rights legislation??
Lorian, I believe you owe the man an apology…
Oh Christian. Crazy, crazy Christian. To think how close I was to getting down on one virtual knee and asking you to put that wedding dress on…
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
CWC #459 - I read the article. Perfect. Absolutely right “on target.”
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
CWC #461 - Ow, ow, ow!!! I’m giggling so hard… Stop! You’re killing me!!!
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
A word is not a civil right, Lorian. If enough folks grasp that, it will divert more time for work on real civil rights than I could give in my lifetime.
Please don’t pretend to be stupid. You know very well that having a mother and a father has nothing to do with whether those parents are “heterosexual” or “homosexual” or whether then are bisexual like the rest of the animal kingdom (see Scientific American Mind, May 2008). But that’s the sort of equivocation that your argument depends on, in order to pretend that I’m discriminating between classes of people, rather than distinguishing between classes of relationships.
I don’t think your engaging me in this argument was “selfish”; it was as selfless as it was mindless. You’ve obtained no benefit from it.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Alright, I’ll do my part: Oh CWC, you are a treasure, why they’ve not made you a perma, I’ll never know.
(Well, except for that whole “Mormon” thing.)
Comment by Stephanie — October 18, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
#461, LoL. Not necessarily. But you never know. No one asked. And I *did* actually spend part of my day proposing a method by which a *judge* might introduce same-sex marriage of sorts even in some states that prohibit SSUs. Although my scheme would not work in a state that specifically requires genetalia, it’s possible, so I’ve still done something more potentially useful to gay rights than anything Lorian’s done today.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
No, Christian, the word, itself is not a civil right. But it is a definition of a civil contract to which certain civil rights and protections have been attached, and, therefore, it must be equally accessible by all citizens. We cannot attach civil rights protections to a defined contractual state, and then deny citizens equal access to that state simply because of their gender.
As to equivocation regarding gender and sexual orientation of parents, I’m not. People who are not heterosexual should not get heterosexually married. It is unhealthy and unfulfilling for most and almost universally ends up in divorce. Nor would it be healthy for any children born into the union, who would likely end up children of a divorce, with all the ramifications attached thereto.
Nor have you presented (because it doesn’t exist) any good reason for believing that gay couples should not have and raise their own chlidren within their own same-gender relationships.
So, as far as I’m concerned, you are the one who is in your own words, “pretending to be stupid.” When I speak of heterosexual parents, or gay parents, I am in the context of this discussion, referring to intact, two-parent households in which the parents are in a primary marital (insofar as marriage is available to them) relationship with one another.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Christian #466 - If that is your definition of “useful legal work which will be helpful to the gay community,” I’m thinking we can get by okay on our own. But thanks. I appreciate the thought.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
You don’t think that bisexuals should get “heterosexually married”? Is it “unhealthy” for them to get “homosexually married”? Really, what sort of options do they have? Or are you one of the legions of so called LGBT advocates that pretends that bisexuals do not exist?
I’m beginning to think that you don’t appreciate thought at all.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Okee dokee, I’ll amend in this case. When I used the term “heterosexual,” I was referring specifically to “people who are significantly sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex.” So, yes, I could have more specifically qualified my statement by saying, “People who are homosexually-oriented should not get heterosexually married.”
Better? I think you understood my meaning, and are using this nit-picking as a means of avoiding substantively addressing what you knew to be my point.
As to this statement:
… you are being deliberately rude and insulting. I don’t deserve that. I’ve continued to engage with you, substantively and thoughtfully, addressing as many of your comments honestly and clearly as I possibly could.
The fact that you are descending into the territory of personal insults leads me to believe that you are no long interested in substantive dialog (if you ever were).
My mistake.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Christian, I’ve read through this whole thread and I don’t fully understand your argument. I think I’m getting lost between what you are saying and responses to what others perceive you as saying. I’m not trying to bait you or be snarky, and if you want to completely ignore this post that’s fine.
I was just wondering if you could very succinctly state your argument for me so I could better understand you, perhaps in the form “Gay people should not be allowed to legally marry because _______”
Comment by meganomega — October 18, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
CWC, I begin to fear that this thread will not break the 500 post mark.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Oh, and CWC, I forgot to do my part, too:
“Oh CWC, you are a treasure, why they’ve not made you a perma, I’ll never know.
