A Hopeful Turn
By: Eris
For over a year this site has been regularly alight with fiery debates over the LDS church’s involvement in the gay marriage issue. We agonized over how to react in sacrament meeting when the letter of support for Proposition 8 was read from the pulpit; we had heated and emotional debates over the meaning of California’s Proposition 8; we even argued over whether Dustin Lance Black’s Oscar acceptance speech was beautiful and moving or a thinly veiled attack on Mormonism. We have seen some of the most vitriolic and vicious, not to mention the most prolific, comments as we have grappled with this issue and what it means.
I have been a part of these debates and have struggled internally with what my church’s political activism had to with my love for the priesthood and the gospel. I admit to feeling deep, painful regret over many of my church’s public statements and actions. But Tuesday night I found myself reading, through joyous tears, the report of the LDS church’s official support of the Salt Lake City anti-discrimination policy. In that moment I was more proud of my organization than I had been in over a year. And then, not 24 hours later, they raised the bar when Elder Holland voiced support for a statewide anti-discrimination policy.
I am proud of the leaders of my church for expressing a commitment to love and unity with all persons, regardless of their faith. I am thrilled at what appears to be movement in a more tolerant direction. And I am hopeful that this is the beginning of something bigger – not an abandonment of our doctrine – but maybe an exit from the political arena, or at least a renewed dedication to the Christlike behavior we should all strive to emulate. Am I wrong to be hopeful? Does this feel like a sea change? Or is it simply damage control?
It would be INSANE not to support gay rights. But until the LDS church allows gays to legally marry, they still don’t fully support gay rights. Sorry, but it’s still just lip service.
Comment by None — November 12, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
I think it is definitely a good sign. While I understand #1’s skepticism, I think it’s important to realize that the church is departing from the norms of other right-wing organizations with these. Now it’s getting flak from its supposed allies.
I don’t think they HAD to take this position. The fact that they did is uplifting. Even if they are still a couple decades behind where I’d like them to be.
Comment by Natalie K. — November 12, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
You’re talking about this press release?
Comment by ErinAnn — November 12, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
It’s obviously one step above lip service, since they’re actually supporting an actual anti-discrimination policy, even if it isn’t the comprehensive policy you’d like to see. They could have just stood aside and done nothing, which is what they usually do. I for one am a little less cynical about the church’s rhetoric than I was before.
Comment by Rebecca J — November 12, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
ErinAnn, yes the press release as well as the statement from a church representative during the public hearing on the SLC ordinance and the interview with Elder Holland.
#1, I agree that legal marriage would be full support, but I would point out that I do not argue the church is fully supporting, only that this is a good sign.
Comment by Eris — November 12, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
I wasn’t as impressed. It’s not like the church is changing their views. It’s just publicly announcing views they already had (I very clearly remember the “Gay” Ensign where it talked about how we should except and love our bro and sis who “struggle” with this). When the church becomes more accepting of MARRIAGE between homosexuals then I’ll be excited.
And it still bugs me that they are voicing ANY opinion in the political stage. I don’t wanna hear about politics from my church. I wanna hear about the Gospel.
Comment by DoubleL — November 12, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Definitely a step in the right direction!
Baby steps, but steps nonetheless.
Comment by Allison — November 12, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
#6 - It would be nice if the church just stayed out of politics, period, but given that they played such a significant and public role in getting Prop 8 passed last year, it’s much better that they are publicly supporting an anti-discrimination policy now than if they’d just decided to keep their mouths shut (after opening the barn door, so to speak). It does put their anti-SSM efforts into a different context, and it is a more meaningful way of saying that they support certain rights for everyone (contrasted with merely “not opposing” such rights). It sends an important message to the general membership as well.
Comment by Rebecca J — November 12, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
I was glad to see the church make this move. This whole situation was unnecessary and provoked far too negative a response, and I’m glad to see church leadership realize this. I saw on Andrew Sullivan’s blog that he thought this was a good move too, and that he recognized an olive branch for what it was. He recommended to gay rights groups to follow suit. The quicker this mess can be reconciled the quicker we can get back to far more important things.
Comment by Dan — November 12, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
I was very impressed by this. Especially since the comments today came from Elder Holland. People are likely to shrug off Otterson’s comments from Tuesday night as just some PR guy. But, words from Holland carry a lot of weight. Even if we’re still a long way off from marriage equality in the church’s eyes, this was a HUGE step in the right direction for tolerance from the general membership. One of the reasons I finally quit going to church a year ago was because of all the spiteful, homophobic remarks people would make - even knowing I was gay. Maybe members will start to put some real thought into how they treat others who are different than they are.
Comment by Max Power — November 12, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
I think it was an acknowledgement of what had to be. The ordinance, from what I’ve read, probably would’ve passed even if the church had opposed it. This way, they can look better.
After what so many church members in Utah have said to me about gays, I think I’ll dismiss this. It doesn’t matter what the church announces; it only matters when it really starts making “bad people good and good people better.”
Comment by MikeW — November 12, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
I think the announcement is both PR fluff (Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations may not have been on stage, but they were certainly in the wings) and a significant policy change.
The announcement is significant because it is the first time that the Church has supported any gay-positive legislation. Ever. Of any kind. This establishes a baseline.
We should not assume that such a baseline exists in conservative Christianity more generally. For example, earlier this year the Catholic church came out against a U.N. resolution that would have urged countries to decriminalize consensual homosexual acts between adults. In other words, the Catholic’s church’s baseline is that they are just fine with imprisonment for homosexuality or even capital punishment (which is currently the penalty in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia).
Until this week, the LDS Church had no policy baseline on this issue. You could have argued that by their silence they agreed with the Catholic position, and you’d find many on the more conservative LDS blogs who would hold such a view.
Well, as it turns out, the official LDS position on gay issues is as of this week significantly to the left of evangelicals and the Catholic church. This is not a small matter. It may just be a PR strategy to help Brother Romney or to deflect criticism about Prop. 8, but I’m happy for it anyway. In this case, the sincerity (or lack of it) doesn’t really matter.
Comment by MoHoHawaii — November 12, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
After seeing the news reports my first thought was definitely damage control. But then the cock-eyed optomist side of me kicked in and began to hope that it was baby steps. It will take a lot of those baby steps to put the church back to where it was before Prop 8.
Comment by numi — November 12, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Supporting this was a safe move by the church, meaning that most people are against discrimination in any form. I think the church is trying to remove the negative image from Prop 8, so one easy and safe way is support anti-discrimination laws. I do think this is a teeny, tiny step. I wouldn’t expect the church to turn around in one year to support same sex marriage but I think it would have been a bigger step to see support for domestic partnership rights.
Comment by shannonj — November 12, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Thanks for this post, Eris. The Church is taking baby steps in the right direction, and i’m hopeful. Want to say more but don’t have time now. Thanks again Eris.
Comment by ECS — November 12, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Sure it’s a right step, BUT I believe they can’t sue for discrimination and waive their rights to do so. They will be able to send in formal complaints which will be reviewed yearly. Also they have no anti-discrimination rights AT ALL at small businesses and small housing complexes. I could be wrong I read the bill quickly so correct me if I am wrong. But if I am correct that is a bunch of crap.
Comment by cz — November 12, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
Yes. Perhaps the church leadership has learned a thing or two since 1978.
Comment by newbie — November 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
12 Yes. Everything he said.
There is, in my mind, an end game. The Church won’t always be the enemy of ssm, and ssm won’t always be the enemy of the church. When it becomes the law of the land, there will be reconciliations and moves like this one will help to pave the way.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 12, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Sorry Eris, but I think that wanting to see the press release and Elder Holland’s statement as a significant sea change for the LDS Church is a way to minimize cognitive dissonance.
It will be a sea change when church leaders encourage members to donate their time and talents to support anti-discrimination legislation and equal rights for all, despite sexual orientation.
Comment by Kari — November 12, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
I hope you’re right cwc.
For me, this is not enough. There is still inherent discrimination and a church that claims continuing revelation with a direct link to God and open canon etc.. ought to be the forerunner’s of progressive, open and loving change. A last stitch effort to make up for terribly bad PR doesn’t give me much hope yet because the effort to enact anti-discrimination laws is sort of a duh. How way behind is that? Isn’t it obvious to any half decent person on the planet that no one should be discriminated against in their work and housing matters. It seems a little late to just be supporting those sorts of changes now.
But I will try to put more positive energy out there that cwc is right and that this too shall pass. Sooner rather than later thank you.
Comment by moksha — November 12, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Kari- You beat me too it. What you said.
Comment by moksha — November 12, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
The whole thing made me very happy. I thought the comment about the church supporting it because it doesn’t “do violence to the institution of marriage” was an odd and unfornuate choice of words. Kind of like a back handed compliment, but overall I was very pleased and hopeful.
Comment by Jon — November 12, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
I’m a skeptic in generally, so I’ll continue to be so for this issue. While I’m never unhappy to see anyone supporting non-discrimination ordinances (give credit where credit is due), still this is a tiny, tiny thing, and doesn’t, in my opinion, suggest any movement in the church’s basic positions. It is consistent with their stated policy of non-harassment towards what they term, “people with ssa” who remain celibate (the press release even uses that term). It doesn’t touch on any issues related to a gay couple’s rights as a couple.
It gives the church hierarchy a way to look like they are really actually charitably disposed towards gay people without having to in any way admit that we should have the right to be in acknowledged civil relationships.
Comment by Lorian — November 12, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Been seeing the same kinds of comments on this topic all over the ‘Gentile’ blogosphere, except that elsewhere the opinions are far more skewed toward the hostile and suspicious. My own opinion, as a gay ex-member, is that while speculation as to the Church’s sincerity and possibly devious motives may be fun (for some), it’s essentially a waste of time. The Church’s statement apparently helped facilitate passage of a groundbreaking anti-discrimination ordinance in Salt Lake, and the chances are now greatly improved that this may go statewide. Who cares whether the GAs have had a genuine change of heart, or if they’ve had to be shamed into accepting progress for reasons of PR? It’s still progress, and for that I’m grateful.
Now, as Affirmation said in their statement earlier this week
Could Elder Holland be signalling that second step? Possibly…
Thank you, Eris, for the post.
Comment by SLK in SF — November 12, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Seems to me that every step in the right direction is a step in the
right direction. It is therefore a good thing and I applaud.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 12, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
I’m cautiously hopeful that this represents the beginning of a less harmful direction for the Church in this arena. But I don’t think we yet have enough information to judge for certain one way or another.
Comment by Derek — November 12, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
They said they would support rights and they did.good reminder to members as well
Comment by britt — November 12, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
Thanks Britt, I agree with your comment. Members need to realize that being hateful and bigoted is not a part of church doctrine and does not align with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The day this was passed, my cousin, who is a Mormon Chaplain in the Army (technically non-denominational Christian) posted something hateful about the horribleness of gays and the disgustingness of their sins. It really bothered me that someone who faces the world as a Christian minister would be spreading hate. I posted the link to this from the Salt Lake tribune on my Facebook and I hope he read it.
Comment by Risa — November 12, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Is there a link anywhere to Elder Holland’s words on this?
Comment by Enna — November 12, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Here is the story on Elder Holland’s words: And I would point out that this statewide bill is not at all popular with conservative lawmakers, so it’s definitely not a safe issue for the church to support.
Thanks to everyone for the nice discussion. Let me say this much about damage control and PR - it would have been just as easy for the church to stay silent on the SLC ordinance and probably would have saved them a lot of heat from other conservative churches. So I give them props.
Plus, getting an apostle in on this…. well, the more I think about it, the more I think it is a big signal. I joint Britt in hoping that members take this message to heart.
Finally, does anyone think it was the Colbert Report that brought this about. We looked pretty darn silly there.
Comment by Eris — November 12, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
I agree, it is interesting to see the Church in politics. I was like “Wahhhh?” when it was announced 2 years ago in my ward my reading of a decree from the first presidency as to how “WE” should define marriage. I totally looked around and no one (but me) was shocked.
Comment by Crystal — November 12, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Forget the statewide anti-discrimination bill; don’t be surprised if the Utah legislature passes a bill to pull rank and repeal the city ordinance:
Comment by Derek — November 12, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Yes, this wouldn’t surprise me at all, Derek.
Comment by Lorian — November 12, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
What about the actual PEOPLE discriminatory laws are hurting?! I wish I lived in Herriman so I could vote that asshat out. Always like a Republican to care more about business owners and property owners than actual people and their rights and dignity.
Comment by Risa — November 12, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
Yes, Risa. It reminds me of when my BIL and I first discussed gay marriage (he’s adjusted his views considerably since that time), and he, a small business owner, told me that he didn’t support gay marriage because it would be disadvantangeous to small business owners who employ gay people because they would have to offer spousal/dependent insurance benefits to their spouses. I wanted to slap him and ask him how often he hires gays so that he won’t have to pay family benefits for them? And how does that compare vs. those who did not want to overturn slavery because it would cause economic hardship to slaveowners?
Economic issues are never a valid reason for denying basic human and civil rights protections to anyone.
Comment by Lorian — November 12, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Ooh, Colbert talked about us? I missed that one. Link, please?
Comment by Natalie K. — November 12, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/254666/november-03-2009/nailed–em—mormon-church-trespassing
Natalie, here’s your link to Colbert. Sorry, couldn’t get the link thing to work.
Comment by numi — November 12, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Too little, too late.
Comment by Ann — November 12, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Crystal #31: Strange to see the church in politics? Do you live in Utah? California? The church is deeply involved in politics, it just doesn’t usually do it so openly.
Comment by numi — November 12, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Numi, unfortunately the church has been political before. ERA, anyone? But I had hoped those days were behind us… alas, not so much.
Comment by Eris — November 12, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
No, I live in Virginia. My daughter is the only mormon in her entire school.
Comment by Crystal — November 12, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
But I am quite familiar with the failure of the equal rights amendment. It still just infuriates me, a certain apostle’s comments on it were really rubbing me the wrong way too. Every time I see a talk by him, I am like… hmmmm… but MAN does he give GREAT talks to the youth.
I just wonder where divine and natural man divide sometimes, you know?
Comment by Crystal — November 12, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Yes, numi and Eris, and the Hawaii ban on gay marriage, too.
Comment by Lorian — November 12, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
#42 - Crystal, which apostle is that? Out of curiosity, since I was born after ERA.
Comment by Risa — November 12, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Wait! Let us guess! My guess is Packer.
Comment by Eris — November 12, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
They said they would support rights and they did.good reminder to members as well - britt, #27
Well, that’s an interesting take. In an article in the Deseret News, 6 Nov 2008, LDS Official Lauds Work for California’s Prop. 8, Elder L. Whitney Clayton is quoted (and paraphrased), and the LDS Church’s position is reiterated, that the LDS Church “‘does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships,’ that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights.”
So if the Church “does not oppose” what does that mean? I’m not aware of any church official’s statement, prior to today, that the LDS church support equal rights. If the Church really does support equal rights, where was the statement supporting Referendum 71 in Washington state this past election cycle? That referendum upheld a law, passed by the legislature, that ensured same-sex domestic partnerships the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Too much for the LDS Church? They didn’t, to my knowledge, publicly oppose the Referendum. But there was no public pronouncement of support or “lack of opposition.” It would have been nice to have seen an official LDS statement, even as simple as a press release, that simply stated “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not opposed to the legislation in Washington state that grants equal rights to civil unions.”
Comment by Kari — November 12, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
I, for one, wish the church would get out of the business of politics.
That said, I will admit it that when I read a blurb about this on the NY Times, for the first time in a long time I wasn’t embarrassed to be Mormon. As a (now, post Prop8) Californian, I need to be associated to a church that is supporting rather than attacking others.
At this point I think it is unlikely that we will see doctrinal shifts, at least in my life time. Yet I remain cautiously optimistic that this is one of many rhetorical and cultural shifts from SLC leadership that will converge with a shift towards tolerance from the general membership.
Comment by Nicole — November 12, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
Interestingly enough, Kari, while the LDS Church took a backseat on the recent campaigns in Washington and Maine, the organization, NOM (National Organization for Marriage), which, at best, has strong ties to the LDS Church and, at worst, was possibly founded as a front to allow the Church to take a more direct political role in campaigns like Prop 8 (you decide — here’s some info…), was also deeply involved in the funding for both Question 1 in Maine and Referendum 71 in Washington (more info).
This makes claims by NOM, Yes on 8 and the LDS Church of being only desirous of “protecting” the word “marriage,” while being supportive of civil rights for gays which don’t involve the word “marriage,” a ring a little false. That’s exactly what they were fighting AGAINST in Washington state, after all.
Comment by Lorian — November 12, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
Nicole, I feel the same way. Nice to be able to look my sister and her partner and other gay friends in the eye again. For now. And I would love to have the church out of politics.
Lorian, I would respectfully ask those who say this is not enough what kind of step would be acceptable as a first step. Understanding that Prop 8, Maine and Washington have been very hurtful, it seems that the SLC ordinance is at least a beginning. If it is not enough of a beginning, what (aside from complete doctrinal change and reversal of all previous positions, which I think is unreasonable to expect) is enough?
Comment by Eris — November 12, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
I understand the “too little, too late”-type comments here. I was just as maddened as anybody by Proposition 8. I’m still upset over it. Really upset.
But I don’t think we should understate the significance of this move. Currently, Title VII (the federal employment nondiscrimination law) does not protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Proposals to change this have been introduced in Congress every year for the past 15 years, but none of them has passed. In other words, this is a significant issue for conservatives.
That Salt Lake City gays and lesbians are now entitled to this protection, and that this is owing, in part, to the LDS Church, is remarkable.
I think liberals need to take a step back and reevaluate their strategy when it comes to LGBT rights. Charging into the state capitol or the courthouse with the expectation that things can be drastically changed overnight is naive. The fight for LGBT equality is going to be a gradual one, and will likely progress by small steps such as the SLC antidiscrimination measures. I think this instance proves that it is often more productive for the respective parties to come to the bargaining table and try to find some common ground.
Comment by Steve M — November 12, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
I think the Church backing of this anti-discrimination is more of a bone thrown to dissidents in the Church (like me) who weren’t fans of the prop 8 involvement, than it is a really heartfelt gesture or policy change. But as #12 said, sincerity may not matter as much here as the fact that it’s happened.
Comment by Bro. Jones — November 12, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
@ 51,
I would beg to differ. I frankly don’t think the Church is too concerned with placating the relatively small minority of active Mormons who opposed Proposition 8.
Coming out in support of the SLC measures is not going to go over well in conservative circles. Many of the Evangelical and Catholic groups with which the Church worked in Proposition 8 are likely to criticize the move. It’s going to cost the Church some of its Christian Right street cred, and we know how sensitive the Church is about its image as a “traditional Christian” organization. I don’t think the Church would sacrifice that goodwill simply to appease some disgruntled Mormons, or even to score a few points in the PR department. (Although I do think that the Church is uncomfortable being the poster-child for the anti-gay rights movement.)
The Church just sent a message to its members that discriminating against gays and lesbians in housing and employment is not OK, and that legal protection may be warranted–even though it’s perfectly legal to fire someone because you don’t like his haircut, because he smells funny, because he’s a Democrat, or because he drives a Ford. In other words, the Church has countenanced the idea that gays and lesbians may be deserving of special legal protection that is not granted to every discernible group. That’s significant.
I think that, up until now, the common understanding among rank-and-file Mormons has been that gay rights measures are per se suspect. The Church’s support for the SLC ordinances is an affront to that view. In other words, the move is potentially pretty far-reaching.
This may signal a new phase in LDS-LGBT relations. Don’t get me wrong–the Church is not about to embrace gay marriage, and I don’t think that it will (at least not in my lifetime). But it’s attempting to articulate a nuanced position–while it opposes gay marriage, it does not oppose–and may even support–other rights and protections, so long as religious liberties are protected. This distinguishes the Church from much of the Christian Right, which is generally unwilling to even sit down at the bargaining table with gay rights activists.
Comment by Steve M — November 13, 2009 @ 12:08 am
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still routinely excommunicates (non-celibate) gay members. Despite the harsher rhetoric, the Catholics treat their gays with more compassion. As long as a gay Catholic doesn’t actively oppose the teachings of Rome, he can stay in the fold and work out his own salvation with fear and trembling before The Lord. There are lots of gay Catholics who stay in the church. Contrast that with the poor gay Mormon guy who happens to find a boyfriend. What happens to him in Utah?
Better laws in Utah are nice, but stopping the excommunications would impact many more lives all over the world. That’s the day I hope for.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 13, 2009 @ 1:25 am
The words I don’t like are “protect some small landlords” and. Not create a “private right of action” to sue over alleged discrimination.Whats the freaking point if ya cant sue for discrimination oH A LITTLE $1000 fine to those whom are doing the discriminating…..,,,, give me a break. I can just see the LDS approved housing go up!!!!! and of course the price of apartments to anyone whom doesn’t want to live next to a gay….
Comment by CZ — November 13, 2009 @ 1:38 am
I think this decision by the Church is important for several reasons:
1. As Steve said, it is a message to Church members that gay rights measures themselves are not, per se, suspect. I think that is a really critical message to send to Church members. Otherwise, I do think that the position on prop 8 could be interpreted in an inappropriate extreme that would put basic rights of gays like these at risk. The statement that separates these rights from marriage can help Church members better negotiate in their minds what the Church’s position has been all about.
2. Similarly, I think it signals to those who have been frustrated with the Church that it is not out to simply strip gays of rights or go around imposing religion on everyone else. There is a sense of ‘live and let live’ here — not only that, but, “We respect your right to have a home and to support yourself and your loved ones.”
I know this may never be enough for some people, but I think this helps reiterate the important fact that the Church, as stated in the DN article mentioned above, is “not anti-gay, but pro-marriage.”
3. I think it is a reminder that this issue is nuanced. Elder Oaks talked about it as well in his recent address on religious liberty. There is a tension that exists on this issue that will never disappear and differences of opinion that will always exist, imo, but I think this is an important model to consider when sorting through that tension…recognizing that it’s possible to separate out many basic rights and protect them and still be supportive of marriage and religious liberty.
4. I think there is something in Elder Holland’s comments that is so crucial that I haven’t seen mentioned — that of the process of ‘both sides’ getting together and having a civil discussion and trying to sort through some of that tension. There is much that can be gained from people trying to talk through things in respectful ways and understanding and leaving space for the others’ point of view in the process. There will always be disagreements along the way, but a lot of good can be accomplished with reasonable discussion and respectful attitudes even in the face of disagreement. It’s too easy to let the differences dominate, rather than trying to find common ground on which to build in productive ways.
In short, I think there is much to be considered from this action by people on ‘both sides’ of the issue.
Comment by m&m — November 13, 2009 @ 2:07 am
Maybe you should make up your mind.
Comment by MCQ — November 13, 2009 @ 2:14 am
Mike, are you saying that the poor gay Mormon guy who finds a boyfriend is treated differently in Utah than elsewhere? Or are you just saying it’s a lot harder to find a boyfriend in Utah?
Comment by MCQ — November 13, 2009 @ 2:20 am
The silence of many of those so critical of the Church is deafening itself.
Nothing on the “Californians Against Hate” site. Nothing at “Bash Back”. I left them a dare for a comment, but we’ll see. I sent a copy of the News Room piece to a radio station that has done a series on Prop 8, but I won’t hold my breath over this getting any attention.
Comment by Mike H. — November 13, 2009 @ 2:37 am
As a person who attended the council meeting that this announcement was made at, I would like to clarify a few things. I don’t know if the vote would have been unanimous like it was without the LDS church’s support, but I’m certain it would’ve passed.
Also, if the state were to pass a law repealing the ordinance, their repeal could be challenged in court with reference to Romer V. Evans (SCotUS, 1996) which said that states cannot pass laws prohibiting LGBT people to have protected status.
In essence, the Church’s position had no bearing on the result, but the backlash from the legislature will probably be much smaller now. I applaud them for their actions, but as a gay former Mormon, still exercise skepticism regarding their announcement.
Comment by nategiggles — November 13, 2009 @ 4:15 am
Lorian, There is nothing in any of the links you posted that has any sort of proof that NOM is church in action, or representing the church, or anything of the sort.
Is that really the best link you have indicating a relationship? That looks more like conjecture than actual news.
Comment by britt — November 13, 2009 @ 8:41 am
#58
Let the haters be stumped silent. Andrew Sullivan calls the church move an olive branch, and recognizes that the church position on marriage, while he disagrees with it, is “intellectually honest.” It will be nice for a change to carry on the conversation with folks like Dustin Lance Black, who state their opinion in moving terms rather than shrieking that anyone who disagrees with them is an evil bigot that needs to be stamped out. Let the moderates and centrists carry out the conversation, and if the accusers want to stay out in the cold, we’re better off without them. Lock the door.
Comment by Christian — November 13, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Something I have not seen discussed here thus far re: timing…Why couldn’t the church come out in favor of the Common Ground initiatives brought up in last year’s legislative session? They included things like anti-discrimination for housing, medical visitation rights, etc. This would have been statewide but all the six measures were shot down in committee ( http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705286026/Last-gay-rights-bill-is-voted-down-by-panel.html )
I just don’t get why the church is jumping in now when they could have supported these last year. Any thoughts on this?
Comment by lemondrop — November 13, 2009 @ 9:26 am
@ m&m (#55),
I was also impressed by the statement in the Holland article about the Church and gay rights leaders sitting down and working out a solution. I think the SLC ordinances represent a success for deliberative democracy.
Comment by Steve M — November 13, 2009 @ 9:33 am
I personally think the church is jumping on now because the desperately need good PR to back up their rhetoric in the face of the incident on Main street, which was recently (satirically) reported on the Colbert Report.
But like others said, who cares what the motives as long as they are making a positive step….and as long as they continue to make positive steps. Time will only tell if this is real or a simply a crafty move in the headlines game.
Comment by julie — November 13, 2009 @ 9:46 am
I think the decision was motivated by pragmatic considerations. Broad societal acceptance of LGBT individuals is an inevitability (even in Utah). Across-the-board opposition to gay rights is simply a losing battle. I think the Church came to the realization that it is in its best interests, in the long run, to come to the bargaining table and work out compromise solutions that accord some protection to gays and lesbians while adequately respecting religious liberties.
Comment by Steve M — November 13, 2009 @ 11:41 am
#63 and others…
I care what the motives are. Motive is extremely important to me. Isn’t the pure in heart and the motives of our heart the most important thing? I care if its really just a PR move or if its a sincere effort towards more love, more peace, and more correct interactions and treatment of others.
Comment by moksha — November 13, 2009 @ 11:57 am
… interesting. Perhaps a step in the right direction? I will maintain a “wait and see, I’ll believe it when I see it” holding pattern.” Until the campaigning for hateful legislation ends, I will continue to withhold my tithing and support of the earthly LDS Church.
Comment by ..just call me cassandra — November 13, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Well said, Steve. While I’m cautiously optimistic, I sympathize with those commenters who have mentioned that the Church’s support for this ordinance is much too little, too late, and too convenient - given that the ordinance would have passed without the Church’s support.
That said, there are conservative Mormons who disagree with the Church’s support for the ordinance, who are publicly speaking out against the Church. Since it’s typically the liberal Mormons issuing press releases and signing petitions against the Church’s political activities, and being accused of speaking ill of the Lord’s anointed as a result, it’s a nice change to read about conservative Mormons publicly criticizing Church leaders instead.
See here:
Comment by ECS — November 13, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
What he said.
Comment by Not Ophelia — November 13, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
re: 38 “too little too late”
not exactly. I think it more like:
“Not Enough Yet.”
The struggle for equal access to the civil rights associated with marriage won’t be over until there is equal access to civil rights associated with marriage.
Hate crime legislation at the Federal level and local anti-discrimination in housing and jobs are steps in the right direction.
I think sometimes people fear little steps in the right direction because they fear that supporters will think the steps are enough and give up the struggle because they got something. I’m not too worried about that. The work continues until gay/lesbian families are safe and their civil rights acknowledged.
—
re: 53 “The Catholics treat their gays with more compassion. As long as a gay Catholic doesn’t actively oppose the teachings of Rome, he can stay in the fold and work out his own salvation with fear and trembling before The Lord.”
Catholic Bishops think it’s ok to deny communion (a Religious rite) if a parishioner supports choice for others (a Political position). (www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1934924,00.html)
With all respect Mike, it ain’t about compassion. If it were, then “love the sinner not the sin” would be good enough and it isn’t.
—
re: 65 “I care what the motives are. Motive is extremely important to me. Isn’t the pure in heart and the motives of our heart the most important thing? I care if its really just a PR move or if its a sincere effort towards more love, more peace, and more correct interactions and treatment of others.”
Well, sure, we’d all like purity of motives. But it doesn’t really matter that much to a family with no health care whether healthcare reform is voted for because it’s the moral thing to do or because without it, the current system will bankrupt the country. It’s satisfying when an
opponent says “you are right, I was wrong.” But the bottom line is just the same if they say “well, I still don’t really agree, but I will support this anyway.”
Comment by Betty Jo — November 13, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
britt #60 - I guess we’ll find out for sure when Stand for Marriage Maine and NOM finally stop defying court orders and reveal the source of their million+ dollars in funding for the Question 1 campaign.
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
gee molly thanks, I didn’t know homosexuality was a sin. Do you mind listing the rest of the sins so we can legislate against them too? Because there has to be a way to legislate against holier than thou know it alls.
Comment by ..just call me cassandra — November 13, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Dang moderators are fast. lol feel free to demolish my snark.
Comment by ..just call me cassandra — November 13, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Eris #49 -
Not asking for doctrinal change at all. I’d simply like the church to put its money where its mouth is. If the church claims that it has no problem with civil unions for same-gender couples, and is only trying to “protect” the word “marriage,” then I’d like to see it devote even a fraction of the money, time and efforts it has put in to stopping gays from marrying, into advocacy of full state and federal civil unions for gays which carry all of the civil rights and protections of federal and state recognition of civil marriage.
If they are not willing to even publicly advocate for such a thing (let alone help with funding and campaigning), then claiming that they have no problem with civil unions (when they’ve actually worked in the past to PREVENT civil unions, and even basic civil rights like the measure they are supporting now), their supposed support rings hollow.
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
The Daily Dish’s take (this is heartening): http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-mormon-move.html
Comment by Sara Bay — November 13, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Steve M #50 - You are correct, of course, that glbt people in the majority of states in this country (30, I believe) are completely lacking in any kind of civil rights protections whatsoever (with the exception of the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes bill just passed by congress), let alone having even a wisp of a dream of actual marriage rights.
But, while I’m glad that church leadership is at least taking this tiny baby step towards doing the right thing, it is, you must admit, a bit galling to have a plate of food waved in front of and then snatched away from your next door neighbor, and then have the one who did the waving and snatching turn to you and flip you a gnawed bone. It has a certain “in-your-face” quality to it that almost feels like gloating. It is as though the person who flipped you the bone can now sigh contentedly, pat himself on the back and rejoice in his own charity and generosity.
I realize that I’m seeing this from my own perspective and quite decidedly not from the perspective of those who believe that the church was morally correct to influence the law to deny civil rights to gays on the basis of its own religious teachings. I can only give my perspective, and my perspective is that this move smacks of self-righteousness and the tossing of gnawed bones.
My comments are directed at church hierarchy and not at specific posters or members of the LDS church,
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Sara Bay #74 - Andrew Sullivan has always been a good deal more charitable than I. I guess I’m running true-to-form.
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
re: 73 “I’d like to see it [the church] devote even a fraction of the money, time and efforts it has put in to stopping gays from marrying, into advocacy of full state and federal civil unions for gays which carry all of the civil rights and protections of federal and state recognition of civil marriage.”
If more tithing envelopes started containing nice, polite notes saying the tithe went to the Courage Campaign this year, that might have the same effect sooner not to mention the possibility that the organization might pick up the speed on their correction.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 13, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
m&m #55 -
Except that “these rights” do very little to protect families which need the protections and rights of civil marriage. Saying that one will support only laws which provide against discrimination in housing and employment, but not any of the 1000+ rights which accompany civil marriage specifically expresses a complete lack of concern for the rights of gay people as family members, with children who depend upon them.
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Betty Jo #77 - Amen, Sister.
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Lorian, I think you have made a completely reasonable suggestion and I hope support for civil unions was part of the discussion the church leaders had with GLBT leaders. I even venture to dream they will support something soon…. although not likely in Utah, thanks to that hideous Amendment 3. And yes, your perspective is valid and understandable, although I hope your reading of the NOM and SMM relationship to the church is wrong.
Betty Jo, what do you think would happen if I did send a note that said my tithing went to Equality Utah’s campaign? My thinking is I wouldl ikely get into a big heap of trouble. But I like the idea. As small as it was, I didn’t pay tithing last year in October because I didn’t want to support the Prop 8 campaign while it was happening. I didn’t inform my bishop of this decision, just held the money back on my own.
Finally, thanks for the link to Sullivan’s article. It made me happy.
Comment by Eris — November 13, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Mike H #58 - That is because, while it seems HUGE to Mormons in Salt Lake City, it is a tiny drop in an immense bucket compared with the devastation wreaked by Prop 8. I understand it seems like a really big victory to you, and in some ways, I’m sure it is. But if the groups who have been so angered by Prop 8 are not responding to this news from SLC at all, it is probably because it is hard to even see it on the radar screen.
Of course people want to reinforce good with praise when they see it, but this is kind of like looking at a boy who has been a bully on the playground and has the other kids terrorized, and one day he goes by the little shrimp he usually beats to a bloody pulp, and this time he just pushes ahead of him into the doorway and allows the kid to walk behind him without getting punched.
It’s hard to even notice that as an improvement, let alone reward it. He let the kid walk in the doorway without getting punched. Great. Yeah, it’s a victory, but telling the shrimp he should be grateful for it is going a bit far, I think.
“Okay, gay people, you’re still going to be discriminated against, you’re still going to be second class, so that we can claim our right to treat you differently because our church says you are sinners and should be treated differently, we still won’t give you any legal protections for your families, but, hey, we’ll let you have a job and a house to live in, maybe, if someone doesn’t want to pay the $1000 fine it’ll cost them to get rid of you. Aren’t you happy now? What’s wrong with you? You’re so demanding! Nothing makes you happy, does it? You just want to take away our religion, don’t you?”
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Eris #80 -
Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons I have difficulty seeing this move by the church leadership as one of sincere rapprochement. The amendment states:
While the LDS church did not issue an official endorsement of the amendment before it passed, they did issue a general endorsement of such amendments, and, two weeks after the amendment passed, they issued the following statement:
And if one were to try to convince me that the church had nothing to do with the wording of the amendment or its passage, one would be facing an extremely uphill battle.
The church does not support civil unions conferring any of the rights of marriage, and therefore, the church is discriminating against and will continue to discriminate against the innocent children of gay parents. I don’t see this changing anytime soon, though if you turn out to be right, I will more than happily eat my words without benefit of salt.
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
This, too, is extremely telling in why the church might go out of its way to advertise its endorsement of the ordinance:
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
I maintain a wait and see approach… but this matches in line with my hopes for the church and homosexuality, so maybe I am just wanting to see what I believe.
It would be sad to me if suddenly the church were to say “OK, homosexuals can get married in the temple!” — I do feel its not what the Lord intended.
But the temple is one thing — a job, a home, etc. should not be witheld from anyone because of their race, beliefs, etc.
Comment by Natalie — November 13, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
vThe more I see groups like the Eagle Forum and the Sutherland Institute, along with their constitutencies, opposing the principles the Church outlined, the more confident I am that we will see the legislature producing a bill to repeal the city anti-discrimination ordinance. In some ways, I almost hope they do. It will give the Church an opportunity to prove their sincerity. Do they fight half as hard in favor of the anti-discrimination ordinance as they did in opposition to marriage equality, actively campaigning for the sort of statewide anti-discrimination act to which Elder Holland alluded? Or do they quietly let the legislature do what it will on either account? That will give us a better idea whether this is an honest conviction about civil rights or merely PR whitewashing.
BTW, I do think that Elder Holland’s words about both sides getting together and civil dialogue were noteworthy. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Church never made an effort to reach out and engage in civil discussion with the homosexual community over the last several years in which it was so active in imposing their religious beliefs on others via legislation and constitutional amendments (both state and federal, the latter unsuccessfully) and in refusing to “live and let live. A few different GLBT organizations have been seeking to engage leaders of the Church in dialogue for well over a year, and yet they were persistently rebuffed. It is only in the last few months that the Church has been willing to engage these organizations. Meanwhile, while the various efforts to mingle Church and State were going on, they did very little to curb the less-than-civil dialogue about attempts to “destroy the family,” or “destroy the foundations of society,” or “destroy marriage.”
It is a good step that the Church is now talking about getting together and civil dialogue, but a bit disappointing that it took them so long to show this Christian willingness to reach out.
Comment by Derek — November 13, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
I don’t support gay marriage. I agree with the church’s right to take a stand on the issue.
As a member of the church, I appreciate the church supporting gay rights to the extent that this particular ordinance might be addressing. I haven’t read a lot about it so I have to leave it at that. I just don’t want my side of the gay marriage issue thinking that it is appropriate to hate gay people and to realize that there need to be some protections in place.
I think want the other side to understand that there are some things I (or others like me) might fight against, some things I am willing to watch happen and not fight, and some things that I think should happen.
Comment by jks — November 13, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
And I, jks, would like the other side to understand that, when it comes to protecting my children, I will fight to the ends of the earth to stop those who would legislate against their equality and civil rights protections.
Comment by Lorian — November 13, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/13/the-mormon-church-supports-gay-rights-wait-what.aspx
Comment by mfranti — November 13, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
I agree Betty Jo that its important to be able to say ‘Hey I don’t necessarily agree with you on this one, but I’ll support you nonetheless’. That has to happen in all sorts of circumstances of course and in all kinds of relationships. That is exactly the kind of thing I would expect in terms of religious groups deciding not to get in the way of hindering others’ civil rights. Like, hey we as a church don’t support gay marriage (so we won’t marry you ourselves) but we won’t stand in the way of your civil rights– because we believe that is the christian thing to do. What I was referring to was the fact that, to me, its disconcerting if the lds church has merely supported this act (especially this late in the game) as “PR whitewashing” (to use Derek’s words) or if leaders really believe in their own hearts that the glbt community should not be discriminated against and they just don’t see what they’re doing (supporting the denial of gay marriage) as discrimination. I’m sure I will never know the full extent behind all the motivations and I’m also sure that the leaders of the lds church vary greatly in their opinions. I just hate that such reactions can and do happen for ulterior pr motives from a church. Not that this would be the first time for that, but it does promote a bit of cognitive dissonance personally. The difference in a small relationship versus a massive representation is that when I say hey honey I don’t really agree with you on that but I’ll support you anyway, I’m not supporting honey to make myself look good. I’m supporting honey because its the good thing to do. And I don’t even expect healthcare reform (or other things of the sort) to necessarily happen for the good of humanity– vs because its fiscally viable– either because government isn’t posing as some religious organization claiming to know the ultimate truth. Its pretty clear that government does things with varying ulterior motives all the time and not just for the people by the people. I know its rather silly or naive of me in some ways to think about the motives behind many organizations, of course things happen for all kinds of reasons– but for the lds church, its personal, so I can’t help but question and have the desire to demand transparency and truthfulness in action.
Comment by moksha — November 13, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
Lorian, I agree that Sullivan is more of a moderate than you are. He’s also suffered and given more for the cause that you claim to espouse. What if you fought to the ends of the earth, and actually made things more difficult for your children and your spouse by fighting and accusing, than they otherwise would have been?
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 1:23 am
Derek, I don’t think that you can, in any degree of intellectually honesty, claim that the only way that the church can show its “sincerity” in this matter is to fight for gay rights as vigorously as it fought for marriage. Just because you sincerely hold a position one issue does not mean that you cannot hold a higher importance for your position on another issue. And we are not the only centrists in this fight. If you are so foolish to force us to choose between the defense of marriage, and gay rights, we’ll choose the defense of marriage. You really should have figured that out by now. That’s why you’re losing this fight — you’ve forced the center into an unnecessary dichotomy.
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 1:29 am
re: 90. Understood. T’would be nice for a Church to demonstrate
purity of motives, though perhaps improbable that any large
organization can or will function without concern for political realities.
I am heartened that the Church does seem to be listening to the many
members who were troubled by the Prop 8 involvement, and would like to
consider their support for this ordinance to be the faint beginnings of a course correction.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 14, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Christian, can you give it a rest?
Comment by mfranti — November 14, 2009 @ 11:34 am
If we agreed with you that Prop-8 was an attack on anyone’s civil rights, rather than a reservation of a word, then things probably would have gone as you expected.
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 11:38 am
if you don’t like the answers, then don’t keep asking the questions.
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 11:40 am
re: 91
Christian, I didn’t say they had to fight as vigorously as it fought for marriage. If they do not, however, fight at all, but just turn their backs after this gesture, then it indicates something about how much (or how little) they truly do care about the civil rights of homosexuals, doesn’t it?
No one is forcing you to choose between the defense of legally coercive marriage discrimination and homosexual rights. That battle is over for the time being; “you” won. We’re talking about some semblance of basic rights, rights which the Church has admitted do no “violence” to marriage. You’re creating a false fight by depicting this as a fight between gay rights and marriage.
Comment by Derek — November 14, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
It amazes me that so many here don’t understand that their opponents are actually fighting for something that we passionately believe in, just like you.
When the very idea of marriage is on the line, why should the church not play to win? Opposing SSUs at that juncture may have been strategically sound, since several courts have tried to use the existence of SSUs as a stepping stone towards neutering the word marriage itself.
If we put together a national compromise, one that mandates nationwide inter-state recognition of ssus, but reserves the word marriage specifically for what it’s always meant, then I would bet everything that the church would support it. The Goodridge gang of four set the gay rights movement a decade, when they pointed to various new legal protections for gays as justification for its ruling on marriage. This effectively warned other states that any movement towards gay rights would eventually compromise marriage itself.
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
I want to make clear that my #98 was not a response to Derek’s #97!
Agreed. The rest of your post seems to profoundly misunderstand what I said.
But if you understand that as well, then your cynical motive inferences about the church make no sense. Now that we’ve “won” (for the time being), we feel confident enough about the state of the law re marriage to encourage some basic protections that do no violence to marriage itself. And the church statement mentioned probate as well, which was not in the current legislative docket. That shows that the church approves of some legislation that would go substantially farther than the modest protections in this SLC bill.
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Thank you mfranti for the wonderful link you provided in #89:
See Lorian? That’s no coincidence. If we feel that marriage is safe from redefinition, all sorts of things would fall into place for same-sex couples and their families.
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
#91 -
If you are speaking on behalf of the stated position of the LDS hierarchy, here, I have to say that “your” (their) position is hardly describable as “centrist.” See the bolded portion of my post #83.
Comment by Lorian — November 14, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
#98, Derek, you’re right. In #86 you said the church needed to work at least half as hard, not at least as hard, towards gay rights issues as it did to protect marriage. But my response to you still stands desipte that correction.
I hope that you are not advocating that the church take political action avoid the appearance of hypocrisy.
(Is metahypocrisy a word?)
If I (a self-described “bitter jackmormon”) were “speaking on behalf of the stated position of the LDS hierarchy,” I’d say that the proclamation on the family probably requires us to take substantial action to protect gay families, so long as such actions don’t jeopardize marriage itself. Probate laws would be a good start.
But I reject your implication that such action has to be public, or calculated to improve our public image and avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. If we can do good in secret, then that’s how we’re supposed to do it. The church should continue to meet secretly with gay rights groups, use its influence behind the scenes to improve the lot of all families, particularly the most vulnerable such as gay families. Only when it’s absolutely necessary should church leaders use the bully pulpit to get a measure passed. How did the scripture go?
Comment by Christian — November 14, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
I like that. I’m going to try to keep that in mind as a distinct possibility; although I’m disheartened much lately, but I will choose to hope that this is the case.
Comment by moksha — November 14, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
The church has been supporting civil rights and anti-discrimination for homosexuals since before proposition 8. This is just the first time that mainstream news media called attention to it, and the first big, public step. The church has been preaching treating everyone well, despite their personal beliefs, actions, or orientation for a very long time.
I don’t understand why anyone was surprised by this.
Comment by thelibraryinequality — November 14, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
re: 97
Please document that assertion. I would argue that the Church’s prior track record is crystal-clear, going back way before Prop 8. You might want to check the political history a little better.
It does fascinate me, however, that LDS.org currently has such a prominant announcement of the church’s support of these laws. As I type this comment, it’s right there front-and-center.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 14, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
I’m with MikeInWeHo. I’d like to see some documentation of your claim, libraryinequality (#97). I’m aware of the LDS church fighting against equal rights of any kind for gays since back in the 90’s. And, speaking of “preaching treating everyone well” and civil rights, I seem to recall that the LDS hierarchy was on the wrong side of the black civil rights struggles, as well.
No, I don’t see this claim of the church supporting civil rights for gays prior to the SLC bill this week. I’d like to see some documentation.
Comment by Lorian — November 14, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
True enough, but voting against other Americans’ full civil rights and liberties is not “treating people well”…or following the Golden Rule.
Comment by Kimberly — November 14, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Exactly, Kimberly. There is a huge difference between preaching a sermon advising that we should all “treat one another well,” and then advising people to vote against and donate against and work against others’ civil rights, and also, as a church hierarchy, taking a public stance against others’ civil rights. And Prop 8 was not the first time that happened.
Comment by Lorian — November 14, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
97 I don’t know if it’s my good mood or i’m just punch drunk- but that made me laugh out loud. what an interesting interpretation.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 14, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Then, we just had this comment:
http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_13766464
Comment by Mike H. — November 14, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
I didn’t think the church got involved in the civil rights movement. Lorian do you have documentation for your “I seem to recall” or are you just in it for the mud slinging.
I do know it must not have been an organized thing-there isn’t a record of that-and the from the pulpit teachings were clear in the 1960s and 1970s that blacks not having the priesthood did not justify any racism.
So is non-involvement and teaching against racism the same as being on the wrong side?