(Well, except for that whole “Mormon” thing.)”
Would you like another :kiss:?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
#471, it’s Lorian who comes closer to saying that “Gay people should not be allowed to legally marry” because, in her words,
While I tentatively agree with Lorian that pushing gay people into actual marriage is a bad idea, I don’t think that we can legislate against gays marrying. I do think that we should require the fed and states to recognize each others’ same-sex unions, with the exception of those that have called them “marriages,” which leads to confusion with actual marriage.
The government should continue to recognize marriage as an exchange of promises wherein a man and woman are unified for life. The reason for this special recognition is that most of us recognize that a child obtains benefit from being raised by a father as well as a mother in the home. And various rules pertaining to reproduction within marriage, e.g. the presumption of paternity, are specifically adapted to female-male couples.
Aside from the obvious reproductive realities, gay couples tend to have different cultural expectations which could be accomodated by different rule sets. For example, “hetero” couples tend to want to hide the fact that they have adopted — they want the child to plausibly be their own, so birth records by default are sealed up in adoption. “Gay” couples in contrast tend to want to know who the biological parents are, and plausibility of biological parenthood is obviously not even an option to begin with. The increase of gay couples adopting has in the last 10 years dramatically changed a number of laws regarding surrogacy and other procedures which existed long before a decade ago. There’s no sense in changing the rules that govern a “hetero” couple just because “gay” couples find those rules inconvenient. Different social purposes, different internal rules, so vive la difference, I say. Why submit to a procrustean bed when we can have beds of our own choosing? If marriage is not convenient to a couple, or group, or whatever, then let them have a rule-set other than marriage. No sense in changing the rules or meaning of the word by which my life is governed, in order to accomodate someone who ultimately wants something other than what we have always called marriage.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
Christian # 474
More blatant twisting and misrepresentation, Christian?
Again, anyone who has been following this thread will plainly see this for the disingenuous nastiness that it is. I’m sorry that I ever thought you were serious about this discussion.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
I’m still reading but since Christian and sister-wife Lorian are obviously really intelligent, I have to mentally break down their comments into one word syllables! It’s hard work, y’all! Oh, and cwc, you are really funny! Thanks for the comic relief!
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
well dang, Just in case someone might read this, I’d add a few comments.
Gays aren’t the ones who put out the film–the Godmakers. They don’t have a anti-Mormon printing press churning out anti-Mormon pamphlets and books. Those people are your allies in the anti-gay fight.
While it seems to me most Mormons aren’t aware they know any gay folk, most gays I met really don’t know any Mormons.
But they are very familiar with some religious fanatics, who keep tabs on events like gay family picnic day and regularly show up to protest waving their signs about Sodom and Gomorrah, abominations, and being put to death. oh and children should be kept far away from us.
Now they also know the Mormons put in tremendous amount of time and money to take away their civil rights and they see on the street corner with the anti’s waving the yes on 8 signs, and from talking to many gay people, they see you as one and the same.
Now you know you’re not those people. I know you’re not those people (excepting certain Utah legislators.) But most gays do not.
Isn’t this crazy. Gays scared of Mormons. Mormons scared of gays.
I don’t know of any good that comes from people running around scared of each other
We, both Gays and Mormons, need to find a way past the fear and learn to see the real people.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 18, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Oh, and cwc, I read that Kirby article yesterday - he knows how to hit the nail on the head, doesn’t he?
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Suzanne #477
I agree with you, Suzanne. Unfortunately, Christian seems to be doing his best to reinforce the stereotypes. I’m not scared of Mormons. I’m scared of LDS leadership at the highest levels, and of people like Christian. Those are the people who are out to hurt my famly.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
You are right, Suzanne. I believe it’s fear that has steered the church leadership into this mess. Of what, you may ask? I think they are worried their powerbase (patriarchy, in all its forms) will become destabilized, also $$ (special tax exemptions withdrawn).
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
The unfortunate thing, though, Newbie, is that their special tax exemptions were never under any threat from gays being allowed civil marriage rights. They would never have been compelled to marry gays (or even be nice to us). It is, on the contrary, this very type of political activism which places their tax exempt status at any type of risk.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
I agree, Lorian - my brain is spinning so I’m not thinking clearly, but you are right about the taxes. Back to Oaks - does the church leadership have some sort of quality control/approval process before the leaders give these talks?