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 7:04 am
From Joseph Fielding Smith:
I think the Black civil rights movement is a fair comparison. Above is a public statement from a prophet- not even a subtle statement about unworthiness related to prior transgression (as is the argument that homosexuality is immoral, so they deserve their present suffering, but we should continue to treat them well).
Recall that this position (if you judge deeds, versus rhetoric), was further supported by not giving Black men the priesthood until 1978.
The lame statements about treating people as opposed to the deed of engaging in the private sector against gays having the same rights as every other citizen, …well, in the end, it is just rhetoric,however nice it sounds.
Comment by Kimberly — November 15, 2009 @ 9:07 am
britt
If you go back a few years, in 1954 Mark E Petersen gave a racist talk at BYU.
In the Mid60s, when I was a little girl, Mark E Petersen stayed with us a few days, and told my parents a lot of racist nonsense. My mother (most definitely not my dad) justified her racism by quoting an Apostle of the Lord.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 15, 2009 @ 11:21 am
104 Oh boy, Britt. Lorian can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I assume that she was discounting the possibility that people were unaware of the churches dismal history re the civil rights movement. It’s one of the things I appreciate about the bloggernacle; trolls will leap out with church history that they assume is unknown to faithful members and the faithful members will know that history and thensome. It really surprised me when I first began commenting in fMh that these women remained faithful not because they were ignorant of their churches history but because they had studied it and found ways to be ok with it.
I think Lorian deserves a lot better than charges of “being in it for the mudslinging,” since she has distinguished herself by ceaseless documentation as well us unswerving civility. I imagine your defensiveness on this topic has more to do with a general ignorance of the subject. So you can choose to remain ignorant of the history (lame), you can investigate it for yourself and choose to a) not believe that the church did things like promise to support an anti-racist bill in the Utah legislature then renege at the last minute, b) believe the church actively worked against the civil rights movement but ascribe benign or benevolent motivations for them or finally, c) investigate the churches history with civil rights, acknowledge that they failed and find a way to be at peace with that (respectable.)
Of course there is the d option, you lose your testimony over what you discover but I not only think that’s really unlikely, I also think that the church needs more women who are not afraid of their history and can speak knowledgeably to non members about a faith that is grounded in reality.
Naturally, you may give a toss about what I find lame or respectable but I thought I would weigh in. Good luck with all that. At least if you decide to look into it you have a place to discuss it with other faithful members, eh?
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 15, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
#113–
good thing we have living prophets like Spencer W. Kimball to provide revelation to correct such misstatements and misperceptions.
You should go read Elder Bruce R McConkie’s talk following the 1978 revelation. A man like Bruce R McConkie, basically saying he was “wrong…”
I don’t know that Elder Mark E Petersen ever had the opportunitiy to do the same, but examples like these are what prove to me further that, while imperfect people participate in and lead our church, the Truth comes out in spite of those prejudices and imperfections… and people have to turn around and humble themselves.
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Britt, you might want to check your facts before you accuse Lorian of mudslinging. And you might want to check what there are and are not records regarding.
We don’t know most of what went on behind the scenes regarding opposition to the civil rights movement, because the Church is so enormously secretive about policy and leadership decisions.
But what we do know from the limited records accessible is mostly appalling. J. Reuben Clark approved the use of LDS meeting facilities for groups organizing to prevent blacks from buying property in thier neighborhoods. Harold B. Lee worked to keep blacks from being admitted to study at BYU. Some people here have already mentioned Mark E. Peterson’s infamous speeches on the subject of civil rights. Most of the general authorities (including President David O. McKay) appear to have personally opposed civil rights legislation requiring businesses to serve blacks in the same way they did whites. Ezra Taft Benson denounced the civil rights movement, including twice in General Conference with First Presidency approval, as a communist plot contrary to God’s will.
There do appear to have been some counterexamples. We know that Hugh B. Brown and a very young James E. Faust were working behind the scenes to promote racial equality. Elder Brown was eventually able to get approval for a statement read in General Conference in support of civil rights legislation. The status of the statement was (and remains) unclear; Brown presented it as Church policy although it was never endorsed by the First Presidency or the Twelve.
I wish I could say that the church leadership reflected the prejudices of the time, but to tell the truth they were on the whole pretty regressive even for the time.
What is most discouraging is that the current leadership doesn’t seem to have learned anything from this kind of history. We look back at the statements and actions of apostles in the 1950s and 60s and say “Wow! I can’t believe they did that!” But I can say with 100% confidence that in 50 years we will look back at the actions of current apostles and say exactly the same thing. Sigh . . .
Comment by obi-wan — November 15, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Wasn’t elder Peterson one of the 2 holdouts that stopped Prez McKay from changing the policy before the 1978 revelation?
Mormons are taught that humility enablea us to hear God, and pride cuts us off from Gods voice. Isn’t racicm a type of pride?
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
I lived in CA all of my life until a few months ago. When the letter about Prop 8 was read, I, too, had some very strong emotions to work through. Until then, I had no problem with gay marriage, but suddenly I found myself standing in direct conflict with the church. I had some deep soul-searching to do. After weeks of prayer and agonizing over it, I finally had a realization that brought me peace. I’ve heard the saying about “the church being perfect but the people aren’t” a ridiculous number of times, yet I felt it didn’t apply here. When the prophet provides direction to the church (e.g. General Conference, over the pulpit through letters, etc.), it IS perfect (at least for that moment in time–I think it’s important to keep things in their proper time-frames, just like with polygamy)… that’s why he has the keys to that office. I realized that if I truly believed in the gospel, then I had to believe that the prophet would not lead us astray. There must be a reason for it, even if I couldn’t understand it right then. Surprisingly, when I supported Prop 8, my gay friends had no problem with it at all because I had already shown them that I loved them as people. They didn’t judge me on a political stance. In fact, one of them supported it as well (much to my surprise, but he agreed in preserving the definition of marriage while still advancing gay rights using other terms). I know this won’t make me popular here, but I know from experience that apostasy has a very fine line. Sincere prayer and temple attendance can help us each as individuals know what to do.
Now, as for this post… the church rep called supporting this legislation “common sense.” The church’s views haven’t suddenly changed. We’ve already believed that being Christ-like means loving and accepting everyone, even if we don’t agree with their actions.
Comment by Nicole — November 15, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Notwithstanding that history lesson, the fact remains that the brethren never took a *united* stand against the civil rights movement, in the way that they have taken a united stand to protect the idea of marriage as the union of man and woman.
Neither Peterson nor Fielding Smith, nor Brigham Young himself had authority to unilaterally turn their racism into scripture, or into a proclamation signed by the full first presidency and the quorum of the twelve.
We’re a consensus-driven church. The need for consensus slowed down the policy change until 1978, but it also prevented the church from being actually committed to racism. It is unequivocally committed to a “heterosexist” definition of marriage.
Comment by Christian — November 15, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
You can pick and choose your statements and I can pick and choose mine. The church did not have a prop 8 moment or any such thing in regards to civil rights. There was no official statement encouraging members to vote a certain way. The church did not as a whole come down on either side. I’m not thrilled with that…it appears from the quotes that there was racism, but there was also the other side…
This is 1954 David O McKay : “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”
Harold B. Lee 1972 “For those who don’t believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks…It’s only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we’re just waiting for that time.”
Spencer W. Kimball 1972 “Intolerance by Church members is despicable. A special problem exists with respect to black people because they may not now receive the priesthood. Some members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against black people because of that rule with respect to the priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith through authoritative baptism are heirs to the celestial kingdom along with men of all other races. And those who remain faithful to the end may expect that God may finally grant them all blessings they have merited through their righteousness. Such matters are in the Lord’s hands. It is for us to extend our love to all.”
I just found Lorian’s post funny as she was wanting documentation from another poster-then she makes this huge statement “I seem to recall” being the only source of information. There were absolutely instances of prejudice-but there isn’t ANY reason to believe there was any sort of church stance against civil rights.
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
ERA is another example, where there is ample evidence of the private/religious sector (LDS) engaging in the political arena. IMO, it’s just not a good thing.
Luckily, I have faith in the LDS population as a whole- loving God and wanting to do his will. Although as a group, some of us trail about 20 years behind, eventually, things will come about…because I truly believe that at the depths of our collective spirits, we want to do the right thing and love our neighbors- according them all the same rights across the board.
Comment by Kimberly — November 15, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Here are some Ezra Taft Benson quotes….
Through far right-wing publishing houses and book chains owned by the Mormon Church, he warned that the aim of the U.S. civil rights movement was to “create the animosity, fear and hatred between large segments of our people that would be necessary beginning ingredients for their revolution.”
He warned that civil rights grievances by African-Americans were being exploited by the Communists “to agitate blacks into hating whites and whites into hating blacks.”
He declared that the U.S. movement for equal civil rights was fueled by “false stories and rumors about injustices and brutality” which, he said, served to “[c]reate martyrs for both sides” while playing “upon mass emotions until they smolder with resentment and hatred.”
In a throwback to the inquisitional days of McCarthyism, Ezra Taft Benson urged that “duly authorized legislative investigating committees launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the secret Communists who are directing the Civil Rights movement,” insisting that “[t]he same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups” which, he claimed, were being fit “perfectly into the Communist plan” to “intensify inter-racial friction.”
Notice he wasn’t against the movement itself-but the violence and anger and separation. He felt the movement was being used to incite increased anger and division in the united states. I’d love to see other quotes from ETB is someone has some that indicated more racist issues that were implied earlier.
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
So plan b then.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 15, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
britt
Can you see the difference in degree between the prevalent overt racist and anti-civil rights views and those very few statements saying not to be intolerant?
I seem to recall visiting general authorities saying the civil rights movement was a communist plot.
And I definitely remember after 1978, frequently hearing racist jokes in church settings.(I am not saying the Church condoned this, only that priesthood holders felt comfortable in church settings in making such racist comments) And yes, occasionally I heard that it was not appropriate.
Many Church leaders were preaching against civil rights and none for civil rights until late in the game(and saying don’t be intolerant is not the same as being for civil rights.)
How many church officials participated in the 1963 March on Washington or any other civil rights action?
When an Apostle says that black men can enter the celestial kingdom, but only as servants, might not an ordinary member somehow conclude that blacks are not worthy of Civil Rights?
.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 15, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Aww, britt…c’mon. Lynchings were not false stories, nor were the white supremacists enacting them to assist communism. To state that demonstrates an ignorance of what the supremacists stood for (and it was not Communism by any stretch). Nor was the burning of houses and churches a communist plot. Even if it were so- that the Communists were trying to infiltrate our system via racial tensions and dividing blacks and whites, they were merely taking advantage of what already existed, which was our own fault. If we had been righteously living lives that allowed for equality, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity to weaken our social structure in the first place.
Although there are plenty of things for which I admire President Benson, this disingenuous quote actually doesn’t really help your case.
Comment by Kimberly — November 15, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Kimberly if you read the quotes it clearly says that there was a legitimate movement -but it could be used by communists (especially the violence and divisiveness).
ETB does not say there wasn’t violence-or that violence isn’t bad-or definitely more one sided…or that there weren’t real stories of crime and violence. He doesn’t say real stories were bad, but that false stories were fueling increased emotional outrage.
Suzanne-studies show racism in Utah about the same as the rest of the nation-Prove it was worse. Prove it was rampant. I’m not saying it was great. I’m not saying some leaders and members didn’t use the practice that Blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood to interpolate and justify all sorts of prejudice. Yes Peterson said servants in the celestial knigdom (because they couldn’t attend the temple-but McKay was counting on the justice of God
As for racist jokes and such-I can counter that with having never heard a racist joke in church-equally annecdotally, I saw my family’s reaction to 1978-I remember my mom hearing it over the radio and crying in joy. “Even” my aunts and uncles in utah were happy.
I suppose I could also say that I heard racist jokes at school-so schools must be racist institutions in which racism is rampant.
If you want to look at the church engaged politically-it isn’t the civil rights movement-ERA is the only similar situation in which it came from the prophet-wards mobilized and volunteered..etc
I seem to recall is beyond annecdotal.
For a non sugary coating account read Darius Gray and Margaret Youngs “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.”
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
To 124, yes an ordinary church member might conclude that. Still does not mean that was a church position. The proc is signed by the 3 and by the 12. That makes it different than the isolated rantings and opinions of individual church leaders that you pass off as church teachings.
If orson Pratt don’t sign off on it. Bro brigham can rant until he is blue in the face and he still doesn’t speak for the whole church. That’s how God set it up, if you believe that. And if you don’t believe it then why even care about it?
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
britt #119 -
britt, CWC is absolutely correct that I believed the church’s treatment of blacks would be common knowledge to LDS persons as well-educated as those who regularly frequent this blog. I couldn’t imagine why I would need to document the claim that the church historically practiced discrimination against blacks, and certainly did not support the black civil rights movement. Libraryinequality’s claim, however, that the church has been active in supporting civil rights and equal treatment for glbt persons prior to Prop 8, on the other hand, really, really requires backup. And not just in the form of, “Hey, we preach that we’re supposed to be nice to everybody.” That’s not even close to the same thing as supporting civil rights and antidiscrimination measures.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Lorian-the church was not on the “Wrong side’ of civil rights. They didn’t choose a side. They were not politically involved. Saying they were on the wrong side implies they actively supported the wrong side. They did not. I’m intelligent enough to reason that through.
I get that blacks were not given the priesthood and there is nothing but discrimination there. That does not mean they fought civil rights as they fought ERA or gay marriage. Do you understand the difference I’m making there?
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Nicole #118 -
Nicole, how close are these “gay friends?” I’d urge you to really check back in with them personally, and ask them directly how they feel about Prop 8, and specifically about your support for Prop 8. Maybe they are people who have difficulty telling friends when the friend’s actions are hurtful to them.
There are certainly a small percentage of (usually older) gays and lesbians who feel that, since they have been shut out of marriage for so long, why bother? Let the straight people have it and we’ll do things “our own way.” Most of them, however, don’t have children to raise and protect. The majority of gay people understand the importance of civil marriage rights in protecting our children, and also in assuring our spouse’s security as we grow older and look towards retirement and the eventual death of a spouse.
Your post reminds me of things I heard people say back in the 60’s (and read people say from the decades preceding the 60’s) where white people would claim, “Hey, I’m not prejudiced! Some of my best friends are gay! And they agree with me that these young negros out marching in the streets are an embarrassment! They are quite content with the way things are and they are upset that ‘civil rights’ leaders are making such a big fuss. They LIKE having their kids go to the all-black school! They LIKE living in their negro neighborhood! They don’t want this integration business!”
Were there actually some black people who felt that way? Sure, of course, there were. Were they majority? Were they the proof that civil rights for blacks was a bad thing? Were they the proof that whites who opposed black civil rights weren’t racist? Um, no.
I have a hard time believing that, just because your prophet said so, that this means that this is not the “right time” for my 8-year-old daughters to have the same civil rights and protections your children take for granted. If that’s the case, then when, exactly, WILL it be the “right time” for my two beautiful little daughters to have equal rights and protections under the laws of this land?
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
britt #128 - Preaching that blacks didn’t deserve equal rights because they “did something bad” in the previous existence is opposing civil rights, britt, whether they marched in the streets carrying signs or not. Lending meeting space to those who tried to keep blacks from having civil rights is opposing civil rights.
Practicing direct discrimination against blacks by excluding them from the same rights as whites in the church…no that’s not denying civil rights. It’s denying religious rights within the church, and I make a clear distinction between a church’s right to practice discrimination in the dispensing of it’s sacraments and blessings vs. working to make sure that citizens are denied their proper civil rights. Two different things, yes. But if you don’t believe that religious discrimination of denying blacks the priesthood had any effect whatsoever in terms of supporting white members belief that they had their church’s blessing in actively discriminating in matters of civil rights, I urge you to think again.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
britt # 125 -
britt, this is the same type of subtle disingenuousness that is used to try to weaken the case of every civil rights movement. There is a false attitude adopted of “sad benevolence” where the one in “authority” states, “Your movement can only bring harm to what you really desire. You are only hurting yourselves. You open yourselves up to be used by others for evil purposes when you demonstrate and try to claim your rights. You’ll be far better off if you sit quietly at home and prove that you deserve equal rights, and then wait patiently until the powers-that-be see fit to grant them to you.”
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Sorry - that last was addressed to #126, not 125.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Lorian You can read ETB’s quote that way. I choose not to. it’s an interesting question to figure out how best to do a civil rights movement. Does a civil rights movement need a black panther side (the violence of which can then be exploited)? The violent aspect of both sides of the civil rights movements are those ETB found most easily used by others.
We’re looking at the priesthood differently. In the days of Moses on the Levite tribe had the priesthood…was that similar discrimination? I see it as more of a problem that black people couldn’t attend the temple. Priesthood holders don’t get to heaven based on having it…they still need the same ordinances anyone else does. IMO it was worse to deny Blacks the temple than to deny them the priesthood…
I’m not saying some people didn’t use the priesthood ban as justification, but if blacks not having the priesthood affected church members so badly why weren’t Mormon’s (in general) more racist than other religions? there isn’t any evidence of that
As for actively on the wrong side-I see ERA and prop 8 as examples of the church taking a stand. I don’t see random and carefully chosen theories (that is ALL the blacks weren’t valiant ever was-it wasn’t dcotrine) and quotes based on an admitedly discriminatory practice the same as a mass church organized effort directed by the prophet.
Read Darius Gray for his perspective on the church and the priesthood. Take his word for it…it affected him more, he is black. A black member at the time of civil rights movement may have wished his church would step up, and wonder based on the priesthood, but wouldn’t feel the same feeling as a gay mormon would during prop 8.
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
britt #134 -
Saying that because Mormon individuals were no more or less racist than surrounding society proves that the priesthood ban didn’t promote/support racist attitudes in the membership doesn’t hold water, britt. For Mormons to have their individual racism upheld or supported by the priesthood ban only requires that they, in fact, have racist attitudes, not that those racist attitudes be “worse” than those of their neighbors. Every racist finds something to support or defend his racist attitudes. In the case of many Mormon’s that support quite clearly came from their church’s teaching that blacks did not deserve the same respect in religious context as whites, for reasons like supposed sins committed in the prior existence.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Somebody go get Margaret….
Comment by mfranti — November 15, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
YES, britt, which tells you that the priesthood ban was based in racial discrimination, not in some sort of reservation of aaronic priesthood only for the descendants of Aaron. Scandinavians and Irish are no more the direct descendants of Aaron than are people of African descent.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Or…s/he might, but then, if s/he did, s/he might just leave and go to another church.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Either you believe prophets or you don’t Lorian. Joseph Smith ordained some black men to the priesthood-We don’t know why there was a ban. You can blame it all on racism.
Yes some Mormons used it to support their racism-then how do you explain the majority of Mormons who weren’t racist? They just chose to see it for what it really was-a practice-not an eternal principle.
This is such an apples and oranges thing, I don’t see why you don’t see the church’s involvement in civil rights was non involvement-the church’s take on ERA and prop 8 was prophet led, stake and ward direction mobilization. You don’t see a difference there? Really?
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
britt #139
I explain it the way I explain the Mormons on this board who support my family’s right to civil marriage. They disagree with their church’s teaching/example on this particular topic, realize that their church leaders might be fallible in some areas, and are willing to look past human fallibility in matters they do not believe to be doctrinal, or doctrinally correct, because of their testimony to the core values of the Gospel.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Yes. I see a difference, but it is only a difference of degrees. It is a difference of magnitude, not a difference of type.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
You really think it’s a similar percentage of people? You really don’t get that prophets were speaking against discrimination of blacks and not speaking actively against the civil rights movement? really? Lorian…it’s not like there was a letter read over the pulpits to ask people to vote against the civil rights movement. It’s not like there is a proclamation on blacks and the priesthood. Blacks not holding the priesthood was a practice not a basic core doctrine like the family and marriage are.
I’m really not understanding why you insist on it being the same.
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Have you read Darius Gray or ever heard him talk about his feelings on blacks and the priesthood? He talks about the parable of the laborers (Matthew 20)-how some are called to work in the morning, some at noon and some at the very end of the day, but they are all given the same wages. Darius Gray says he feels for whatever reason people of African decent were called at the end of the day-they will get the same reward-and some won’t understand that. We don’t understand why each group of laborers are called when they are. The parable doesn’t say. It doesn’t specify the work ethic or worthiness-just that each group worked and was paid equally.-He explains it better than I do. The point being we don’t understand why.
Yes some church leaders said discriminatory things-but from the beginning some did not. There have always been some teaching in favor of equal rights. As time past that some became a definite majority. As early as the 50s you could easily say that. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t discrimination and blacks not having the priesthood is a definite stumbling block-You can focus on the few or hear the majority and reconsider. In very few areas was the 1978 announcement any sort of problem. I know south Africa had some issues at it’s announcement and I’m sure some areas of the south did-but as a whole the membership was eager for that announcement.
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Because her argument falls apart if it’s not the same. The SSM argument cannot exist on its own; it survives only through false analogies.
Another false analogy here is between a few isolated statements by individual church leaders (contradicted by other statements such as those that Britt provides), and the completely unified statements by church as a body that marriage is between a man and a woman, both now and in eternity.
Comment by Christian — November 15, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Oh boy. I’ve met both Sister Young and Brother Grey. What I understood from listening to their presentations, sitting down and talking with both of them and repeated viewings of Nobody Knows, is that the Church has a truly heartbreaking history of racism that can only be exorcised when it is brought out into the light of day, acknowledged and discussed. I know it breaks Margaret Young’s heart that there isn’t a single member descendant from those ordained in the early days. I believe she lays that blame squarely at the feet of institutionalized racism, but I could be wrong. Where is Sister Young? And Janet, did you get her that UW yearbook? I never heard.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 15, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
britt, here’s a fascinating article on racism and LDS theology/policy/doctrine, including an interview with Darius Gray.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
CWC I have not said some members of the church have not been racist-or even high ranking leaders.
I am saying that even from the beginning there have always been some leaders who are not racist and have spoken out against racism. Blacks had the priesthood from Joseph Smith-even in the darkest hours there was hope. For every Peterson there is a Spencer W. Kimball or a David O McKay. There was something to cling to-quotes to find-prophets to listen to-hope..potential.
I understand how some members used the priesthood ban to justify their racism-some people in South Africa joined the church BECAUSE of the ban. Some Afrikaans people left after the 1978 declaration. After slogging through the prep for Mandela’s election in South Africa, the temple was HUGE for me-seeing all different races dressed the same and working together.
It’s not like I’m saying this is a pretty part of our past. I’m not saying I understand it or how it would feel. I have NO idea how people could join the church without the idea that they could go to the temple in their lifetime. But even if some people around you weren’t living up to it, there have always been some prophets to cling to, always been some hope…and yes other people could quote the racist quotes suggested…and wonder. I think that has been a large part of the problem-there wasn’t a definitive statement. The church was quiet on civil rights politically-which allowed some people the time to wonder why and continue justifying their hatred.
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
And, by the way, that includes current racism, as well as past.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Christian #144 - Well, someone certainly has an investment in whether I’m right or wrong here. I wonder why this is so very important to you, Christian?
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
isolated statements?
Is the following official First Presidency statement on a Aug 17, 1949 racist? Is it Church doctrine?
–The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.
But then there’s the First Presidency statement on December 15th, 1969(a few years after the Civil rights Act) which reads in part–It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 15, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
So, Suzanne, what I hear the Church saying in your quotes is that blacks must have finally worked hard enough to atone for all their prior badness, and so they were finally granted the priesthood as a reward for being good enough to overcome the curse of being Cain’s offspring, right? Oy. I can’t imagine being so maligned by my church. Wait a minute. Yes I can. I just can’t imagine being so maligned by my church and continuing to be a part of that church.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
The mark of Cain is a horrible concept. I don’t understand how anyone could logically feel that we are not punished for Adam’s transgression, but yet we could be punished for Cain’s. It would be nice to have a conference talk referring to the fall of Adam and how that action affects us, but we are redeemed from that because we are not responsible for it-then reference how it would be similar for cain-to bring up that myth and verbally-in conference denounce it.
I like the way he describes the premortal connection-instead of the not worthy in premortal life, he describes it as some would come even understanding the could not have the priesthood. Not because they weren’t worthy- that’s a step better than the not valiant myth
I do feel some people chose challenging circumstances on purpose-
Comment by britt — November 15, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
That is not a doctrine of the church. Brigham Young might have preached it, and McConkie and others, before the ban happened and McConkie felt a need to stand up and renounce his statements and those statements which he drew his conclusions from. But it is not doctrine of the church, and does not jive with the other doctrines of the church regarding this principle.
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
sorry, meant *before the priesthood ban was lifted*
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
I can’t dispute your religious views on this point. I don’t share them, but they are your religious beliefs.
My concern, though, with this philosophy that people have chosen the challenges they face in their lives for some unknown purpose before they were born, is that sometimes I think it encourages an attitude of carelessness for the hardships faced by others. After all, if Mr. Gray chose to be black, knowing that he would convert to Mormonism and knowing that he would be denied full status in the church, be unable to hold the priesthood, be unable to be sealed to his wife and family in the Temple, knowing that he would face discrimination in his day-to-day life, then he must have had a reason for wanting those challenges, and therefore, it’s none of my business, and certainly not my responsibility, to try to help alleviate those challenges, right?
I’ve had that one used on me, as a gay person — “Well, you must have chosen to be gay in your premortal existence, and you must have wanted, then, to live a life of celibacy, since that’s the only proper thing for a gay person to do, and you’d have known that in your premortal existence, so, since you’re the one who’s screwing up by having kids and stuff, it’s not up to me to worry about trying to help you out with civil rights protections. You didn’t want that in the premortal existence, and the only reason you want it now is because you messed up and didn’t choose to be a life-long-celibate gay.” Not in quite so many words, but that was the implication. And I don’t buy it. Nor do I particularly fancy having my life judged on the basis of someone else’s beliefs about what they think I “must” have known or chosen or wanted in their idea of my premortal existence.
But see, that’s what the idea is so good for — it lets us shrug off other people’s needs and hardships as just something they “chose.”
I don’t believe black people chose to be black, and I certainly don’t think that any such doctrine of choice excuses what’s been done to them by those who discriminate against them.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
and you see, i always thought being black was a matter of genetics.
always an enlightening experience fMh
Comment by mfranti — November 15, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Me too, m. Me too.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
sare
But the First Presidency released a official statement saying it was doctrine. Do you mean current Church doctrine?
I glad First Presidency statements aren’t doctrines because goodbye Proclamation on the family. And especially goodbye to all the anti-gay stuff. Though I’ll keep the part where they said, “Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.” I like that.
And I’m hopeful we’ll get there
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 15, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
What official statement?
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
sare, I believe Suzanne is referring to the statement she quoted in her post #150.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
The Proc was signed by the twelve as well as by thr first Presidency, Mrs Nielsen. Hope that clears up your confusion.
So you keep the part that talks about rights and ditch the part of the Proc that talks about our Heavenly Mother?
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
OK, I see where you’re coming from.
Here’s the thing: It can stand on its own and read, “we all choose our missions in this life.” Simple and pure, we all take on our challenges (or at least know about them) beforehand. That can lend a feeling of empowerment when LDS members are going through struggles and hard times… eg, “we knew about this and knew we could make it through this.”
The problem with that statement is exactly what Lorian stated– when people turn and take this to mean, “you chose your bed, now lie in it.” Pretty hard, and cold, and NOT what has ever been preached from a conference pulpit. Or read over any meeting house pulpit, either.
Really, what this all comes down to in my mind, is “thou shalt not judge”… thou shalt not judge thy neighbor’s behavior or choices, thou shalt not interfere with thy neighbor’s freedom of choice (unless it somehow affects the safety of those you have stewardship over). The “Negro Question”, when you go back and read all those statements, was clearly a matter of confusion for the members (and I’m going to go as far as to say, the Leadership) of the church until God very clearly made his mind known on the issue in 1978.
President Kimball has stated that the reasons behind the ban could probably have been through the fault of men (I think meaning, possibly, the blindness/ignorance/desires of even some of the leaders of the church.) Here is the quote (from Wikipedia–I didn’t want to do the work to find it on LDS.org but I’m sure someone else could):
“Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man’s part. In 1963, he said, “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”
So there we have it. A prophet of the Lord acknowledging that some policies and even doctrines preached over the pulpit could be a result of “error of man.”
Can’t be any clearer than that, I think.
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
sare
The First Presidency statement in 1949 where they said, “…doctrine of the Church…the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality…”
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 15, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Yes. Exactly. You can either take that to mean “bad conduct =bad circumstances=too bad for you in this life,” or you can take it to mean that we all Chose our circumstances.
As regards the question of Black Members during the time when they were not allowed the priesthood, it was likely meant as a comfort, or at least, a way to try to understand why a compassionate loving Heavenly Father would allow some of His children blessings and not others.
The quote I ended with provides a good explanation for why that might be… in other words, it is possible that people chose their challenges or knew about them. But it could have been through the errors of Man that such difficult circumstances were present in the first place.
So when we take that statement and apply it to ourselves in our own life, for the purposes of comforting ourselves in times of sorrow, it works. When you take it and apply it to someone you see in difficult circumstances, it doesn’t work so much. Because that kind of thinking can lead to a sort of apathy on our part. A feeling that we don’t need to serve them or help them or stand up for their rights because they “chose” their challenges.
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Was the 1949 statement even signed by the whole first presidency or did it just go out on their letterhead like that ‘thinking has been done’ garbage?
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
Even if the whole dang first P signed it, let’s not forget the whole “errors of man” disclaimer. Please.
I admire a prophet of the Lord that can admit he’s not perfect… that doctrines sometimes become garbled up with natural-man type tendencies and prejudices. And I admire those who can turn around and humble themselves and say they were wrong, as Elder B. McConkie did. Let’s go ahead and allow people to be fallible.
Even prophets.
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
sare, that would be a lot easier to do if the First Presidency came out with an official statement which contradicted its prior statement and declared it human error. As I understand it, the three official statements on “the negroes” (1949, 1969 and 1978 were all official statements of the first presidency, and neither of the two latter statements contradicted the 1949 statement’s verdict that “negroes” are “the seed of cain” and “cursed” for their fathers’ “rejection” of the “powers of the holy priesthood.”
Since that statement was not retracted, even in the 1978 official statement, it still stands as doctrinal, right? Wouldn’t it make sense for the First Presidency to issue a formal statement retracting the 1949 one as human error?
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
You know that you’re wrong on this, Lorian. All the way from the time of Brigham Young until Mark E Petersen died, there were general authorities who made racist statements and general authorities who rejected racism. They’ve finally taken a unified front against racism. Yes, the Church has a truly heartbreaking history of racism that can only be exorcised when it is brought out into the light of day, acknowledged and discussed, but the church leadership was never unified on the racist theories. Please bring in Darius and Margaret into the discussion if you can, but let Brit frame her own question, since I think you’re missing the point.
There has never, ever been divided church leadership over the issue of marriage.
Why it’s important to me? Well in this religious context, I don’t like to see the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother thrown under a bus. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is inextricably intertwined with the doctrine that man and woman are eternally interdependent. And males need a mother as much as females need her. And I’m angry with the implication that these beautiful doctrines are something vestigial and analogous to the tragic history of racism in the chuch.
Comment by Christian — November 15, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Christian
Is D&C 132 official doctrine? Wouldn’t it be Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Mother. I’m glad to see such unity on the issue of marriage. Hope you’re not too angry over the implications.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 15, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
Concurr with c on #168
It is a loathesome analogy. We didn’t start believing in love and marriage and heavenly mother just to spite and exclude gays, or to justify homophobia. That is the most monstruous and insulting piece of paranoia I ever heard.
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
Christian #168 -
Ah, but Christian, once again, this is where you exhibit your confusion between civil marriage and religious marriage.
I have utterly no interest in seeing the doctrine of the church change in re Temple Sealings, Eternal Marriage, Heavenly Mother, etc. I don’t want to be sealed in an LDS Temple. I don’t even want to become a Latter-day Saint. Not on my radar.
What I want is for my family to have all the same civil rights protections enjoyed by you and your wife and family, not one of which is contingent upon the LDS leadership changing their doctrines on Eternal Marriage, Heavenly Mother, or Temple Sealings one single iota.
The only reason LDS doctrine on black people even figures into this at all is because of how religious doctrines of prejudice against blacks within the church were allowed to influence, to one extent or another, the approach the church took towards the black civil rights movement, and the ways in which that situation is reflected in the current situation. As you so aptly point out, the externalization of church doctrine into civil rights discrimination is far more severe in this case than even it was in the case of black civil rights, but the comparisons are quite valid.
Notice, too, that the achievement of full civil rights protections by blacks did not in any way force the church to change one iota of its doctrines towards blacks in the church (that came later, through, in my opinion, sheer force of guilt and the untenable nature of the church’s stance in light of modern understandings of race and civil rights). In the same way, full civil rights protections for gay couples and their families will not in any manner force the church to change one iota of its teachings on homosexuality, the family, eternal marriage, Heavenly Mother, or any other such thing. If the church chooses to change any of these doctrines, it will be by its own decision, not because my family is granted equal civil rights protections by the government.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
#170 - PTD
There is nothing about love or marriage or Heavenly Mother which is, of necessity, spiteful or exclusive of gays. Gay people are just as capable of loving each other and marrying each other as anyone else. And we are just as capable of loving our creator in whatever form we best understand our creator, whether that be Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother or Divine Being, as anyone else.
What we are spitefully excluded from is equal access to civil rights protections for our families.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Basically, the reasoning behind not retracting the previous statements, was that it was generally thought the 1978 revelation negated all of them. If Black people were receiving the priesthood, then of course they were not lesser spirits or the seed of cain etc etc etc. The first presidency doesn’t have a tendency to put out statements they see as redudant.
And the whole curse of Cain, cursed for their father’s rejection of the powers of the holy priesthood bit… that has been remitted, over and over again, in various “official” sources. Here are a few:
Elder McConkie (offically, over the pulpit): There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world…. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more…. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.
From a more Recent prophet, Gordon B Hinckley: Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?
Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.
Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.
Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.
And there are countless other statements made by prophets and apostles negating the previous “doctrine” that was preached.
Maybe a statement officially remitting doctrine previously preached would be fitting, but the church has never done that… maybe it should? I don’t know. I’m not the prophet and can’t speak for the church.
Comment by sare — November 15, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
christian and p the d, ease the f up. your anger needs to be a little more contained and civil if you want people like me to listen to you. loathsome, monstrous, insulting paranoia, oy!
the lady is drawing a parallel (and so am i and a bunch of other people) between actions based on racism and actions based on homophobia.
everybody gets that you disagree. you are only pushing yourselves to the edge of the debate by indulging these histrionics. i know you both have totally reasonable things to say but could you dial it down about 200% so we could hear you?
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 15, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
sare - #173.
Then why do I still hear people defending the idea that Brigham’s policy (and the 1949 First Presidency Statement) were “right for their time?” If they were wrong, if they were error, then they were never “right” for any time.
If they were wrong, then people need to stop defending them and saying that 1978 was “new revelation,” and “God revealing a change in doctrine.” Maybe it would bring more healing and understanding to all if the First Presidency would issue a statement saying that the priesthood ban was NEVER God’s doctrine, but simply Man’s error. But I don’t see this in the continual defenses.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
172, if that is so then why mrs Nilsen need to ridicule the heavenly mother doctrine with that section 132 crack?
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
I didn’t hear Suzanne ridiculing the Heavenly Mother doctrine, Pat. If you think that’s what she was doing, then I urge you to ask her, yourself. But have in no way suggested that any doctrine of the LDS Church regarding marriage, family, or homosexuality be changed, including that of Heavenly Mother. If you can point me to any statement I’ve made which demonstrates otherwise, please do so.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
sare
Thanks for looking up the quotes.
I think it interesting that Gordon B Hinckley, unlike others, heard of racial slurs and denigrating remarks.
My understanding was that in the past the Church opposed anti-discrimination laws. Now, at least for Salt Lake, they support them.
Who knows what Church doctrine or policy will be for Gay people in 9 years. My hope is that the slurs and denigrating remarks will be dealt with and that those saying those slurs cannot consider themselves a true disciple of Christ.
Hopefully, the Church will accommodate diversity.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 15, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Lorian: those people are not prophets
And they are trying to explain to themselves (and to you) why prophets aren’t fallible. The thing is, the fallibility of prophets is a hard thing to stomach. It leaves the buck with us members… we need to pray about counsel given to us by the prophet if we don’t immediately feel the Spirit confirming it to us, or if we have doubts as to the truthfulness of what is taught. We can’t think of ourselves as free and clear if we do something simply “because we are told to do it.” We are supposed to seek the spirit on every issue, and find our own testimony of every doctrine.
It’s hard to reconcile the thought of a Prophet who recieves revelation straight from God as sometimes fallible. But Even the old testament prophets were fallible. Jonah, Abraham, Issac and Jacob, Peter, etc… we LDS people have a hard time accepting our prophets’ fallibility but that is our (the congregation’s) weakness.
Gosh, if the church had to issue an official proclamation renouncing every piece of doctrine that Brigham Young preached, for instance, that we no longer practice/don’t officially condone, they’d be issuing a whole freakin’ lot of proclamations.
Comment by sare — November 16, 2009 @ 12:03 am
cwc, Lorian asked me what my interest was. That’s the answer. If you don’t like the answer, then don’t ask the question. As for anger, I haven’t told anyone to “ease the f up.”
“this is where you exhibit your confusion between civil marriage and religious marriage.”
I’m not confused at all, Lorian. On other threads, we’ve talked about the civil law, and I’ve confined my remarks to that. Here, you and others are comparing church teachings on the sanctity of marriage, the union of man and woman, and — by implication, the existence of our heavenly mother — to loathesome racist statements by dead church leaders which other church leaders have repudiated. Now cwc tells me that I’m not allowed to show any emotion or to use the word “loathesome” in reference to racism. I think that’s an unreasonable demand, and I’m glad that cwc is not a perma.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 12:03 am
cwc, please cite the number of the post on this site where, according to you, I was being uncivil.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 12:12 am
180 Not angry in the least. Exasperated but not angry. It just isn’t worth it to engage with you any longer. Good (sincere) luck with everything.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 16, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Nor is there anything in the ProcFam that is “spiteful or exclusive of gays.” Gays benefit from being raised by a loving mother and father, just like straight people do. That’s not a doctrine that deserves to be compared to remarks that are probably of enormous embarassment to Elders Young, Fielding-Smith, and Petersen in the afterlife.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 12:40 am
sare
You wrote, “they’d be issuing a whole freakin’ lot of proclamations.”
But isn’t that what you get in Church with Teachings of the Prophets. Or should the lesson manuals read “Sanitized teachings”. Or would that title not be considered useful?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 16, 2009 @ 12:40 am
Depends what you mean by useful. Sunday school is about teaching the basic doctrine of the gospel, not about apologetics, Suzanne.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 12:55 am
Christian
I was thinking of Packers statement,–”Some things that are true are not very useful”
It seem to me that Church manuals, by their very nature, are to defend the faith.
I do wish however, that known historical inaccuracies were not promulgated. And there was recognition that what the First Presidency says in 1949 may be different than in 1978.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 16, 2009 @ 1:34 am
Rather than teaching the actual faith in the first place?
I think that an historically accurate history of church teachings on race (i.e. the more complete stuff from Margaret or Darian, rather than the one-sided hatchet job that you’ve offered here) is extremely useful, but not for the purposes that we see in Sunday School.
But i agree that historical innacuracies need to be corrected. Faith should not be based on a lie.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 2:29 am
Lorian..I do believe SOME people choose their difficult circumstances…that in no way negates my responsibility to help them or serve them. I don’t know how premortal life works-I have just had some experiences that have led me to believe that some people choose their difficult circumstances. I really don’t know how to explain that. The some I’m referring to were not African American
I did not intend to imply by that, that ALL people choose their circumstances. I meant SOME because I don’t know how it works and I do know of some whom I strongly believe choose their situation. I served those some. It never occured to me to leave them to their choices (you choose this you’re stuck with it). It inspired me in a way I can’t totally explain-the power of those spirits-the trust-I wondered how they struggled once the reality of their situation was apparent in a way that couldn’t have been obvious in premortal life.
I believe Jesus Christ chose his role in this life. I believe He had some concept of the suffering He would experience-it wouldn’t occur to me to not love Him or serve Him or help Him in any way less because of that.
i’ll stop there-tear a part as you wish.
Comment by britt — November 16, 2009 @ 7:36 am
Kind of? There’s a whole lot that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others preached that don’t end up in the lesson manual. I suppose the reason for choosing doctrines to be part of the “basics of the gospel” that go into a Sunday School lesson book could have something to do with “sanitation,” but I would guess it’d be more like there are some things that are really important to learn, and others that are interesting but, at this point, perhaps not important?
For instance, Brigham Young had a lot to say about what sorts of food latter day saints ought to eat. Joseph Smith had a lot to say about his visions of prophets of old/etc. These things are nice but really not necessary to a discussion of basic prinicples, perhaps.
I’d like to see lesson manuals from the 40’s. Was there stuff in there about the seed of cain? If there was, how was it couched, what was the context in the lesson manuals? As I’ve researched the issue (and I’ve done a lot of research, we brought two daughters home from Africa this year and i knew one day I’d likely have to answer questions from them about this) my feeling has been, everyone was hit-or-miss just trying to figure out why things were the way they were, and a lot of what was preached was speculation. That’s my unorthodox and perhaps blasphemous take on it….
Comment by sare — November 16, 2009 @ 9:08 am
I never bought into that idea of people “choosing their challenges” - because that would have undermined my own coping strategy. I’m more inclined to accept that we all understood we were taking the risk of facing challenges, whatever they turned out to be, when we agreed to come here.
The fact that some experience worse circumstances than others could merely be the convergence of many different factors at any given time. Lorian stated above what I’ve thought many times myself- that saying others choose their circumstance becomes an excuse not to move oneself to alleviate suffering…thereby removing our responsibility to work towards the improvement of humanity in general, using the excuse that we wouldn’t want to interfere with a lesson someone “chose” to experience.
Yes- I know that some saints consider hardship a mark of trust given through the Lord. I know that some people use the rationale that they are “special” in that they are seen to have a superlative form of faith, as demonstrated by Job, and that helps them get through challenges. As a person who has experienced a challenging life, I never had much use for the thought that a loving God would purposefully inflict these things upon me just because I have faith- or, that I signed up for my specific circumstances. Rather, I’m of the persuasion that this was my experience, due to the roll of the dice of life, and my compassionate God bolstered me up and helped me through it all, because I knew he would.
But, I also realize that everyone who makes it through especially difficult circumstances, has found a way to make it bearable…and that involves constructing beliefs that support them in that effort. I know that my beliefs are no more valid than the ones above. For myself, I have to believe in a God of love, because he has to be better than the people who have harmed me.
But people who inflict great damage also construct beliefs to make it bearable (think Nazi Germany)…thus, the belief that hardships were chosen in a premortal existence, can easily be used to excuse a pervasive attitude of laissez-faire and demotivate individuals in taking an active stance in improving the lot of the less fortunate (who, after all, chose their suffering).
That’s why I purposefully chose that quote above in 112- because it demonstrates what can go wrong with that concept…that the “Negro (homosexual, feminist, non-member, Jack-Mormon) is, evidently, receiving the reward he merits”. I know many LDS won’t admit out loud that it is the underlying rationale for “treating gays well” but, allowing them and their families to experience pain and even become complicit in its affliction, because, they are “evidently receiving the reward they merit”. The saints then wash their hands of providing equal treatment under civil law, because gays have chosen their pain through their “iniquity”, just as Blacks and Jews were slaves through the same.
Nothing God-like within me condones that rationale and I go so far as to say I repudiate it absolutely.
Comment by Kimberly — November 16, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Can I just throw something out there?
I agree with Lorian that the Proclamation tot he Family and doctrines regarding Heavenly Mother do not explicitly exclude gays fro the blessing of the kingdom. I’m my opinion, the more important reason why the LDS church members and leadership are more adament against gay marriage than other churches are is because of our belief that God has a body like us. This implies, to some, that He is a sexual god. The doctrine that we have a Heavenly Mother then implies that She is also sexual and, therefore, that they must have some sort of sexual life together. There is no doctrine saying that any sexual act is required to create spirit children, but it seems to be implied. (Personally, I can’t see how that would make any sense considering the fact that sex creates bodies and not souls.)
The big picture for everyone, then, is that because the creating of worlds and spirits is sexual and so important, and because the glory of a god is the creation of spirit children, that being gay must be contrary to that and a god, by definition, cannot be gay.
I don’t really buy it. Too many assumptions.
Comment by Allie — November 16, 2009 @ 11:22 am
I found sare’s question about what was taught about the “negro question” interesting and found the following quote:
Strangely consistent with current doctrine about gay marriage.
Comment by djinn — November 16, 2009 @ 11:40 am
that is interesting.
can I just say again (in case anyone’s not sick of hearing it)
Fallible!!!!
OK I’m done.
Comment by sare — November 16, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Wow, there’s one I hadn’t heard.
I’m in favor of as much mixing as possible. The more we mix the sooner we’ll be done with all this.
Comment by Enna — November 16, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Christian #180 -
No. I’m not. I’m talking about the fact that I want civil marriage rights and protections for my family, but that people like yourself keep saying I should be denied those rights because of your church’s doctrine about heavenly mother and sex in the afterlife and the ability to create spirit-children being somehow dependent upon having a physical penis and vagina. I don’t particularly care about any of that, because those are not my beliefs. They are yours. And my civil rights should not be dependent upon your beliefs about the afterlife, anymore than the civil rights of black people and interracial couples should be dependent upon anyone else’s beliefs about what Cain may or may not have done to his brother, Abel, or what anyone thinks anyone else might have chosen for himself in the pre-mortal existence.
#183 -
But no more and no less than they would benefit from being raised by two parents of the same gender. That’s the part where you, Christian, stuff your fingers in your ears and shout, “La-la-la-la-laaaaaa!!!!!” YOUR personal religious beliefs, including the Proclamation to the Family, should have absolutely no bearing upon whether or or not MY family enjoys the full and complete protection of our civil rights in this nation.