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
Talk about disingenous nastiness. If it was a mormon here that was ranting that gays were out to hurt his family, I’d chew him out. But you, you’re using your own family as a human shield, and I’m not shooting back. I’ve never supported DOMA, or any measure to restrict SSUs. I’ve done nothing here but offer my opinion as to why moderates who would otherwise support ssus, are voting in ways that hurt you and yours. You respond by lying about what I said, and now by pretending that I’m attacking your family.
I’m trying to cut back on the hyperbole; I admitted that I went too far with “blood libel,” and yet here you go pretending that I’m trying to hurt your family. Shame on you. Sad thing is that probably no one else will call you on that violence-inspiring lie.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
That, I don’t know (you probably weren’t asking me
).
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
My comment #484 was directed to Newbie’s comment #482.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
General question, because I’m not all that smart: Is it possible for an institution to be arrogant, and yet at the same time, be fearful?
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Jesus wasn’t arrogant, nor fearful. *sigh* I think now I’m just going to share a cigar with Lorian and watch Christian get his measurements for that wedding dress.
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Shame and acrimony is NOT how we want to make 500! That and I have a longstanding disagreement with Ray that nothing good ever gets said past 100 comments because it all dissolves into vitriol. You know what would really prove him wrong? If we all committed these last 15 posts to kissing cwc.
I’ve decided it’s even better than spurring others on reward my attempts at humor. Oh look, an attempt at modesty…
Or, if making kissy faces on the computer is not your cup of tea, I would love a brief-ish synopsis of what we’ve learned in almost 500 comments re: Oaks remarks. That would be cool.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
1.–I’m trying to cut back on the hyperbole
followed by
2.that violence-inspiring lie.
That’s pretty funny.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 18, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Christian #483
If you honestly meant to engage in dialog with me, I believe you would have qualified your opinions with the above statements from the beginning. You have done very little here but suggest in post after post that my and my partner’s parenting is substandard in quality as compared to yours and your (presumptive) wife’s, and to claim that your opinions on that count are good reason to deny my family equal marriage rights.
I’m very glad to hear that you have not actively supported DOMA or any anti-gay marriage measure. I would have no reason, however, to assume that based upon your posts on this thread.
I didn’t say “Mormons are out to hurt my family” (even though a significant percentage have been involved in doing so — I’m here to help remind me that that percentage does not by any means represent the views of ALL Mormons. I said, “LDS high leadership, and people like Christian (based strictly upon your comments in this thread, which have been very disparaging of the rights of gays to equal civil marriage, and of our ability to healthily parent our children, with no evidence presented to support your case.
If you are not out to take away my marriage rights, then good. I’m glad. Let’s shake hands and go home. But that’s not what I’ve read here on this thread, unfortunately.
And “violence-inspiring lie”? Where have I said anything about you to inspire violence? I am emotionally exhausted, as I often become after one of these drawn-out discussions (and believe me, I’ve had many of them). It’s all academic to you. You suggest that I am self-centered and believe that the world revolves around me. I suggest to you that this issue is far more deeply personal to me and affects me in ways in which it can NEVER affect you. Please remember that before you take it up lightly. It’s not a laughing matter for my family.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
*long loud smooch to cwc* After all, if I’m a sister-wife to Lorian, I’m a sister-wife to you! Apologies for having to bring along my moody teen-age daughter. What I have learned during the course of this thread in haiku:
You all are quite smart
Oaks needs to take some Prozac
Jesus loves us, Yay!
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Newbie #486 -
Yes, absolutely, IMO. I think most arrogance proceeds from deep-seated fear.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
#491 - Love it, Newbie!!! :clap:
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Sorry - I’m forgetting my close quotes and close parens. I’m really, really tired.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
I have a longstanding disagreement with Ray that nothing good ever gets said past 100 comments because it all dissolves into vitriol. You know what would really prove him wrong? If we all committed these last 15 posts to kissing cwc.
:^* :^* :^*
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
CWC
1. They were ill-conceived.
2. They were ironic.
3. They were prejudicial.
Does that sum it up?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
I suppose that means Ray was right. :sigh: But then, he often is, isn’t he?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
newbie
Your haiku has my vote. It is very brief-ish.