Comment by Lorian — November 16, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
The Church changed its practice on race/lineage about 15 years after Hugh B. Brown read the statement in favor of civil rights without regard to race at general conference, and 9 years after the FP and 12 statement that reiterated the Church’s practice on race/lineage but supported civil rights without regard to race/lineage. Over at Times and Seasons, Matt Evans argues that the support of the SLC ordinance (which Matt opposes) indicates that the Church will support SSM in about 20 years.
Comment by DavidH — November 16, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
That whole after life sex stuff being the motivation for fighting SSM is the strangest myth I’ve ever heard…
Comment by britt — November 16, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
britt, check out Christian’s various posts. I’m not making this stuff up. It proceeds directly from his arguments that celestial marriage, Heavenly Mother, preserving his religion’s definition of “marriage” as the legal definition of civil marriage, etc., are why he thinks my family should be denied civil marriage rights. He believes, to the best of my understanding, that his definition of religious marriage should also be the sole possible definition of civil marriage, or somehow he loses the ability to communicate to his children and grandchildren what he believes religious marriage should be. He’s the one who brought up the idea that allowing gays to marry would do away with Heavenly Mother. That’s certainly not a concept I could ever come up with .
Comment by Lorian — November 16, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
” That’s the part where you, Christian, stuff your fingers in your ears ”
No, Lorian; you’ve ignored my response to your argument that “science” has proved that same-sex couples are just as effective as other couples. I don’t think that the studies are definitive, that they use adequate controls, or that they’ve even measured the factors that I’m concerned about, such as promiscuity and parenting ability of children raised by same-sex couples.
You know the moment that Lorian puts the words “allowing gays to marry” into my mouth, that she’s misrepresenting my argument.
I’ve said here that by comparing the Proclamation on the Family to hateful racist statements by a few dead GAs, that you’ve essentially thrown our doctrine of a Heavenly Mother under a bus.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
This made me smile today…
A 10 yr old 5th grader won’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance because there is not “justice and liberty for ALL”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/10-year-old-wont-pledge-a_n_355709.html
Out of the mouths of babes…
Comment by Lianne — November 16, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Djin quotes a well-meaning but fallible GA’s reservation about so-called “race mixing,” but comes to a strange conclusion?
How so? I don’t see the parallel. My understanding of the birds and the bees are that same-sex partners simply cannot make babies together. It seems odd that you’d assume that we were trying to prevent them from doing so…
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
To Christian and Sare: I have an honest question for you or any other person who would care to answer. The word “fallable” has been thrown quite a few times into this thread. How do you reconcile the fact that so many doctrines have changed in the relatively short lifetime of the LDS Church? Does the notion that prophets and GAs are “fallable” (not my word) put a blur on everything that comes from those sources?
Also, re: 196, thank you DavidH. The notion that SSM will be allowed in 20 years is interesting. That gives me hope, although I do wish it would not take that long.
Comment by numi — November 16, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
For me, no. Prophets have always been fallible, and it has always been up to the members to seek the guidance of the spirit.
I feel, when I listen to the prophets speak, that spirit most of the time. I don’t really need to pray about something if I’m feeling the spirit as the person is saying it. But if I feel wierd or wrong about something, that means for me it’s time to go ask some questions, not just follow blindly and kick against the pricks, as some have put it.
I had an experience with a priesthood leader a while ago that taught me the lesson that priesthood leaders are imperfect, sometimes to the point of giving incorrect counsel. There is no perfect person on this earth, and never has been (aside from Christ.) And God still calls people as His prophets.
I wouldn’t say that doctrines of the church have changed a whole heck of a lot, just the spin people (incl general authorities) put on those doctrines, and how we’re advised to apply them to our lives. For instance, the doctrine of celestial marriage has not been officially changed, but members were officially told to stop practicing polygamy. (which, to be honest, is troubling to me…anyway, another topic for another thread).
But anyway, I guess what I’m saying is I know the church is true, I sustain the prophet, and I find it a wonderful piece of Grace that God allows imperfect people to be his mouthpieces, and His instruments. And I also believe that, in the end, all sorrows and injustices and pain that results from the imperfections of man and the imperfect things enacted upon each other by imperfect persons will be healed and accounted for, and judged accordingly.
Which is why I also don’t feel like I can opt out of my own moral dissonance by saying a Prophet made me do something.
Comment by sare — November 16, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
BTW, in my mind, there is a difference between offical doctrine, and general authorities (such as Mark E Petersen) speaking off the cuff. Official doctrine, to me, is the stuff i carry in my scripture case to church, and the stuff I hear when I go to the temple. And possibly a lot of the stuff I hear from the prophets and apostles at general conference, but you do have to be careful there, as we’ve seen from the listed examples.
Comment by sare — November 16, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
#1
It seems to me that most here assume a “right direction” that must include a sweeping, complete, equating by the church of homosexual marriages (and relationships) and heterosexual ones.
To be frank, in the current climate I feel it would be easier on all of us if the church DID come to such a conclusion (and I’d welcome it), the assumption by so many (members?) that they have determined God’s will seems a bit…hmmm…premature?
What about pedophilia? Or bestiality? (No, I’m not equating them with homosexuality.) Both are still generally considered wrong, perverse, or at least problematic — as homosexuality used to be. If public perception changes over time on these issues, is it therefore a foregone conclusion that the “right” direction for the church to go would be to accept those as well?
Should such a social shift occur (and why wouldn’t it?), you can be sure that some members will make the same arguments for change in church policy and will proclaim “the right direction” for the church as well.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — November 16, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Sorry, that second paragraph above was my response, not part of the quote.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — November 16, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
If Alison Moore Smith was a pedophile (don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying she is) would her conjecture be just as valid? Would the pedophile- Alison Moore Smith (again, not saying she is), have more of a vested interest in protecting the future rights of all pedophiles?
Sorry, that was super crass of me, bandying your name around as being that of a pedophile. The disclaimer doesn’t help much does it?
And Sare, that “moral dissonance” comment has given me a lot to think about. If you have time I’d love to hear more from you on how that differs from cognitive. I’ve got some thoughts, but they’re all brand new and I may be reinventing the wheel!
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 16, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Christian #199 -
I haven’t ignored you, Christian; on the contrary, you’ve ignored me.
It’s pretty much impossible to have a rational, logical discussion with someone about the scientific evidence for or against a given topic when that person refuses to accept the entire body of peer-reviewed science which demonstrates the incorrectness of his position, and refuses, also, to prevent any solid, peer-reviewed scientific studies which actually support his position.
You’ve tried tossing in some studies which clearly demonstrate that two-parent parenting teams are more effective and better for children than are typical single-parents, and have, in direct contradiction to the conclusions of those who published the studies, claimed that this somehow proves that opposite-gender parent-teams are superior to same-gender parent-teams, when all of the available scientific evidence shows no superiority whatsoever.
Yeah, I’m sure the scientific data will never be sufficient to overcome your prejudice against same-gender parents, and there will perpetually be some imaginary “flaw” in each and every study which permits you to discard it.
Like I say, it’s pretty hard to carry on a scientific discussion with someone who has, apparently, utterly no respect for any science which disputes his own ingrained prejudices.
Comment by Lorian — November 16, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
I don’t think that the “entire body” of peer reviewed “science” on this topic demonstrates the incorrectness of my position. ISince you feel otherwise, then feel free to not have a rational, logical discussion on that topic.I ‘ve discussed my reasons with you. For example, I’ve pointed out that you’re claiming that “scientific” studies prove “no” differences, and that’s absurd, since science cannot prove that sort of a negative. I asked for measured differences in particular areas such as promiscuity, domestic violence, and child-raising ability by children raised in same-sex couples — and other issues addressed by Erikson. Your response was that Erikson was out of date and that I’d misspelled his name. So we’re going to have to agree to disagree as to whether a child is better off with a loving mom and dad. Many perfectly secular and non-religious people believe the same thing.
Show me real science, instead of this political social pseudoscience, and then maybe you could make such sweeping accusations about my character. At this point, though, it looks like you’re just poisoning the well.
I don’t think it’s even possible that the science could have proven what you say it’s proven in so few years that we’ve even been studying same-sex couples. What we do know from ages of very thorough studies is that boys without dads suffer one set of problems, girls without moms suffer a second set, boys without moms a third set, and girls without dads a fourth distinct set of problems. The latter group has particular problems with promiscuity and seeking male approval … you didn’t object to those studies when they were cited on the “Shamed to Repentance” thread.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Sure. I think they become less blurry as we follow the process that the Lord set out for us when confirming doctrine is from the spirit. Something signed by a full quorum is better than one speaker. Signed by two quorums is stronger still. Signed by the presidency and the twelve, and then approved by common consent as scripture, and then rejected as wrong … well, that would be testimony shaking. But then, some of the stuff in section 132 is a little testimony shaking to me, to be honest.
To me it boils down to what Jesus said, if you are not one, you are not mine. If all the twelve apostles speak together as one voice, that’s pretty definitive to me.
Comment by Christian — November 16, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Alison #205 -
Where are you hearing that, Alison? Certainly not from me. I’ve said repeatedly that I neither suggest nor hope that the LDS Church should or will in any way modify its doctrines concerning marriage. I have no interest in that happening. What I want, and what I, as a citizen of this nation, having as one of its founding principles, the doctrine of separation of church and state, have a right to expect, is that the LDS Church and its definition of religious marriage will be kept out of my bedroom and out of my government’s definition of civil marriage. Churches may define their sacraments and blessings, including religious marriage, however they please, and may grant or deny them to whomever they wish, but that should have utterly no bearing upon my rights as a citizen of this country, including my right to civil marriage protections for my family.
And here, Alison, is where you contradict your claim that you are not comparing same-gender orientation with pedophilia and bestiality, because…well, you are.
So, just so we make sure we address the pedophilia-bestiality bomb in this thread, just for the record, because it must, of necessity, be addressed in every. single. thread. ever. written. about. same. gender. marriage:
Pedophilia involves sex between an adult and a child. The child is not capable of giving informed consent to the sexual act. Therefore, it is a criminal act of sexual violence against a child.
Bestiality involves sex between a human and an animal. An animal, by definition, is not capable of consenting to a sex act with a human being,
Clearly, both acts involve sexual assault upon an unconsenting participant, and therefore, neither is remotely comparable to a consensual sexual relationship between adults.
Do we need to also discuss why rape and necrophilia are not the same as same-gender orientation? Or can we put the ridiculous, insulting crap away and have a real discussion? Next time you “don’t intend” to compare same-gender relationships with pedophilia and bestiality, my best and most sincere suggestion to you would be that you follow your own advice and don’t do so. It is insulting and rude.
Comment by Lorian — November 16, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
CWC, dang it all if you didn’t beat me to that!
Allison Moore Smith: would that I had the power to ban. But alas! All I have the power to do is ask you to keep ridiculous and offensive comments like that safely locked up in your own computer and off this site.
Thanks!
Comment by Eris — November 16, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Christian #209 -
I said no such thing, Christian. What I said is that the body of peer-reviewed science demonstrates that children raised by two same-gender parents in equivalent circumstances are equally as healthy, happy, and well-adjusted by all standard measures as children raised by two opposite-gendered parents.
No two children are exactly alike. By attributing such a statement to me, you attempt to falsely discredit my argument. What can be clearly demonstrated is that children of same-gendered parents are not disadvantaged as compared with their opposite-gender-parented peers in any of the areas of standard measurement to determine adjustment and mental, physical, or emotional health. That being the case, there is simply no way for you to support your claim of the superiority of opposite-gendered parenting as compared with same-gendered parenting. If you could support your claim, you would have done so already.
…Again, you misquote me. Don’t forget that I also pointed out that Erikson’s work was theoretical and observational and had to do with an outlining of developmental stages, not with scientific measure of characteristics in population studies demonstrating a similarity in positive outcomes between populations parented by same-gender as opposed to opposite-gender parents. Apples and oranges, Christian. Lots of psychiatrists and psychologists have outlined developmental stages of one sort or another and theorized about their significance, occurence, etiology and so forth. None of these models is anything more than just that: a model. Some of the models work better than others. Not one of the models demonstrates any superiority of opposite-gendered parenting as opposed to same-gendered parenting. Comparing theoretical modeling to actual scientific data is a ridiculous way of attempting to discredit the data, Christian. If the data do not prove the theory in the model, then it is the model which is discarded or adjusted, not the data.
Very likely so, but very few of those are scientists working in the field of child development. As I stated before, EVERY major medical, psych and social work professional organization in this country disagrees with your conclusions, Christian. If you must continue to believe that you are smarter and know more about this topic than all of them put together, then there’s really no rational discussion to be had.
Comment by Lorian — November 16, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Christian
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve written?
No where have I compared the Proclamation on the Family to hateful racist statements by a few dead GAs.
I have mentioned Apostle Mark E Petersen and quoted two different First Presidencies. I find it rather glib to call them a few dead GAs.
My intent was to show my understanding of what most church members at one time believed to be doctrine. And if it was my intent to do a hatchet job, I would have chosen gnarlier quotes.
And If we get to pick our doctrine, I don’t pick the Proclamation on the Family. And please, it’s not because I want to commit matricide by throwing She who shall not be Named under a bus, in front of a train or through a wood chipper. I think D&C 132 effectively removes any romantic notions of the hereafter.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 16, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
Christian #210 -
Can you do me a favor and cite a chapter and verse on that?
Comment by Lorian — November 16, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
CWC,
I admit that phrase just kinda rolled out of my keyboard for no reason. I could have used the words cognitive dissonance, but to me it’s more than just cognitive.
So yeah! Interesting. We can think of our moral schemas the same way as we do cognitive schemas. We have a new, conflicting piece of information that doesn’t quite (or at all) fit into our existing framework or idea of the moral universe, and we have two choices: either reframe our schema to fit the new piece of information or conflicting idea, or squeeze and twist the idea into our existing moral schema.
Personally it bugs me when people opt out of either option by saying they don’t have to deal with the inner conflict at all because “the prophet said so.” so I guess I actually made a little bit of sense there. Amazing–doesn’t happen all that often.
Comment by sare — November 16, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
“I do feel some people chose challenging circumstances on purpose-”
I do feel some people AVOID challenging circumstances on purpose.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 16, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
See also John chapter 17 generally, for the positive converse.
Fine, call it a glib representation, but it sure as hell isn’t a misrepresentation. Count them up, and it’s a few dead GAs.
Our doctrine? You mean it’s your doctrine? A doctrine that you actually believe in? Or just what you want mormons to believe?
And all you could come up with was a few dead GAs. While others matched you, GA for GA, saying basically the opposite.
Really? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that’s a hereafter that you honestly believe in?
Brigham Young never could get the full quorum of the 12 behind his wackier ideas, including his racist stuff. Show me a full quorum of the 12 backing any of that poison, or anything that the church has rejected, and then you might start to be convincing.
I never said that’s what you want to do. Unlike Lorian and djinn, I don’t presume to make that sort of pyschological inference. I said that I reject and resist your arguments because I want to not throw the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother under a bus. She means enough to me that I take a stand.
Comment by Christian — November 17, 2009 @ 12:05 am
I didn’t quote you at all.
If that’s what you said, then you confused Erikson with Piaget, who I also cited.
Comment by Christian — November 17, 2009 @ 12:07 am
Christian
You are capable of reading, so you know the misrepresentation is in saying there was a comparison between racist statements and POTF.
I do not have time for a detailed statistical study of church literature and GA pronouncements regarding the ” negro question”.
But please, anyone, take a look at the overwhelming amount of what in this day and age is considered racist and compare it with the minuscule pro equality and pro civil rights comments. And please take note of the years they occurred.
But I’m so glad that First Presidency statement in 1994 regarding same sex marriage can be disregarded, since they’re mostly dead guys. And in the near future, we can dump in the trashcan everything uttered by Packer. All those anti-gay statements are by dead guys or the soon to be dead, so glad their statements won’t mean anything.
And you side-stepped D&C132(and that’s scripture). What I believe about the hereafter in no way changes that I think D&C 132 effectively removes any romantic notions of the hereafter.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 17, 2009 @ 1:31 am
Christian -
Um… no. I didn’t.
You may wish to refresh your memory regarding Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development:
http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/person/erikson.html
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 1:42 am
Christian #218
Yeah, I figured you must be quoting LDS scripture because I knew there was nothing in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John where Jesus said anything like, “If you are not one, you are not mine.” I thought you might be referring to John 17, but that passage does not in any way demonstrate what you appear to suggest in your post #210 — that disagreeing with any aspect of a statement from the First Presidency and quorum means that a person does not belong to Christ.
In fact, I’d venture to say that even the D&C verse you quote is not commonly interpreted that way. I’m not aware that Mormons are required to believe every word signed off by the First Presidency and/or quorum without question, or be considered apostate.
Regardless, you can consider me as heathen as you wish, but that doesn’t give you the right to dictate my civil rights on the basis of your church’s teachings.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 1:57 am
Christian #209 -
Unfortunately, Christian, I HAVE shown you real science. But you refuse to believe any real science which doesn’t support your opinions. I can lead you to water, but you’ll have to drink for yourself.
Scientists have been studying children raised by same-gender couples for at least 40 years. That’s certainly long enough to get a clear picture of their development and assess its normalcy.
I didn’t see them on the “Shamed to Repentance” thread, or I would have. Such studies of missing parents do not equate to studies which compare families with two same-gendered parents to two opposite-gendered parents. Unless you control for the presence or absence of two parents in the home, you have not proven anything about two-parent families where both parents are of the same gender. Any scientist could tell you that extrapolating a study of single-parented children to a two-parent home is simply not valid scientific method.
And since there ARE legitimate scientific studies which DO compare apples to apples — two same-gendered parents with two opposite-gendered parents, and which demonstrate quite clearly that children raised by same-gendered parents are equally as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as their opposite-gender-parented peers, you really haven’t got a leg to stand on, here, Christian.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 2:21 am
Not required, no, but unfortunately, most I know seem to think they are…
Comment by Enna — November 17, 2009 @ 8:52 am
Enna, your comment in 224 is one of the things I struggle with most. Blanket statements and prophecy take the place of place of individual relationships with God. Personal revelation is fine, as long as it tells you to follow principals line by line.
Comment by kandi and salt — November 17, 2009 @ 9:40 am
kandi, I’m not sure which one you struggle with…
Do you think personal revelation is only valid when it coincides with what the GAs say? Or do you put more emphasis on a personal relationship with God?
Comment by Enna — November 17, 2009 @ 10:18 am
I got the impression Kandi was concerned about the fact that, for at least some saints, personal revelation is only considered valid if it corroborates the statements and prophecy of the First Presidency and quorum.
I find this to be of concern, too, in a church which claims to put such a strong emphasis upon person revelation, agency and having a personal testimony.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Here’s an article from the New York Times that summarizes the studies on the similarities and differences between children raised by gay and straight couples. Here’s a bit:
Comment by djinn — November 17, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
A much more scholarly article can be found in the journal Pediatrics, here.
Overall, they report
The problem with Christian’s attempted comparison between studies of children raised with a single parent and children raised by a gay couple is addressed as follows:
Comment by djinn — November 17, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
it’s a nice thing. it’s just not enough.
that’s my opinion.
Comment by venus — November 17, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
When did I make those comparisons?
Children raised by single parents have been studied intergenerationally. Children raised by same-sex parents have not. The SSM studies are still in the witch doctor stage. There’s no adequate basis for comparison, let alone the sort of conclusions that Lorian wants us to swallow wholesale. Comparing marriage to ssm is comparing a known success with a basic unknown. We know that kids raised without a mom face a different set of problems than kids raised without a dad. Do those specific factors play in with same-sex parenting? I asked Lorian if those specific factors had been examined, and she ignored the question.
Comment by Christian — November 17, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
You have a problem with that? On an LDS site? Amazing.
Comment by Christian — November 17, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
???
Are you trying to pass that off as something that I said?
Please cite the post number where I said that “Mormons are required to believe every word signed off by the First Presidency and/or quorum without question, or be considered apostate.”
What I said was that statements signed by the whole first presidency, and the whole quorum of the twelve, are considered more authoritative than the opinion of a few dead GAs, although less authoritative than scripture which has been passed through the common consent process.
Really, Lorian, I’d appreciate if you’d stop distorting my arguments.
Comment by Christian — November 17, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
I didn’t sidestep it. I said that I’m uncomfortable with it, and that I don’t know what to do with it.
I’m less than confident in your ability to determine whether every major medical, psych and social work professional organization in this country disagrees with my conclusions, since you’ve yet to accurately represent any of my conclusions.
I doubt very much that every major medical, psych and social work professional organization in this country disagrees with my conclusion that no adequate intergenerational studies of children raised by same-sex parents have been conducted, or that more studies need to be done in order to support the conclusions that you’re foisting on us here.
Comment by Christian — November 17, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Christian, in your comment at 231, I suggest you review the study in the journal Pediatrics that I cited. You would find, should you care to look, that all your questions have been answered.
Children of same-sex parents have been studied intergenerationally.
Some cites:
Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol. 1995;31 :124 –129
Sexual Activity in children raised in same-sex households:
Child raising ability: (Child-raising ability? The studies I’ve seen and you cite indicate that people who are abandoned by their fathers have a difficult time. This is not particularly surprising, but tells nothing about same-sex relations) The best I can do here is to show that the data seems to indicate that kids from same-sex households do bettter. Better.
Did I miss something?
Comment by djinn — November 17, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
“Comparing marriage to ssm is comparing a known success with a basic unknown.”
Wow. The divorce rate is 40-60%, depending on which source you find most credible. Many couples in the remaining 40-60% do not divorce because of religious pressures, social pressures, financials issues and the myriad of other reasons mostly centered around fear. The harm caused to those children whose parents divorce or stay in a dysfunctional or abusive marriage could hardly be considered successful, Christian.
From my own EXTENSIVE research in this area starting in 1994, I have come to the conclusion that dysfunctional families result (mostly, not always) in children with social, personality and/or emotional issues and relatively functional, healthy families result in stable, adaptable, well-adjusted children (mostly). The sexual orientation/gender of the parents/caretakers/guardians shows no relevance whatsoever.
So, while we’re at it, let’s deny civil liberties to all dysfunctional families because those families result in unstable, emotionally unhealthy children. Oh, and even a better idea, let’s allow oh, i dunno… the Baptists (!) decide the definition and criteria for “dysfunctional” based on their doctrine.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 17, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
Sorry for the typos folks. Been up since 5 and have been reading contracts ALL day.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 17, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Christian #231 -
When you have repeatedly made reference to studies of children raised by single parents, and attempted to extrapolate the results of those studies to suggest that children of two same-gendered parents are in some way disadvantaged as compared with their opposite-gender-parented peers, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
You can keep repeating and repeating the same utterly inapplicable arguments and studies, Christian, but you are simply wasting everyone’s time by doing so.
If you wish to prove your claim, then produce even a couple, two or three, legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientifically-valid studies which compare children of two same-gendered parents against children of two opposite-gendered parents and which clearly and undeniably show that such children are measurably disadvantaged by their parenting. Then you will have at least a tiny bit of valid basis to dispute the many, many studies which have found exactly the opposite.