A most excellent synopsis
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 18, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
You know what scares me? What will the leadership say next?? I remember the days when asked what religion I was, and after I said Mormon, the response was: “Huh?” (Oh, those were the days!) Now, I just keep my mouth shut.
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
500 comments. Let’s give it a rest so Lorian can take a nap.
Comment by Stephanie — October 18, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Amen. (oops - 501!)
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Amen. Thanks for listening.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
That’s a lie.
When the right accuse gays of trying to go after their families, that’s a violence-inspiring lie. The counterpart to that lie, and also violence-inspiring, is the anti-prop eight commercial that says that mormons are attacking gay families. When you spout that stuff at me, you might as well blow :kisses: at Fred Phelps.
More unwarranted paranoia and false accusations on your part. I did told you from the beginning that I support inter-state and federal recognition of SSUs, although I oppose any state redefinition of the word marriage. Obviously that means that I oppose DOMA, which encourages states to refuse to recognize each others SSUs. I don’t know how you missed that. Obviously it means that I would have supported Prop-8, which restored the gendered meaning of marriage and did not interfere with same sex civil partnerships.
And I didn’t think that it was necessary to agree with someone’s politics in order to have “dialog.” You and I truly do not speak the same language.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
Christian #503
Again,Chistian, I never once said that. Quote me, please, the sentence anywhere on this blog (or elsewhere, for that matter) where I made an unqualified statement that “Mormons” as an all-inclusive group are trying to hurt my family. Every statement I’ve ever made on the subject has been carefully qualified and refined to make clear that LDS Leadership, or the LDS Church, as a corporate organization, or conservative anti-gay marriage people among LDS membership (along with conservative people among Roman Catholic and Evangelical memberships) were working to harm my family by taking away our civil rights.
I have never made a blanket statement regarding Mormons, other than to say that I value the wonderful Mormons in my life, including quite a few family members, who have shown me and my family loving acceptance. And there are many of those.
So please don’t go putting words in my mouth. I think most people on this site have gotten to know me well enough that you aren’t likely to get far with false smears against my character.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
Christian #503
Of course it isn’t. But what IS necessary is that you treat them with respect and not twist their words and attempt to malign them.
And thanks for clarifying WHY you don’t support DOMA. I had thought for a minute that it was actually because you weren’t actively out trying to take away my marriage in the political sphere. But you are. So that clarifies matters greatly.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
I never accused you of being out to hurt all mormons, so don’t put words into my mouth. I’m sure some of your best friends are mormons, etc. But what you said (that I was “out to hurt” your family) is an inflammatory lie.
The only thing I’ve said against your character is that you’re a liar, and that’s apparent from your accusation that I’m trying to hurt your family.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Christian, you ARE out to hurt my family, if you are out to try to block us from equal civil rights. And you are out to hurt me if you are going to insist upon the superiority of male-female pairings as parenting teams over same-gender pairs (didn’t misrepresent your views there, did I?), despite all evidence to the contrary, and present that as the “reason” why we don’t “deserve” equal marriage rights. You ARE trying to hurt me and my family if you are going to engage in lies and hyperbole that allowing us to marry will “destroy” marriage or cause “cultural genocide.”
Yeah, you’re trying to hurt me and my family, Christian. You might as well just own it and be okay with it. Really.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
You obviously have no ground for accusing me of hyperbole while accusing me of trying to hurt your family. Someday, someone might really try to hurt your family, Lorian. It won’t be me. And you might wonder why no one that you know takes you seriously when you say you’ve been threatened. And it won’t only be your fault. It will also be the fault of so called friends of yours that patted you on the back and congradulated you for embarassing your political enemies with false accusations.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
CWC I’m with Stephanie… you will always be funny to us and don’t know why you’re not a perma.
Still waiting for Derek’s opinion on Oaks.
Comment by moksha — October 18, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Christian, you’re simply engaging in ad hominem hatefulness, and I’m serving fair warning that I’m not responding to it any further. If you’d like to rationally discuss the ISSUES, I’ll be happy to engage at any time. God bless you and yours.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
moksha, me too. Looking forward to it. But he has so many wives, you know, that I’m sure it’s hard to find the time…
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Christian
You’re probably a nice guy and would never willfully try to harm someone.
So I can see where you’d get upset if accused of that.
However, from where I sit, as a married lesbian, I think you’re trying to undo my marriage. That’s not a pleasant feeling. I think and feel and deeply believe that’s harmful.
The way I see it, 50 years from now, Lorian and her wife will be still be happily married, sitting in their rocking chairs surrounded by loving family.
And 50 years from now, you and your wife will still be happily married surrounded by your loving family
Ain’t love grand.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 18, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Where art thou Derek? And thine opinions?
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Lorian, I agree.
Its a lot of hard work to take care of everyone. And look at me— lil miss needy over here! Wah wah wah where is Derek’s opinion?
tee hee hee
I guess that’s why we have to have all us ladies to entertain each other while the men are out chopping the wood. Oh whoops! Too much gender profiling. I’d want to get out and chop wood for a bit anyhow.
Sure enjoying the dialogue going on here anyway. Thanks all as usual! (ps where’s Quimby at too?)
Comment by moksha — October 18, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
There, that’s about right!
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Good points, Suzanne. And I don’t think that Christian would try to physically harm me, my wife or children, like hit us or go after us with a weapon. But there are many ways to harm people, and disenfranchisement is a biggy. It’s easy to think you’re not hurting anyone just by taking a particular political stance, but sometimes it’s important to actually hear what someone who is harmed by that political stance has to say about it.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
I miss sister-wife Quimby!!!
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
Newbie -
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Oh I want a rocking chair! I promise I’ll make fresh lemonade for everyone. Maybe we can eat some of Lisa’s yummy looking canned goods too.
Comment by moksha — October 18, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
moksha, that’s so funny. I know that many women found polygamy very demeaning and competitive, but I’ve always thought that, under the right circumstances, there could be a great deal of camaraderie and fellowship between a group of women sharing a household or farm, the care of their children and their work. But, of course, I’d never want to be treated as property, or something to be taken or dismissed at a whim.
But that’s a whole ‘nother thread, isn’t it?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
You make it sound better and better. A big old house full of Lisa’s canned fruit made into pies, some lemonaid, some singing and sewing… :heavenly:
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
We’re gonna need a whole load o’ rockin’ chairs. Lorian, I hope your porch can handle it!
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
I envision the Celestial Kingdom as one great big fabric/sewing room!
Comment by newbie — October 18, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Lorian, It’s not an “ad homeniem” (even in gayspeak) to say that a false accusation is a “lie.”
Suzanne:
On that point you are mistaken, Suzanne. As much as I disagree with the court decisions that gave you marriage status, that status, once given, cannot be taken away without violating the 5th or 14th amendment. The CA Attorney General agrees with me on that, even though he supported Prop-8.
Anyone else have any theories to try to justify Lorian’s perverse accusation against me? If she’s already “married” there’s no honest way she can argue that I’m trying to take any right away from her — even the word.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Ooooh, newbie, I love it!!! I do have a nice back yard… :stroking chin:
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Quite true. But if the alleged victim cannot make her point without lying about what I have said and done, that kind of throws her accusations into doubt.
If we thought that it was important to credit and believe everyone that said they were harmed by something that another person has thought or said, then we’d still be burning witches. Because that was the precise reasoning that led to the Salem hangings.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
#520 I’m with ya. My best friend Tina and I frequently discuss what we believe to be some perceived advantages (and dis) of such communal living (sans any personal human property of course). Since I don’t have any kids I’m borrowing some of you’alls and then since I’m still selfish I can give them back when I feel like going back to my rocking chair!
k sorry tangent aside… back to regularly scheduled programming.
Comment by moksha — October 18, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
In the light of these inflammatory falsehoods about church leaders and individual mormons wanting to do unspecified and ominous harm to gay families, I don’t think that Oaks’ analogy is exaggerated. These accusations, like the infamous home invasion commercial, set the stage for vandalism and violence.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
I have it on good authority that this weekend at the MORMON WOMEN’S FORUM, Lisa, mfranti, myself and others are going to have a home-canning swap. Did I mention that the event is FREE?
All of your Mormon sister wife fantasies about to come true…
For the record, I too consider disenfranchisement “harmful.”
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
Christian #524
I’ll respond to this, because it is (vaguely) substantive.