If all you can do is to continue to bring up studies of children of single parents and try to use these studies to cast aspersions on gay parents, then I can’t see the point of wasting my time discussing it with you any further. I might as well say that studies of families in which husbands beat their wives to bloody pulps are predictive of a poor outcome for your family because they are heterosexual and so are you. Please.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
No! Not the Baptists!!
I second what Lawyer Lady said.
Comment by Allie — November 17, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
#232 -
Christian, where did I say that I had a problem with you quoting LDS scripture?
#233 -
Um… same goes here, Christian. See above.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Christian #233 - See your post #210.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Someone said that homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia have 1 thing in common and that is lust. What do you people think about this?
Comment by winifred — November 17, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Christian #234 -
Then do your own research. They disagree with your repeated assertion that children of same-gender parents are in any way disadvantaged by having same-gendered parents as compared with children of opposite-gendered parents. Or are you retracting this claim?
They also disagree with your assertion that gay people should, on this basis, be prohibited from the rights and protections of civil marriage. Or are you retracting this claim?
If you retract your claim that children of same-gendered parents are disadvantaged as compared with children of opposite-gendered parents, and agree that same-gendered couples should not be denied the protections and rights of civil marriage based upon such claims, then I’ll agree with you that the major medical, psych and social worker professional organizations in this country are not diametrically opposed to your position in this matter.
If you retain those claims, but wish to dispute my statement regarding the medical/psych/social worker organizations, then please present links to their official position papers supporting your claims.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
winifred #242
I’d say that so does heterosexuality.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Lorian is completely right. My experience leads me to believe that being a sentient human is about lust. But maybe that’s just me….
Comment by Eris — November 17, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Winifred,
Really? Really.
Ho. ly. Cow.
Anything sexual has some “lust” element. Hell, I am a married woman in a faithful, comitted marriage and when I want to have sex with my husband, I am definitely having some lustful thoughts. Sure, I love him and I want to convey that too, but my desire could definitely be defined as lust.
Man, the lenghts people will go to, to criminalize and make perverse homosexuality. It is so sad. So misunderstood and so uneducated.
Lorian, I feel like I need to apoogize for these insulting comments.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 17, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Lawyer Lady - :bighug: No worries. Thanks for having my back.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
winifred=ignorant.
and on that note please don’t feed the trolls.
Comment by mfranti — November 17, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Good to know.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
I am totally into lust. Three cheers for lust, and its natural offspring, humanity.
You have kids, winifred; what, you just laid there and thought of Engl, uh, the Celestial kingdom?
Comment by djinn — November 17, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
djinn, you’re getting perilously close to painting a mental picture with that last one
Comment by Enna — November 17, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Oh, Enna, when one gets a “straight” line like that, it takes a stronger personality than me to refrain.
Comment by djinn — November 17, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
I am tempted to confess to having a yearning for Rhode Island Whites,but someone would probably think I’m serious.
It’s actually Rhode Island Reds.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 17, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
mfranti,
I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but it is so darn irresistible. And, well, some trolls are just so much more deserving than others…
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 17, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
Poor thing looked hungry.
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
what, now were talking chikins? how did i miss that?
Comment by mfranti — November 17, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
:no-no: No chikins here. Or is it, nobuddy here but us chikins? :confused:
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Maybe the troll was hungry for chikins? :light-bulb:
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
“I am totally into lust. Three cheers for lust...”
djinn, where do you live? Dang it, I so wish you, Derek and Lorian lived close enough to come to our Texas snacker in January. I’ve already got three of my favs - Stephanie, Enna and Ziff that are coming. What if we pay for your fare there?
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 17, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Ahhh, chikins, that explains her list of uh, likes? Dislikes? One in three ain’t bad. I’m signing off now before I say something I regret even more.
Comment by djinn — November 17, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Oh, I’d chip in for that!
Comment by Enna — November 17, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Of course given my salary, it might be bus fare
Comment by Enna — November 17, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
a get together and I wasn’t invited? cripes!
Comment by mfranti — November 17, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
Chikins? Somebody educate me please! I’m so confused.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 17, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
no worries, formal invitations haven’t gone out yet
I think lawyer lady is working on a post to bring all the southerners out of the woods
Comment by Enna — November 17, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
see suzanne’s comment.
Comment by mfranti — November 17, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
mfranti!!!!!
You live in Texas?!?!?!?! Oh my goodness! You HAVE to come. I will kidnap you if that is what it takes. You are SOOO here!
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 17, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Texas is a bit far for me, but I’ll be there in spirit. :sigh:
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
I would claim I have unnatural desires. But I favor free range, organic chickens.
I believe in cage-free lust. Just ask my wife.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 17, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
I only lust after vegan foods. Preferably deep-fried. :snicker:
Comment by Lorian — November 17, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Whoa whoa whoa. I was always taught that lust is always of Satan because it is fake love. But then they say that sexual feelings are good between husbands and wives. Would that mean that lust as we feel it outside marriage is fundamentally different from the sexual feelings experienced in marriage?
Just askin’.
Comment by Allie — November 17, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Well, Allie, presumably if you get married there is a time prior to the marriage. During that interregnum you (not taking too many liberties here, I hope) feel something for your spouse to be. What word should someone use?
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 1:04 am
crazywomancreek, I don’t so much care if you want to be crass, but how about logical?
It’s almost humorous that you’re so offended by my questions. In light of the fact that I’d personally welcome a policy change from the church (as I’ve posted on my blog much earlier — and as I said above). I can only imagine that you’re reading something into my post that isn’t actually there. Nanny nanny boo boo.
As I said, homosexuality is behavior that used to be generally seen as wrong, perverse, and/or problematic. (Do you refute that?) Today, we still have other SEXUAL behaviors that are still generally considered to be wrong, perverse, and/or problematic, such as pedophilia and bestiality. (Do you refute that?)
So, my question is whether or not the church should change it’s moral line on particular SEXUAL BEHAVIORS depending on how the surrounding culture changes theirs? And how will you respond to the same argument used to promote the acceptance of those sexual behaviors that YOU still find wrong? (Assuming that you do find any wrong.)
Where I come from it’s called playing devil’s advocate. (In crazywomancreeks’ it means it’s a good idea to frame someone as a pedophile. Genius.) Why should the church change? And why should it NOT change for, say pedophilia? (Before you argue that the moral basis is only one of consent, THINK about the logic in that. Why should CONSENT be the determining factor? Who says consent has that much weight?)
There seem to be few reasonable arguments that make SENSE of hoping the church will change or claiming that the church is wrong or stating that this move is “a step” in “the right direction” toward some greater movement — EXCEPT that a higher percentage of people in our culture accept homosexuality and so the church should, too.
That’s a pretty lame argument.
I, for one, would love to have the priesthood extended to women. But I still don’t think it’s a sound argument to say that policy should change simply because women have more job inclusion and make more money than they used to.
Lorian #211-
I don’t believe I quoted you. I quoted a few particular phrases. I was commenting on those along with the general tone I seemed to hear.
Well, there isn’t a doctrine of separation of church and state in our founding documents. It’s one, I’m sure you know, of the state not establishing a church. But, that aside, whose definition of marriage would you allow in “the state”? Presumably only one that somehow claimed an utter lack of…um…religious input?
Any definition of marriage will include a value set — just as does every single law. It’s nonsensical to demand our country’s laws be based only on value sets that can somehow (equally nonsensically) claim to be void of religion.
Lorian, you might notice that I didn’t say I wasn’t comparing them. I said I wasn’t EQUATING them. For, ahem, the very reasons you mentioned.
Maybe you wouldn’t have to address so many things. in. every. single. thread. if you didn’t jump to conclusions before carefully reading posts with contrasting viewpoints.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — November 18, 2009 @ 3:23 am
Alison Moore Smith,
Consent. Why should it be the determining factor? The fact that you even ask that question is scary. And I am being serious here.
So you’re okay with someone “taking” sex from you when you don’t want it? Wow.
If you can’t see a reasonable and serious difference between the motive and outcome of sex between consenting adults (ESPECIALLY in the context of committed, in-love homosexual people, which is what we are discussing here) and sexual assault on a child or animal then you, stranger, are a scary individual.
Oh, and a condescending, rude individual, at that.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 18, 2009 @ 8:09 am
#273 Allison Moore Smith:
Why? Explain, please. Values are not exclusive to religion. I don’t need to believe in God to know what is right and wrong. The bottom line is: does what I’m doing have the potential to cause pain to someone else? No religion there.
Comment by numi — November 18, 2009 @ 10:12 am
re: 273 Any definition of marriage will include a value set — just as does every single law. It’s nonsensical to demand our country’s laws be based only on value sets that can somehow (equally nonsensically) claim to be void of religion.
Huh? Why I must ask, is it nonsensical to assert that values and ethics may exist without religion? I mean really - do you hug your kids because God will get ya if you don’t? If the Congressman your church supports fights against clean air and water laws, does that mean God wants us to poison the earth? I mean really. Once upon a time there was this thing called the Age of Reason. Some view Rationality as at least as sensible as Superstition.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 18, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Oh, la. Thanks for the offer, Notorious Pedophile, Alison Moore Smith (not saying that you are, again, want to be clear,) of letting Mother Logic be my guide. I took this “logic” of yours for a spin and , just as I feared, ended up believing that Loving v. Virginia was the gateway to necrophilia being codified in the Constitution.
Eeks!
I am afraid your logic and I must part ways.
Seriously, there are many people that I *want* to have a conversation with about ssm. People that I have a lot to learn from and people I feel it would be productive to explain my view and how I came to it. The low-bar for that conversation is not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality. I hope you are sincere when you say you would support ssm and VOTE for that belief. I would sincerely appreciate that.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 18, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Betty Jo and numi,
As an atheist (with equally as strong of morals as most commenters here, I would argue), a big *hug* to you both. I’ve never understood the argument that religion has the market on values. Great comments by both of you.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 18, 2009 @ 10:33 am
cwc,
You are amazing. LOVED your comment too.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 18, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Lawyer Lady and others: This comment might be risky on this forum, but I am willing to stick my neck out here. I’m not a history buff but I would bet that many, many more lives have been lost in the name of religion than any other reason. If one is able to break it down to simply caring for your fellow beings, human or animal, you will do no harm. Do. No. Harm.
Comment by numi — November 18, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Bringing in pedophila and bestiality is a pretty low blow. How on earth can you think consent is not a big deal?
It’s not valid to say that, just because homosexuality has frequently been seen as wrong in many western Judeo-Christian cultures, that it must be fundamentally bad and detrimental to society in any case. Marriage in those days was a very different thing. It was often economical with certain objectives in mind, namely production of children and building up of the estate. Homosexual relationships challenged some of those objectives, and thus was seen as dangerous. Homosexuals then were forced either into the closet or onto the fringe of society where they would gain a very seedy reputation. Since it is no longer strictly the norm for families to want to have children or to function as a one-income family, this is no longer a problem.
Also, the fact that we, as a population, have become less Judeo-Christian-normative, a few lines in the Bible no longer hold any sway in government matters. And I have yet to see any solid argument that there homosexuality is wrong in and of itself when religion is not counted in, aside from all sorts of right-wing propaganda.
Comment by AllieKay (previously known as Allie) — November 18, 2009 @ 10:44 am
numi, it’s true. I feel that religion has been twisted in many ways because of people who speculate and draw false conclusions about things that are not explained in the doctrine. That’s where you get fundamentalists and radicals and people who religiously and meticulously follow fallible leaders without question.
A big part of me wants to say that a lot of the trouble in the western world has been caused by misinterpretations of the Old Testament.
Comment by AllieKay — November 18, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Alison, there are two clauses concerning religion in the constitution: The Establisment Clause– “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, and the Free Exercise Clause, (”… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). Together they make up the constitutional basis for the separation of church and state.
Historically, the United States was founded, more or less, by the Pilgrims. They were Calvinists and as such, didn’t believe in religious marriage based on Luke 24:34-36
Back in the day, marriage was a civil affair.
History lesson over. No one on this thread, least of all Lorian, is attempting to change Mormon doctrine on anything. No one wants Mormons to change that set of marriage rules.
However, the issue at hand is should the Mormons be able to set the idea of who can be married for the 98.7% of the population that isn’t Mormon. In Pakistan, almost all marriages are between cousins. I’m guessing you wouldn’t want that particular strain of Islam determining who you get to marry. You see, different religions have different often incompatible ideas of what correct behavior is.
This is why your statement that laws cannot be made “devoid of religion” argument simply doesn’t work, because there are so many religions that believe, guess what? Different things. One must decide on our public laws on the basis of something other than a private belief that is labeled “religious.”
God told you stuff, God told the Raelians down the street something else. God told those people who marry 10 year olds in Afghanistan, yes, something else. Now your view is undoubtedly that your God is the right God, and all the other versions of God are wrong, but you see, your appealing to God only works for those of your faith; Lorian’s God is happy that she is able to be married.
So, how do we decide what should be the law of the land? Your version of God vs. Lorian’s version in some sort of spandex-clad death match? (I’m rooting for Thor.) No, non-religious reasons that people can agree on based on concepts like, yes, consent.
Your counter is that if now gay marriage, next, people will be marrying their box turtles. And, frighteningly enough, you seem to make this argument sincerely. But, it is nonsense. For the reasons previously stated. Animals and children cannot consent.
Here’s your quote from #205:
When it’s explained to you that there are iron-clad reasons no box-turtle marriage ever, no pedophilia marriages ever–consent (and, as an aside, how dare you, you unknown-sized hatemonger, waving your magic word wand by saying “No I’m not comparing them with homosexuality” does not chan ge the actual words you wrote, putting them in the same category as “generally considered wrong, perverse, or at least problematic”) you brush the analysis aside and insist, instead that the only reason that we can’t marry our houseplants is because of “public perception.” No. Just No.
Giving up now. Gee whiz.
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 11:38 am
If you didn’t get the point, Alison Less Smith, there are religions out there that condone something very close to incest and pedophilia. (How old was Spencer W.Kimball’s aunt when she married Joseph Smith? Oh, yeah, 14.) Waving around the magic word “religion” doesn’t really give you any ‘moral’ standing. Oh, for the record, I’m not equating Mormons or any specific Mormon prophet with pedophilia.
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
For those who believe that the Separation of Church and State are not a founding principle I would invite them to read my ongoing series of essays on the subject, beginning here, as I don’t have time to recreate those arguments here in this thread.
I would note, given that this has recently been discussed on this thread, that the next essay I plan to add to the series is one explaining why explicitly “moral” legislation (that is, legislation based on religious beliefs about what is right or wrong as opposed to laws based on objective harm) is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution and of Freedom of Conscience. I’ve had to significantly cut back on my blogging time based on several factors in my life, so it may be awhile before it goes up.
I want to agree with the fact that religion has no monopoly on virtue or morality. To believe that one cannot believe in altruism if one does not believe in God is myopic and foolish. And while it cannot be denied that horrendous devastation has been caused under the banner of atheism (see the millions slaughtered by Stalin and Mao), it does not equal the evil caused by those waving the banner of Christianity.
Comment by Derek — November 18, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
Huh. Who do you suppose the Unitarians would root for?
Comment by Enna — November 18, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
286
The many-armed Mandala- God. Hella on the flat back bump but it’s over if they get you in a Nelson.
I am SO glad you asked, I’ve been wanting to say that for some time!
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 18, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
LOL, cwc!
Comment by Idahospud — November 18, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Stalin was Russian Orthodox. He persecuted various religions and then had a visitation during World War II and reinstated Russian Orthodoxy. Not on the list. Sorry.
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
After his re-conversion, Stalin didn’t ease up on those religions he disapproved of however. Hmmmm.
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Derek-I don’t understand why you would define legal moral right or wrong as related solely to religion. IMO most, if not all, laws are morally based. Laws reflect what we value, what we think is more important and what we think is right or wrong.
Judging harm is very individual..some people might look at immediate harm, some may take on a longer view and others look at principles and trends. Is one way right? I don’t think a majority of pro-choice people are out to cause harm, but then I don’t think a majority of pro-lifers are either. They are both defining harm differently.
For myself even though I see an abortion as a very real harm to the the fetus, I can’t legislate that right now because of the potential of the very real harm I see to a vast number of women who do not agree and would choose an abortion regardless of how dangerous it was. Harm gets tricky. I can understand why someone would focus on the abortion and why someone else might focus on the danger to the woman (that all assuming life at a conception-a whole new world of harm philosophy could open up when we change that assumption).
Sometimes religion gives the believer a sense that harm will come, but not a definite concept of what that harm will be. Does that count as harm? Obviously it’s not good enough for some, but I don’t believe it can be dismissed. Frequently it is a longer range, vaguer harm…is that still not harm? Does it have to be short range and personal (your relationship, my relationship or the fetus v. your life)? I personally believe there is harm caused to a person who performs an elective abortion (a related argument is why I have issues with the death penalty). I can’t prove that, or back it up with scientific studies.
Just thinking off the cuff here…I don’t at all think religious people have the corner on morality-i do think they tend to be slower to change a right/wrong concept once they have developed it. They may be less likely to let circumstances adjust their concept, because they recognize a higher source for their concepts of right and wrong (whether they are wrong in that is a different question). This can be a strength and a weakness. If they have mistakenly identified a moral concept as being from God and it is merely a tradition-it will be very slow to change this tradition despite it’s poor foundation. However a religious person may be more determined to stick to a moral standard despite circumstances.
(those are obvious generalizations-please don’t respond with-”I know this lady” exceptions-I won’t care. If you want to debate it please address the principle).
I’m also still at a quandry as to how one could possibly separate themselves form their religion to vote. If the founders assumed that were possible I’d be interested. Nothing I have read suggests it is possible or even beneficial to do so. How would a person vote? Always study every scientific study available and debate solely visible, measurable harm?
IME Mormons who have voted in favor of SSM are seldom voting that way in spite of personal religion. They feel it better reflects their beliefs. They aren’t separating out church and state so much as the fine tune separating of religion and church. I coudl be wrong on that and they are just compeltely denying their religion and going on personal relationships and science-but it hasn’t been my experience that this is so. I’m not saying personal relationships didn’t enter in to their choice (or science either for that matter). I’m just saying there wasn’t a separation from their religion in the voting process.
Likewise many people I know voted against SSM, not solely because of the church, but because of their personal beliefs and understanding. I know some people sheepled it, but I think there are always going to be sheep on both extremes of the spectrum.
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Alison #273 - Well, a number of people have already made my points quite nicely, but that’s never stopped me from adding my two cents before, so why let it stop me now?
What kind of a policy change, specifically? If the policy change you’d like to see is one of the church staying out of matters of civil marriage and civil rights, or perhaps even advocating more for equal civil rights, then why would you come here and (apparently) argue against such change? .
Why would you say this? I haven’t heard anyone suggest that gays haven’t been discriminated against and treated as sinful, evil pariahs. Of course, most of us here don’t agree with that position, but I don’t know where you’d get the idea that we’re oblivious to it. Some of us have been personally affected by it, after all.
Um…no. And why would you think that we would? Can you not see how insulting and rude your questions are, Alison?
Again, no one is asking that the church change its teachings on anything. I am asking for legal CIVIL marriage for the protection of my family. Not religious marriage. And if you don’t understand the difference between the two, you should go back and read some of my prior posts. But since you probably won’t, I’ll summarize:
Religious marriage: Blessing conferred by a church or other religious organization, which carries no civil rights or benefits, is not authorized, mandated or controlled by the government, and which can only be engaged in with the consent of church officials.
Civil marriage: A contract entered into by a couple which is authorized and licensed by the state. It confers certain civil rights, benefits, protections and obligations upon the couple, but does not confer or imply any specific religious benefit or blessing. It cannot be authorized by a church official, although it can, for the sake of convenience, be formalized by one who has been licensed by the state. This does not mean, however, that such formalization by a religious official makes that civil marriage synonymous with a religious marriage. It only means that BOTH civil and religious marriage have been entered into by the same couple as part of the same ceremony, for their own convenience.
This can be clearly seen by the fact that if you go a Temple for a Sealing Ordinance without obtaining a marriage license from the state, it doesn’t matter how properly and sincerely you and your spouse are sealed — you still won’t be married in the eyes of the state, and won’t be able to file taxes jointly or collect one another’s state pension or social security, etc. On the other hand, if you go to city hall, obtain a marriage license and have your civil marriage formalized by a clerk of the court, you still will not be considered “Sealed” by the church.
The church (all the different churches) can and should dispense its own rites, sacraments and blessings according to its own internal rules (all the different churches’ many, many different rules), but none of those rules for dispensing sacramental or religious marriage should have any bearing upon how the state dispenses civil marriage. And, normally, they DON’T. This can be seen by the fact that, even though the Roman Catholic Church won’t marry people who are previously married and divorced (at least, not without making them jump through ecclesiastical hoops), or who are not Catholic and won’t agree to raise their children in the Catholic church, the state has no compunction about remarrying the previously divorced or marrying non-Catholics. And even though some churches will not marrying mixed-race couples, the state has specific prohibitions against denying CIVIL marriage to mixed-race couples.
Civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate institutions and the rules of one do not govern and should not have bearing upon the rules of the other.
If you’re going to “play devil’s advocate,” it’s best to state your intentions up-front (you did not), and it’s generally considered good form to only bring up arguments which are reasonable — not the noxious drippings of smear campaigns. Also, if you are going to bring up a “devil’s advocate” argument, even if you ARE going to simply trot out hateful stereotypes and call it an “argument,” it’s important that you take responsibility for that argument, stand behind it and follow it through — not just toss it out and then say, “Oh, but I didn’t really say that at all, you know…”
Just as genius as framing a gay person as the moral equivalent of a pedophile (oh, that’s right…you were just “comparing” gay people to pedophiles, not making them equivalent. Well, I’d say that crazywomancreek was just comparing you to a pedophile, not declaring you equivalent, then, right?
Equivocation seems to be your modus operandi, Alison.
Again, you confuse the church changing its own internal policies regarding marriage, homosexuality, etc., with the church involving itself in trying to force the government to LEGALLY define CIVIL marriage according to the church’s requirements for RELIGIOUS marriage. These are two entirely different things, Alison.
Civil law is based, not upon the principles of your church or my church or any other religious teaching, but upon principles of harm and legal rights. People are not permitted, in a civil society, to do harm to one another. Do some of the principles of civil law and religious law overlap? Sure they do, because ultimately, most law is, at some level or another, concerned with preventing humans from doing harm to one another. However, religious law can also be concerned with taboos and spiritual principles which are unrelated to matters appropriate to the purview of civil law. For instance, one religious principle is the keeping of a Sabbath day. Most religions designate one day a week which is considered “holy,” and most religions define various sets of behaviors which are appropriate and inappropriate to engage in on the Sabbath day, for instance, working. And yet, we do not have legal restrictions against working on the Sabbath day (whether the Christian Sabbath of Sunday, the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, or the designated holy day of other religious groups). You cannot be sent to jail or fined for not keeping the Sabbath. There are laws which require employers to allow you the freedom (within bounds of what is reasonable for that employer’s business) to honor your religion’s holy days, but even those laws are by no means universal strictures against requiring employees to work on days which some religions might define as “holy.”
Our civil laws weight the rights of individuals and society at large and determine where one person’s exercise of rights crosses the line and begins to infringe upon other citizen’s free exercise of their own rights; or where one citizen’s exercise of rights crosses the line and begins to cause demonstrable harm to another person or to society.
Thus, when “Person A” picks up a gun and shoots “Person B, did “A” legitimately exercise his right to keep and bear arms (and, by implication, use those arms)? The answer lies, not in the Biblical stricture, “Thou shalt not kill,” but in the question: “Was ‘B’ posing a legitimate threat to the life of another person at the time? Was ‘B’ infringing upon someone else’s rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness? Was ‘B’ in the act of causing demonstrable harm to another person or to society which justified the use of deadly force to stop him?”
If the answer is, “No,” then “A” will probably be found to have infringed upon “B’s” rights by his action of shooting “B” with a gun. He will be guilty of the crime of murder. Will he be guilty of a crime because the Bible says that murder is a sin? No. He will be guilty of a crime because our system of laws, based upon the concepts of harm and rights, has found him guilty of infringing upon another person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and of causing demonstrable harm to that person.
Do the two overlap in this case? Yup. But is one based upon the other. No. In fact, case law is quite clear in this area. Laws cannot (or at least, aren’t suppose to) be based upon solely religious “tests.” Making a law which enforces a principle which has no valid basis in our civil principles, and is based solely upon a religious precept, where no harm can be demonstrated, is unconstitutional, because making such a law involves “the establishment of religion.” Thus the government cannot compel citizens to attend religious services, even if the government does not specify which church or organization the citizen must atttend. It would be as unconstitutional for the government to compel citizens to “attend the religious meeting of your own choosing at least once per month” as it would be for the government to compel citizens to “attend a Catholic Mass once per week.”
There must be a non-religious reason for our laws in order for them to pass constitutional muster, even if they overlap with standard religious teachings. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a law which enforces a principle held or taught by a religious group. But in order for the law to be constitutional, it must also be able to demonstrate that violation of the law will cause harm to an individual or to society — else the law, itself, is an infringement upon citizens’ rights to the free exercise of religion.
No, NOT “accept homosexuality,” but accept that citizens of this society have the right to make our own religious choices, and that those of us who disagree with the church’s teachings on homosexuality have the right to have our families protected by the same civil rights as those who agree with the church’s teachings. The church does not have the right to dictate my CIVIL rights based upon its RELIGIOUS beliefs.
No, you didn’t. You didn’t quote anyone. You simply made something up:
and then attributed it to the people who have posted on this thread. None of us said what you attribute to us, above. If we did, please point out the post.
As Derek and others already ably pointed out, it’s not just the state not establishing a church, but also the state not interfering with the rights of citizens to free exercise of religion (including the right not to exercise a religion at all and the right not to have a religion imposed upon them by the state or by a religion operating under the auspices of the state). This is a clear foundational principle of our government, Alison, whether you understand it or not. Our government’s rules cannot be based solely upon the dictates of a religion — any religion. They must also have a secular foundation involving the rights of citizens and principles of not causing harm.
No, Alison, no one said “VOID of religion;” just not “solely based in religion.” There must be a secular reason for the law or it is not constitutional.
More equivocation. If your argument is not that homosexuality and pedophilia and bestiality are all sharing in some basic foundational link (other than the fact that so many have linked them before — which seems to be the basis upon which you are comparing them), then why compare them at all?
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Mao as an atheist is also problematic, as he set himself up to be worshiped; rather than no god, the atheist position, worship was totally in the picture, just of Mao himself.
For example, Mao said:
This is not atheism. This is just replacing a supernatural God with a man.
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
britt #291 - Please see my post # 292 for a discussion of the foundational principles of law and how they may overlap with religious principles but may not be solely based in religion. You and I have had this discussion before, but you continue to hold, incorrectly, that laws can be solely based upon a religious ideal, even when there is no demonstrable harm associated with breaking that law. This is not true.
That’s why we do not have laws in this country against (as I said earlier) working on the Sabbath, eating pork, wearing clothing of mixed fibers, racial intermarriage, eating shellfish, trimming one’s beard, praying while naked, praying in the restroom (yeah, some religions teach against that), driving a car on Saturday, driving a car on Sunday, serving cheeseburgers, and so on.
It is also the reason why homosexuality was decriminalized — because laws which prohibited homosexual sex were found to be solely based upon religious teachings. No appropriate state interest involving protecting the rights of citizens or protecting society from harm, could be found to justify interfering with the rights of citizens to engage in homsexual sex.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Hey, there’s even Supreme case law on Mormonism being one of the “twin relics of barbarism.” Let’s outlaw it. Along with marriage to my favorite Lucetta rose. So beautiful, and her thorns hurt so good.
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
britt #291 -
Yes, it does. That’s why we have legislators and a judiciary, and an appeals process leading all the way to the Supreme Court, to sort through and make decisions about where, exactly, to draw the line between one individual’s rights and the rights of another. That does not disprove the fact that our laws are based upon principles of individual rights and preventing the exercise of those rights from infringing upon the rights of another (causing “harm”). In fact, it clearly demonstrates how our system of government works.
There are no issues which are (ideally, anyway) decided based upon blanket religious declarations of “right” and “wrong.” If there were, then abortion WOULD be illegal. And yet, it is not, because our government has found (at this point in time, anyway — a system of government like ours allows for change in the future) that the rights of the mother to the control of her own body and medical care outweigh any perceived rights that could be accorded to a fetus or embryo, up until a certain stage of development.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
britt #291 -
No. Our laws cannot be based upon a vague sense of unease. Nor can they be based upon what someone might purport to be a case of brimstone destroying an ancient city because they believe their holy scripture meant that God did this because of something that the people in the city were doing. Otherwise, anyone could claim, “Well, my religion teaches that polygamy is a sin, and that God will rain down fire from heaven upon countries which allow any religion to exist which has ever taught that people should engage in polygamy. Therefore, we need to ban Mormonism AND Judaism AND Christianity AND Islam AND Hinduism AND Buddhism, because they’ve all permitted and even encouraged polygamy at some time or other, and it makes me really, really uncomfortable and I’m afraid that God will rain down fire from heaven and destroy our civilization!”
You get the picture.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
And re the previous, you say, britt (sorry, I’m doing this piecemeal, trying to get other things done):
No. That’s why it must be demonstrable harm, not just a vague sense that “harm could happen somewhere down the road.” You have to be able to prove a case that this action will lead to that consequence. You have to show that this persons rights will be infringed upon or that society will be harmed in this clearly defined manner.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Wow Lorian (in 292)! Longest comment ever! Is there a prize for that?
cwc- he he he… and so many hidden talents. Is wrestling a hobby or a moonlighting career?
Comment by Enna — November 18, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Lorian and you keep mixing religious practices with religious principles. I get that there shouldn’t be laws against drinking coffee.
I also don’t think harm can be so narrowly or simply defined as does MY relationship affect YOUR relationship.
As for marriage law-no fault divorce doesn’t affect my relationship in the slightest-yet it has caused irreparable harm on women or men who caved and divorced too early…weakened in resolve by the permission given to them by law and the culture that had developed allowing divorce for no reason. It has brought children irreparable harm. Yet I can see the harm in strict laws requiring proof of harm in a divorce situation-because the burden is placed on the victim and will most likely extend their suffering at best and cause them to feel trapped and stay at worst. Who could have anticipated how normal divorce would become? Who would have anticipated the effect on children and society? Sure the law didn’t make ME have a divorce, but the no fault law has brought harm. Harm that couldn’t have been proven at the time. Harm that was thought to be a weak slippery slope type of argument.
I’m not saying SSM will affect marriage and family like divorce has. I’m just saying it’s not as simple as saying what harm does my relationship do to yours or vice versa. Has the focus on attraction and it’s blurring with love affected relationships and marriage? How will it continue that trend towards the concept of love as a place you fall in and out of? The polygamy question used to be thought of as a weak slippery slope argument and is now a legitimate concern. Will the focus on the adults in the relationship (and what they deserve) take away a sense of responsibility and sacrifice? If these kinds of things happen would that be harm?
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
britt #291 -
I think the key here is that we need to vote as citizens of this country, not solely as adherents of a particular religion. I’m not saying people should leave their morality at home, but what I am saying is that the honest and clear-thinking voter should be able to put him/herself into the shoes of the person whose rights s/he is voting on and say, “Am I trying to make this person abide by my religious beliefs for no other reason than that those ARE my religious beliefs? If so, would I want someone to do that to me? If someone believed my religion was wrong, would I want them to vote away my right to practice it? Would I want the dictates of another religion imposed on my life against my will?”
And, for this reason, groups like NOM and “Yes on 8″ worked hard to try to provide voters with non-religiously-based motivations for voting against gay marriage — like “It will harm our children;” “It will allow gays to teach our children to be homosexual in school;” “It will take away freedom of religion from our churches if they continue to teach that homosexuality is a sin;” “It will cause pastors to be put in jail if they preach against homosexuality or refuse to perform homosexual marriages;” and so forth.
Of course, the fact is, all of those “reasons” that were provided to voters by NOM and “Yes on 8″ were lies. They were clearly dmonstrated to be lies by lawyers, even by Mormon lawyers. But they gave people a salve for their consciences when they went to the voting place to vote for a law which clearly inflicts the religious beliefs of some religions upon those who do not believe or practice those religions.
This is why people’s civil rights should never be put to a popular vote. Measures which are attempting to force the moral views of some onto others, or which would attempt to disenfranchise a group of people to satisfy the religious beliefs of anther group, should not be put on ballots in the first place.
But when they are, as happened here, they will need to work their way throught the court systems until finally justice is done, and unconstitutional laws and mandates are declared unconstitutional and are no longer allowed to disenfranchise citizens on the basis of their neighbors’ religious beliefs, as was done with Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
One comment on the lies…
As for teaching SSM in schools…suppose it were the law of the state. Which do you think would happen:
The school would just never mention marriage.-see no problem
The school would mention marriage but NOT teach the law of the state-thereby not including SSM.-see no change
Which scenario (or come up with another one) do you think would happen that would involve SSM not coming up in school?
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
britt #301
I didn’t say anything about drinking coffee, britt. I DID mention eating pork and putting cheese with meat. These are not just “practices” to Jews and Muslims. They are serious sins. They are “abominations,” if you will. And yet, we do not allow them to be enforced with law upon the people of this country, just because they are the religious beliefs of some of its citizens. Even if a particular state, say, New York, became predominantly Jewish or predominantly Muslim, it would still unconstitutional for the state of New York to pass laws forbidding citizens to consume pork or cheeseburgers, unless those who wished to pass the law could demonstrate clear harm which would be caused to society at large by their consumption, or could show how allowing some of the citizens to consume them would clearly and directly infringe upon the rights of those citizens who believe that the consumption of such things is sinful.
If me eating a pork sausage (God forbid — I’m a vegan!) could be proven to cause my Jewish neighbor’s children to shrivel up and die, then there would be good cause to pass a law forbidding the consumption of pork. If, on the other hand, me eating a pork sausage just offends him or revolts him or sets a bad example for his kids (in his opinion), then no one has the right to take my pork sausage away from me. Even proving that me eating pork sausage will lead to my early death due to heart disease is not sufficient cause for banning the consumption of pork. I have a right to voluntarily contribute to the hardening of my own arteries.
See, that’s where you’re wrong. As in my previous example, you have to be able to demonstrate clear harm — actual damage to innocent third parties — caused by something in order to have valid reason for outlawing it.
In the case of your divorce scenario, for instance, you are correct that sometimes harms those who engage in it. They have that right, however. It also sometimes harms the innocent third parties who are the children of that marriage. That gets a little bit trickier, though, because, as you pointed out, forcing a couple and their children, to stay together in an unhealthy marriage is often at least as damaging, if not moreso, to both the spouses and the children than allowing the parents to divorce. That’s why when there are children involved, divorce becomes more complex, and there is a separate phase to decide custody, visitation and child support. The court cannot simply declare that it is better for couples to stay married when they have children, because this is not universally true. Such decisions must, therefore, be left up to the couple, themselves, with the court stepping in to determine, in cases of dispute, which parent is best suited for the task of physically caring for the children, who has the most resources to provide for their well-being, etc.
This, however, is not the same thing at all as allowing gays to marry. In the case of allowing gays civil marriage, you are not preventing families from breaking up — you are reinforcing them and giving them a better shot at staying together, and at taking care of one another in the process. You are not preventing harm to children — if anything, you are helping to make sure that children are better able to be cared for because safety structures intended for the benefit of families and children are in place. You are assuring the continuity of their care in the event of the death of one of the spouses. You are giving them easier, more affordable access to healthcare.
None of this equates to “unimaginable harms down the road,” even allowing that “unimaginable harms down the road” or “a vague sense of unease” or “a fear of fire and brimstone falling from the sky” were legitimate cause under the laws and constitution of our society for denying equal civil rights to citizens and to their children.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
britt #303 -
britt, I never said that children wouldn’t learn about the EXISTENCE of homosexuality (or gay marriage, for that matter) in school. They already do, as far as that goes.
What they WON’T learn in school is the mechanics of “how gay people have sex.” They will learn (and already do, in many places) that “some families look different than other families. Some families have a dad and a mom, some have a grandparent or an aunt and uncle, and some have two mommies or two daddies.” This helps kids like mine not get bullied for being different from other kids.
I’m good with that, britt. Really.
Do I want my kids taught the mechanics of heterosex in school? Not particularly. Teaching Juniors or Seniors about how to prevent pregnancy and STDs is fine with me, and if that information is inclusive of both hetero kids and gay kids, I think that’s very appropriate. But not teaching kids “how to have sex.” And certainly not at the primary level. But that’s not what’s happening. That’s just a scare tactic being used by those who want to prevent my family from protecting our children with equal civil rights. Legalizing marriage will not cause your eight-year-old to learn to have gay sex in school. And yet, that is what is implied and even outright stated by many anti-gay-marriage ads and leaflets.
Lies, britt. I’ll say it again. Lies.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
re: 291
You are correct, all laws are based on morality. However, as I will explain in detail in my eventual post, when people talk about “morality” in the context of legislation, they are usually talking about what some group believes to be intrinsically right and wrong, things that they believe based on some preconceptions and presumptions. That sort of morality is very different and distinct from those things we believe are wrong because we can objectively measure harm done by those actions–still a moral judgement, but one based on objective observation. For example, murder is objectively wrong: it causes harm to another and limits their freedom. It is a moral belief based on material, objective reality. On the other hand, the belief that we should rest from our labors on Sunday and spend the day in worship is based solely on certain presumptions, none of which can be objectively verified (ie, that a God exists, that he wants us to worship him, that Sunday is the day which he chose for us to do so, and that putting aside our economic activity to focus on other activities which he has given). That moral belief may well be true, but it cannot be objectively verified. Therefore, to enshrine that religious belief in law (by mandating businesses close or that people not participate in certain activities on Sundays) is an example of what is meant when people talk about “moral legislation,” and is a violation of the spirit of Freedom of Conscience and the Separation of Church and State.
Homosexual activity may well be morally wrong (contrary to the will of God). But given that there is no objective indication to show that homosexual activity or homosexual relationships harm individuals or society aside from the religious presumption that homosexuality is immoral, laws should not be enacted to restrict those activities. To do so is another example of that sort of unethical (in that it violates the Freedom of Conscience”moral legislation.”
Again, as I’ve said dozens of times before, the principles upon which this nation were founded were concerned with protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Therefore, we cannot justify laws based on religious presumptions and dogma simply as “reflecting the values of society.”
Comment by Derek — November 18, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Lorian, you really think Pork is the principle? really? Not taking care of the body God gave you or obedience or self control? but pork?
coffee is pretty important if it can keep you out of the temple..I don’t think coffee is the principle either.
There is generally harm (and sometimes a lot of harm) to children of divorce parents. The law could be tougher in that regard and it would prevent harm. (not for my relationship-or for yours). The adults may be frustrated, annoyed and angry, but they also could learn how to be selfless and loving (speaking of non abusive situations here). People might be more willing to seek counseling, if they knew the divorce options was harder to get to. Even if they did end up having a divorce the counseling and work on their marriage would make them better people and more ready for the relationship they would need after marriage as joint parents.
The irony is that the difficulty of proving demonstrable harm is how we got no fault divorce! Some people were in awful situations and the burden of proof was thought to be too hard…harder than the potential, possible harm that could come from changing divorce law. Some lawyer and judges who saw those heartbreaking situations argued in favor of no fault divorce…they were arguing to prevent real and immediate harm they saw. Will it make you have a divorce? Will it harm YOUR marriage? no. Who could have conceived of the damage done to children because of no fault divorce? Who would have imagined ath 50% of marriages would end in divorce? No one could PROVE no fault would be that bad. Well law changed…the burden of proof is no longer there but the whirlwind of harm is now very evident. the extent of the harm is evidence that the law may have gone too far.
Burden of proof doesn’t always come the way you want Lorian. It really doesn’t have to be about my relationship and your relationship. The law affects all of society and should be considered that way. It’s not wrong for people to consider possible future harm. It’s not wrong to consider how it would affect our country or marriage in 50 years. It is difficult to change a societal trend, once started. Abortion would be dangerous to outlaw now. Stricter divorce laws would help children and families but would be difficult now for people to even imagine.
The concept that demonstrable harm has to be proven is faulty. I know you want that to be the way law is made, but much of the predictions that go into law are guesswork at best. People frequently vote on public policy based on their principes. It’s impossible to really know in 20 years how the economy would respond with or without universal health care or the bail out…should we not vote against them unless we can prove harm?
I know this situation is different than a bail out, but the concept is similar…the harm or good of a law is all theoretical and vague . There was no way to demonstrate no fault divorce would turn out so horribly. There is potential for long term effects; it is impossible to rationalize away people voting their principles when you can’t prove there will only be positive effects any more than I can prove a possible future negative outcome. I know you can see how your family is and would be affected-but that isn’t enough to justify law either.
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
re: 307
Would stricter divorce laws help children and families, or would it make it more difficult for women and children to leave negative situations? No restrictive divorce laws–nor any other laws–will force people to be good spouses and parents.
Comment by Derek — November 18, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
And I would suggest that, while it is certainly true that there are actions which individuals and groups can take which result in very indirect or long-term harm for themselves, others, and society, laws should and must be focused on fairly direct harm. Otherwise, freedom of conscience becomes meaningless, and the state becomes a religious nanny state (”we believe that the actions of Mormons undermine society in the long-term, and so we will pass a law to abolish the LDS faith”).
Comment by Derek — November 18, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Lorian-what commercials were you watching? The commercial I saw all said that young elementary school age children will be taught that SSM is good-and supporting homosexuality is good. Commercials like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4
I never saw a commercial that was talking about teaching young children the mechanics of sex or any such thing.
It is my personal opinion that God doesn’t choose sins randomly just to make a point. He didn’t choose pork by drawing animals out of a hat. I don’t think he chose homosexuality randomly as a sin. I believe all sin causes harm-not just to the individual.
Stricter divorce laws would force people to look for alternatives. What if counseling were required before divorce and that stopped 1 of 100 couples from divorcing? Would people look at who they married differently if they knew it would be harder to divorce? Just forcing people to look for alternatives to divorce could make them better parents and people. Again I’m not talking affair or abuse, I’m talking irreconcilable differences type of situation. My mom as a marriage and family therapist used to read couples considering a divorce a letter a young man had written about how he felt about his parents divorce and how it had affected him. Would it be so bad to encourage adults to suffer it out a little longer if it had a beneficial affect on the child?
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/divorce.html
http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Britt I got divorced after 7 years of marriage. We cited “irreconcilable differences”. We did not even likie each other - pretty close to hated each other. I can guarantee my children were better off with two separate happy parents than two together miserable parents. Were they affected? Of course they were. But they were still better off. Making the parents suffer it out a little longer is not helpful. Children sense the moods of their parents and are 100% affected by it, so even if they just really don’t like each other - it’s still a good enough reason not to be together.
Which also has no bearing whatsoever on SSM. Having 2 happy parents- no matter what gender- will always be a GOOD thing for children, NOT a harmful thing.
Comment by Samantha — November 18, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Samantha.. Statistics, like those in the articles that suggest parents should stay together for the chidlren, apply generally and not to every single person. I’m glad your children are better off. My parents “Stayed together for the children”. I am extremely glad, and now, so are my parents.
My point in bringing up the divorce issue is that no one at the time would have dreamed that 50% of marriages would be ending in divorce. No one. If a person had said, I don’t want to vote for no fault because I’m worried more people will get divorced..that wasn’t technically proving harm…that was just their guess. There was no way to know how it would go. People who voted against it, tended to vote just on principles, they had no proof. People voting for it just had a different focus..they were focused on the adults in the marriage that had the burden to prove abuse…still a principle and they could SEE harm. Sometimes harm you can’t see, and can’t anticipate is still VERY real. To limit a person to voting based only on harm they can at present demonstrate is not reasonable for public policy.
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
So, Britt, are you actively lobbying against divorce? No? Why not?
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
I understand they apply generallyand I am happy your parents suffering through it for you worked for you. However, generally, children with separated parents who are happy, tend to be better off than parents who “stay together for the children” but fight, argue, and can’t stand each other. It creates a tense and hostile home environment which is harmful and certainly not better off. If the parents can “suffer it out” civilly then fine, but generally this is not the case.
As for proving demonstrable harm for public policy this is how we must vote. It isn’t reasonable to push policy for a possible percieved future harm. This simply turns into a “well what if in 50 years this might possibly somehow have side effects that we cant see or know but might be negative?” How many more people might have suffered and/or died, how many children might have been harmed by emotionally hostile homes if they hadn’t voted for no-fault divorce? Demonstrable harm must take precedence over possible maybe in the future there might be negative side effects. And while I wish that people would take marraige more seriously and really truly consider all it entails before committing to it - I still have to agree that the no fault divorce is a neccessary law. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on this.
Comment by Samantha — November 18, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
britt #307
For Jews and Muslims? Or at least for many of them? Yes, I do.
I understand the distinction you are attempting to make between doing a practice because it serves a greater principle (not drinking coffee because it is better for one’s health), but for observant Jews and Muslims, particularly today, when sanitation and proper cooking methods have made the consumption of pork no more risky to one’s health than the consumption of any other mammalian meat (and less risky than some), there IS no other reason for not eating pork (or handling it, or owning products made from pigskin, or even being around a pig) than simply the fact that it has been declared an “abomination.”
Yes, you could say that it is a “practice” based upon the “principle” of “obedience,” but that’s rather splitting hairs when you’re making a comparison to the “practice” of “homosexuality” being avoided because of the “principle” of “obedience.” It is very much the same thing (assuming, just for the moment, that being same-gender-oriented and having a loving, committed relationship within the context of that orientation is even what is referred to in the Bible, which I don’t believe is the case at all).