While I am legally married in California, my marriage here is still 2nd class in that it could not be duplicated. If a straight couple divorced, they would have the right to remarry one another. My spouse and I (while we have no plans to divorce) lack that right.
My marriage is still 2nd class at anything beyond the state level, as well, because it is not portable from state to state. Thus, when my spouse and I travel out of state, the moment we cross the state line, we are at risk because we are legal strangers.
My marriage is still 2nd class because it is not recognized by the federal government. My spouse and I and our children do not have access to a single one of the more than 1000 rights and protections of federal marriage.
And if you have anything to say about it, we never will have any of those rights. Therefore, you can well be said to be trying to hurt me and my family by ensuring that we remain disenfranchised of our equal civil rights.
As to the rest of your post, more ad hominem attacks (or “ad homeniem” [sic] attacks, if you prefer). So, to the rest I simply say, God bless you, Christian.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Christian #526 - More ad hominem and hyperbole, so, God bless you.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Oh, CWC, that sounds like heaven on earth!!! I wish I didn’t have a booked weekend and wasn’t so far from y’all.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
#528 - God bless you, Christian.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
moksha, you can borrow my kids when they are fighting with each other or throwing tantrums, ‘kay?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
crazywomancreek
Alas, I shall be working next week
I hope we get a full report for those of us regretfully missing it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 18, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
By what convoluted hatemongering logic do you blame me for this? You already grasp at some level that I oppose DOMA. …
You’ve accused me of doing your family harm, on a thread about Oak’s supposed hyperbole. Are you really so shallow that you think that my typos are going to justify your inflammatory libels?
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
#536 - More hatefulness and false accusations, Christian. God bless you, and your family. May you be richly blessed with happiness and all good things, both here and in the life to come. I will pray for you.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
CWC Wish I could go too. Can’t wait to hear about it.
Lorian Um, yeah sounds fun. If I just sit and laugh at them is that okay?
I’m with cwc…. disenfranchised and marginalized= bad
Comment by moksha — October 18, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
I see. So your argument is that I’m a threat to your kids, because I support laws that could make it difficult to you to marry someone else after you divorced your partner? That’s pretty convoluted, Lorian. I think you need better than that to justify accusing someone of being out to hurt your family.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
moksha, if you and the other sister-wives come here, we could just crank up the hot tub and sip cool drinks and let all the kids entertain each other…
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
If we keep up the planning of our virtual sister-wife household, we could get this sucker up to 600… :evilgrin:
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
#539 - That wasn’t what I said at all, now, was it? Go back and re-read my comment.
God bless you and yours, Christian. Slumber peacefully and wake refreshed. I hope that your day tomorrow brings you many blessings and much joy.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
I’m in. A hot tub is the icing on the cake! Sounds good for me aching bones right about now.
I’ll bring the dip.
holy 543 comments batman!
Comment by moksha — October 18, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Oh, and, yes, moksha… It’s absolutely fine to just sit and laugh at them when they are tantrumming. Drives ‘em up a tree. Especially when they are my kids’ age. My favorite thing when they whine is to whine back at them. Cracks them up every time.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Batman??? Batman’s here? Where??? Cool!!!
I’ll bring vegan cheesecake. Yummy!!!
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Someone’s going to come shut this puppy down soon.
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
we could let the kids all play together if newbie’s teenage daughter and my teenage son weren’t missing. Has anyone seen them? Last seen complaining about how unfair their lives where and how incredibly lame their mom’s were for loving fMh…they’re around here somewhere. has anyone seen my car keys?
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
hmm…vegan cheesecake usually brings Quimby out…
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 18, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Uh oh. They’re not here. moksha, you seen ‘em?
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
If I waft the scent of the cheesecake to the Southwest, do you think it might catch a breeze and bring her running? :hopefully-puppy-face:
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
VEGAN too? Oh how could it be??????? I’m now in seventh heaven!
Where dey at?
Comment by moksha — October 18, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Speaking of the little cookie monsters, I’d better get them up to bed. They’ve had their bath and their snack and their toothbrushing, but it’s a few minutes past bedtime.
Love to all, including you, Chrisian. God bless you. Good night.
Hope the teenagers turn up soon…
Comment by Lorian — October 18, 2009 @ 10:42 pm