We’re not arguing whether children are ever harmed by divorce, britt. Of course they are. But you’ll be hard-pressed to prove that, statistically-speaking, more children are more harmed by no-fault divorce than they would be if their parents were forced to stay together. Some would certainly be better off. Others, not so much. Show me some statistics that even begin to demonstrate that more harm comes from divorces than from people being forced to stay in marriages that are not working, and we’ll have something to talk about.
But, better yet, let’s talk about the real topic, here, which is NOT whether there is theoretically more harm to society from allowing people to divorce without proving abuse or unfaithfulness.
What I would like to know is precisely what societal or individual “harms” you see arising from allowing gay couples civil marriage. And if all you can say is, “I dunno, but maybe something bad will happen at some undefined point in the future, but I don’t know what it is, but I think it maybe, probably, might, could, because, you know, nobody knew what would come out of no-fault divorces,” then that’s not good enough, britt. That is NOT a good enough reason to deny my children their civil rights. That is NOT a good enough reason to ignore the VERY REAL harm that is being perpetrated against gay people and their children RIGHT NOW, here in this very moment, by disenfranchising them of the civil rights they need to protect their families.
Come up with some good, solid suggestions of concrete “harms” that you believe gay marriage will cause society and then we can talk more.
#310
Number one, britt, even the commercial you reference is false, because children are not taught “that same-sex marriage is good,” or to “support homosexuality.” They are simply taught that it exists and that gay people are normal and should be treated as such. There’s a difference there. You imply moral endorsement, when reality is the absence of moral judgment either way. If you cannot see the significance, think about it for a bit.
But yes, I did see commercials or pamphlets which stated that, if gay marriage were legalized, children “as young as kindergartners” would be taught “graphic information” about homosexuality. The usual claim is that children “as young as kindergarten will be subject to mandatory teaching on the virtues of homosexual marriage.” But even that claim is untrue, since, here in California, there is no mandatory requirement to teach about marriage at ANY grade level, and certainly not in Kindergarten, and the only way that gay marriage would even be mentioned in school curriculum is if the general topic of marriage was being taught.
It is a lie and a scare tactic, britt. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for teaching about diversity, again, I can’t see the harm. If you see some concrete harm that you believe will arise from children knowing that gay people exist and that some of their classmates might have two moms or two dads, then please, outline it in clear and definitive terms and let’s talk about it.
And I don’t think God chose homosexuality as a sin, at all, britt. I think that is a human invention based upon ancient taboos from small agricultural societies where it was important that every member be as sexually-reproductive as possible.
Why should your opinions about what God considers a sin be more important than my opinions about what God considers a sin? And more to the point, why should your opinions about what God considers a sin be the basis for taking away my children’s civil rights?
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Lorian you are far more eloquent than I am.
Comment by Samantha — November 18, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
britt - Missed this part of your post # 307 and meant to respond to it:
It’s not faulty at all — it IS the way that laws are evaluated in this society. Not every law passed meets this test, but eventually, if it causes enough harm of its own (by disenfranchising citizens, for example) it will be taken to court and it will be put to this test. If it cannot withstand this test and it is causing harm, it will be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. The clear example is the antimiscegenation laws which were overturned in Loving v. Virginia.
When states passed laws against interracial marriage, did some of the people (mostly legislators) who voted for those laws vote according to their own personal moral beliefs and religious teachings? Yes they did. Was that right? Not from my perspective, but your mileage may vary. Did those laws disenfranchise citizens? Yes they did. Were they challenged in court? Yes they were. Were they tested against the principles I’ve outlined? Yup. What was the result?
Interracial marriage:
1. Against people’s religion? Yes, in many cases.
2. Causes harm to individuals? None that could be proven (other than what is the direct result of societal prejudice against such couples and their offspring — which must be addressed by educating society, not by disenfranchising interracial couples).
3. Causes harm to society at large? Many people claimed so, and plenty of people had nebulous “bad feelings” about it, but no, no demonstrable harm to society.
Laws prohibiting interracial marriage:
1. Deprived citizens of certain significant civil and human rights? You betcha.
Since the upshot is that citizens were being deprived of their rights for no better reason than that some people had religious beliefs against interracial marriage and some people had vague senses of bad juju about it, antimiscegenation laws were found to be unconstitutional and were overturned.
This isn’t, britt, just “the way I want the law to be made.” It IS the way the law is made. Do unconstitutional laws get passed? Yeah, they do, otherwise there would be no need for the Supreme Court. Do they eventually get overturned. Yeah, for the most part, they do. Prop 8 will, eventually.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Aww, thanks, Samantha. I’m also far more verbose and long-winded.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
I feel like some people take things out of context. I have followed the church’s stance, am taking a religion in society senior level course, and was in attendance for Elder Oaks devotional address at BYU-Idaho. i am not saying I know everything there is to know, but I have read a lot.
There seems to be confusion over what is a “right” and what is government “endorsement.” The church is merely defining these terms. The church doesn’t desire for “rights” to be taken away, they merely want the government to refuse to “endorse” this type of activity. I don’t feel I know enough to stand on either side of the debate, so this is just summarizing what the church’s position is which i feel is being confused. There is an apparent movement designed to take away a religion’s freedom of speech for the cause of political correctness. This is wrong, but so is condeming individuals who choose to live in a same-sex bond. All that is expressed is the idea that when a person who titles themself as a gay walks through town saying he wants “rights” (which are taken directly from the constitution) that he should be allowed. No church authority is against that. At the same time, if I don’t believe that the government providing financial support, or “endorsement”, is leaving me with religious freedom, than I can exercise my “rights” and not have it be “politically incorrect,” just an act of free speech.
Again, this is not personal opinion, but comes from lds.org, The First Presidency’s statement, and Elder Oaks devotional address, along with numerous clarifications from within the classroom setting. I am also not trying to compose an argument (i have yet to determine how I feel about the debate), but wanted to clarify a few ideas that seem to be ballooning into fiction within the church.
Comment by Dev — November 18, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
djinn, I’m actively lobbying FOR marriage. That includes counseling before marriage and before divorce, encouraging thoughtful choice in a marriage partner, stricter divorce laws, and more equitable gaurdianship laws for after a divorce. I am in favor of increasing the recognition of the power of marriage as a stabilizing force in the society. I am in favor of including the rights and importance of children in the marriage relationship. Preserving marriage as between a man and a woman works into the whole picture for me.
Lorian, you know we’ll have to agree to disagree on who gets to decide what is harmful and by when and how much proof is needed. Of course my concept of sin is no more important than yours. You know i don’t see marriage as a civil right.
You’re going to keep saying homosexuality wouldn’t be taught in school, and I can refer you to the places it was taught in CA in those few months it was legal. Having children all sign papers that they will support homosexuality on coming out day, is more than many parents are comfortable with for their early elementary school child. To keep saying it’s lies and scare tactic when it has already happened? I do understand your frustration with people saying “how to’s” would be taught in elementary school. I had never heard that or seen that-but that is definitely inaccurate at best.
As for harm…I’m thinking in the broader marriage and family society trends..but the thoughts from #301 still stand…Has the focus on attraction and it’s blurring with love affected relationships and marriage? How will it continue that trend towards the concept of love as a place you fall in and out of? The polygamy question used to be thought of as a weak slippery slope argument and is now a legitimate concern. Will the focus on the adults in the relationship (and what they deserve) continue to take away a sense of responsibility and sacrifice? If these kinds of things happen would that be harm? How will it effect marriage and children?
Notice some of these started or shifted before SSM. Some began with no fault divorce, some have taken center stage with SSM. Perhaps SSM is a result of some of these shifts and perhaps it will further some of these shifts.
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
honest question…I’ve heard many times the fight for civil rights for ssm relative to state votes. The truth of the matter, as Lorian has mentioned in previous threads, is that the state votes, if they had been successful, still wouldn’t extend equivalency of same-sex marriage at the Federal Level. My understanding is that the DOMA essentially has become the applicable law on that issue. My question is if how that law hasn’t been overturned, if as advocated here, there is no demonstrable harm caused by same sex marriages? I’m not aware of what litigation has occurred in that arena and am curious of insights into that piece. I’m curious what the courts have said on that particular piece of legislation.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 18, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
OK, Britt, refer me to the places where Homosexuality is taught (other than as Molly has two mothers, which counts as a fact, rather than an endorsement of any particular belief.)
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Sorry, I forgot to point out that the church has always been tolerant of people having the right of choice, that is a key part of our faith. I don’t believe the church coming out with this anti-discriminatory release is anything new, it is probably just to cool the apparent temper within the globe at what was perceived as discrimination. (This is assuming the church has yet to issue a statement calling on all members to go throw these individuals out of the country and shout profanities as they go–I am assuming these individuals are still recognized as citizens and are still able to exercise their right to speech and religion).I love Noah Felman’s article which states, “It is an interpretive choice to feel excluded by other people’s faith.” Again, it appears some need to learn what actual “rights” are and not balloon other people’s actions into discrimination and extremeism.
Comment by Dev — November 18, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Dev #319 -
Dev, allowing couples equal access to the rights and protections of civil marriage is not an “endorsement.” This is the church’s attempt to reframe the issue into one of attributing moral values to something which is in fact a transaction of rights and protections granted in exchange for responsibilities being assumed. The government grants a specific set of rights and protections to a couple and their children in exchange for the couple assuming the responsibility to own one another’s debts, care for one another in sickness and old age, and take responsibility together for the children they may bring into the marriage, by whatever means. The government is not “endorsing” people’s marriage in specific, but merely encouraging people in general to engage in an institution which has a net stabilizing effect on society as a whole. Since gay marriage has the very same stabilizing effects, and since gay couples assume the same responsibilities and need the same rights and protections for their spouses and children, they are therefore (or should be) given equal access to the contractual state of civil marriage.
And, as to whether marriage is a civil right — as long as there are significant civil rights and protections attached to the institution of civil marriage which cannot be readily obtained by any other means, then equal access to civil marriage IS a civil right.
No it isn’t. It’s attempting to inflict its definition of terms onto the rest of society. The church does not have the right to “define the terms” of civil contracts. That is outside its scope and venue. The church has the right to define its OWN terms for its OWN sacraments and blessings, including religious marriage, but not to define civil marriage or any other civil contract or institution.
Again, not true. The church has specifically endorsed the passing of constitutional amendments by the state and federal government which ban, not only gay marriage, but any substantially similar institution, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. These institutions grant necessary rights and protections to families like mine.
And, “endorse” what “type of activity,” exactly? People falling in love and committing to spend the rest of their lives together? People raising children together? Loving and nurturing their children and providing for the long term well-being of their children and spouse? Why the heck SHOULDN’T the government “endorse that type of activity?” Why have marriage at all, if not to “endorse that type of activity?”
Well, I’m glad you’re asking the questions, because I believe that you are the one who may be confused, here. There is a great deal of propaganda which has been disseminated regarding this topic, and it is really important to understand the truth.
Total and utter propaganda, Dev. No one is trying to take away religion’s freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two of the foundational principles of our society. No one can or will force churches to marry gays; no one can or will force churches to stop preaching against homosexuality. No church will lose its tax-exempt status for refusing religious marriage to gays, refusing to allow gays to marry in their church, or for preaching against homosexuality.
Again, it’s good that you ask these questions, if you’ve been told these kinds of lies. They ARE lies. The constitution protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech more strongly than any other principle in this nation, and allowing my children equal civil rights will not in any way influence that fact. You’d have to entirely re-write the constitution in order to take away the right of church to refuse marriage to anyone they please or to preach against anything they wished to define as “sin.”
Not true, Dev. Your church, and a few others, banded together and took away rights from families like mine this past November and the November before (as well as on a number of occasions prior to that). No one is trying to take anything away from the church, but the church is bound and determined to see that my children do not have the same civil rights as other children.
The government is not providing “financial support” or “endorsement.” They are simply paying out what I, as a citizen, put in. You and I both pay into social security, but because you marry someone of the opposite gender, if your spouse dies, you get to collect his/her social security to help keep you and your children on your feet as you attempt to recover your lives. I do not get to collect my spouse’s social security, even though she and I paid in at least as much as did you and your spouse.
If your spouse covers you on his/her insurance policy through work, the money s/he spends on your insurance is not considered taxable income. This vastly reduces your tax burden as a family. If my spouse covers me on her work insurance policy, we are taxed on those dollars as taxable income. In many cases, this tax burden causes the insurance to cost more to gay couples than it would cost to just purchase private insurance out-of-pocket for the spouse.
You and your spouse can file income taxes jointly. If you are a SAHParent, splitting your spouse’s income between you can save you thousands and thousands of dollars per year in income taxes. My spouse and I have to pay income taxes on her salary at the “single” rate, even though we both live on her income.
These are only a few of the over 1000 issues of inequity between gay couples and straight couples, Dev. This is not a matter of the government “paying” me as an “endorsement” of my “homosexuality.” This is a matter of my spouse and me contributing to our nation’s economy, and caring for our family, and paying our taxes in the same way that other couples contribute to the economy, and care for their families, and pay their taxes, and yet an unfair burden is placed upon us because some religions disapprove of our gender.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Here is a link http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.schools.2.851074.html
this is kindergarden.
There are many ways to discuss not calling names and not bullying without signing pledge cards to be allies with LGBT
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Dev #323 -
If you believe that the only rights guaranteed by the constitution are the right to free speech and freedom of religion, you need to look again. Specifically in the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment states:
This means that there are many more civil and human rights than those few which are stated in the Constitution.
Attempting to take away other’s civil rights based solely upon religious dogma IS discrimination and extremism, Dev.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Sorry - the last sentence in my post #324 was not intended to be in blockquote and was responding to the last paragraph of Dev’s post #319.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
I’m appalled Britt, and now think considerably less of you.
From the article that you posted to ‘prove’ that schools taught gay sex at school:
If you want to teach your kids that the word “faggot” is fine, then you can do it on your own time. Not on my tax dollar. How dare you. How dare you. How dare you. You want to teach your kids to bully the kids of gay families? Do it on your own time. Don’t expect the schools to help.
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
britt #325 - 325.
Really? REALLY??? This is what you call “signing a pledge card to be allies with LGBT? The pledge read as follows:
You have a problem with asking kids not to use slurs like “faggot” and “queer” and “dyke”? And not even defined within the pledge — just a general pledge not to use anti-gay slurs?
And you, yourself, distort what the pledge card said in your post right here, that I quoted above, calling it “pledging to be allies with LGBT.” Did you think I wouldn’t click the link?
This is what I mean by smears, britt. People take an innocent attempt to help kids not engage in hateful, bullying behaviors and turn it into, “They’re teaching our kids to endorse homosexuality! They’re making our kids sign pledges to be allies of the gay community!!!” Since when is “not using hateful language” against someone the same as “being an ally?”
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
An ally in terms of not using slurs. Not an ally who is “promoting homosexuality.” An ally of kids with gay parents, to help keep them from being bullied. Talk about misrepresentation.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
newbie #321 -
It has faced a few challenges at the state level which were unsuccessful, and it was decided not to press them through the federal court system up to the Supreme Court until the Court was less conservative in its composition. DOMA is quite clearly unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean that there are not individuals in the court who might serve their religion’s interests more faithfully than their obligation to the constitution, and it is more difficult to overturn a bad ruling than a bad law.
There is currently a case underway challenging DOMA in the federal court system which will probably eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court, and we shall see how that falls out. There is also a movement underway to legislatively overturn DOMA in congress. We’ll see. It WILL be overturned, eventually. It flies in the face of the first amendment, 14th, and several others. There are ample grounds for constitutional challenge.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
britt #320 -
So, wait, you’re saying that gay marriage is harmful to society because you think that we don’t love each other with the same seriousness and constancy and commitment as you love your husband? You think we won’t stick together when the going gets tough? You think we drag down the quality of marriage for everyone else?
Nice.
After nearly 19 years together, my partner and I both find ideas such as this grossly insulting.
Marriage is about reinforcing relationships and helping people fulfill commitments and providing support and stability through society’s recognition of your commitment, not about rewarding perfection.
Really, britt, it would help a lot if you would leave the stereotypes at home and realize that gay people are just people. No different than you.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
britt, I actually thought, silly me, that we were having a discussion. But, no. If you think that teaching kids that they don’t get to use hateful language to a disfavored subset of people (the actual language of being an ally of a “safe and harassment-free school for all students” somehow morphs in your comment into “pledging to be allies with LGBT), then we have nothing more to say. Who else do your children get to belittle, harass, and bully with your approval?
Comment by djinn — November 18, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
re: 331
Thanks Lorian. In my quick looking it appears that there have been cases, but in each case thus far DOMA has been held to be constitutional - not saying that will always be the case, but (without being a lawyer myself) given that there is now some judicial precendence, it seems like it becomes more difficult to overcome in court at a later date.
I agree with you that probably the reason there hasn’t been as much challenge to it currently is the particular leaning of the courts. I don’t know that I’d go as far as you and say it’s their religious beliefs, but I do believe that the conservative leaning courts would tend to support DOMA moreso than more liberal courts. I guess that brings up the theoretical discussion of “should the application of the laws by the judicial vary dependent on the political leanings of individuals”? Extrapolating that thought would be a scary thought…every time the court changes from left to right leaning you’d get different laws…or at least different interpretations of them. Obviously that’s a corner case, but definitely calls into question the ability of the judicial branch to be the blind arbitrars of the law…
Interesting in my mind.
Comment by anon...newbie — November 18, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Lower court rulings are not nearly as meaningful as higher and Supreme Court rulings, obviously. Lower court rulings are overturned on appeal all the time.
I don’t think that judicial rulings can help but depend to a certain extent upon the political leanings of the court. Ideally, they shouldn’t but judges and justices are as human as the next guy.
Comment by Lorian — November 18, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
I don’t know…. I do think it’s very important for activities like that to take place in the classroom but I think I myself would feel uncomfortable if such things were brought up with my kinergartner.
Also if the F word were brought up, also any racial or ethnic slurs.
My 5 year olds are mostly good kids but dang it all, they repeat what they hear sometimes. And I don’t see why they need to be told all the words they shouldn’t say at age 4.5-5. Maybe first grade or second I’d feel a bit better about…
Comment by sare — November 18, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Lorian- in response:
Please remember to read things in in their entirey! This is the exact problem I am addressing! People ARE taking things out of context and ballooning them.
I was very clear TWICE that I was summarizing what has been stated by the church and NOT giving my personal opinion, so I have no idea how you came up with my opinion as I don’t even have one on this debate. As I said, I do not feel knowledgeable enough to stand on either side of the debate (that was about word for word). I do not wish to give my interpetation of what the constitution means in amendment 9 or any other beyond the first (as that is what has been addressed by the church, and as I said, this is what I was clarifying). Although I will state that some amendments are vague and everyone should be wary of putting opinion of such things as fact (this is once again a general statement and not one specified to your response).
Now, what I did say was that people tend to take things out of context. Looks like you just proved that point. I don’t care what side you are on but don’t go looking for debates and arguments that are not there and please make certain you are reading things throughly!
This said, you have stated your side well and I look up to those who speak out as you do. I do prefer conversations free of defensive/offensive strategies (just personal preference) so I will not be coming back to this blog.
I have read many articles on both sides of the issue and have learned a lot from these. If anyone is interested I can send some of the most prominant from each side to you to review or I can send a list of every article from each side. It is an enlightening debate!
Comment by Dev — November 18, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Lorian- sorry my post that was prior to my last didn’t appear??? Anyway, I just wanted to mention that everyone should be careful not to say what the church means when it says things. I don’t care if you agree, but don’t say they can’t mean what they say…why else would they say it? Everything I said was quoted from their articles and I told you where to find it. Please read them, it really is very clear what they are saying (especially Elder Oaks). It does sound like you were trying to convince me??? Please, it is not worth your time. I don’t even know you well enough to trust your opinion and seek elsewhere for guidance. But thank you anyway, I appreciate the effort (sincerely, I really do like to learn).
Comment by Dev — November 18, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
So, wait, you’re saying that gay marriage is harmful to society because you think that we don’t love each other with the same seriousness and constancy and commitment as you love your husband? You think we won’t stick together when the going gets tough? You think we drag down the quality of marriage for everyone else?
No Lorian that wasn’t what I said. I am worried about a continued trend of focusing on attraction over love..and a confusion of the two…this is a trend that increased with no fault divorced, and I think SSM will also increase the trend. NOT because homosexuals are more likely to feel that way or anything of the sort…but because there has been a huge push over the importance of being attracted to your spouse. I’m not saying it’s bad to be attracted to your spouse. I don’t even think that attraction really encompasses what homosexuality means.
When I said there are other ways to teach how to not bully or call names or how to be sensitive to children’s feelings without having children sign ally cards…what I meant is there ARE options. I don’t think a 5 yo needs all that vocabulary… IMO homosexuality is much easier for a young child to get than transgendered or bisexual-but none of those concepts are necessary to teach a child kindness. I don’t think it helps to hear what words you are NOT to use-when you are 5. Why single out ONE group to be nice to anyway? Why not teach kindness as a general principle? Lorian to whom is the child an ally then? Please tell me?
Please note this is not even remotely endorsement of slurs. Why not make a card that says I will speak kindly? or I will look for the good in everyone? Or something like that? It would be age appropriate, still hit to the point and not excuse any slur.
Comment by britt — November 18, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Sure. Lorian. You went after xtian claiming his saying kids need a mom and dad was a ‘religious belief’ and you shut him down when he would not accept your ’science’
(Why did xtian suddenly stop posting?)
We all saw what you did pretending offense to shut down any analogies you can’t argue against.
Now you want Brit to believe you and others would not scream ‘anti LGBT slur’ if some kid said that a folks need a mom and a dad?
You are all about controlling the converasation aand ahutting down anyone who disagrees with you. That’s what ssm is about. You say you don’t want us to change our doctrinr but you make up all sorts of horrible accusations to stop us from talking about our beliefs on a mormon site.
Does that. Seem right to you?
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 19, 2009 @ 12:12 am
britt
The whole idea of the various safe schools act is to eliminate all types of bullying.
Sexual orientation is the latest to be added to the non-discrimination list. And when there are anti-gay initiatives and laws being pushed and voted on, there is a rise in gay slurs being used in schools and elsewhere.
In 2000 when the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act was being debated in the assembly, it is my understanding that certain legislators defended bullying because it’s part of being in school.
If children are hearing specific slurs, at what age are they to learn the language they are hearing and using is not considered socially acceptable?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 19, 2009 @ 12:19 am
sare #336 - I didn’t get the impression they went over all the words with the younger kids — just asked them to pledge not to use slurs. I’m sure they explained what a “slur” is in general terms, but I doubt they went into detail.
As to feeling comfortable with kindergartners learning about the existence of gay people, my kids’ classmates learned in kindergarten that there are some kids who have two mommies, because they knew Ruth & Rose and because I worked in their classrooms every week. These kids have known me since they first started school and now, in third grade, the fact that Ruth & Rose have two moms is a complete non-issue. That’s the way it should be.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 1:35 am
Dev #337 -
Actually, I did read your posts in their entirety. While I saw the places where you stated that the opinions were not your own, but the church’s, I also saw points where you quite clearly seemed to be stating your own opinions, as well as endorsing the church’s position (such as your post #323). I tried to respond as appropriately as possible to each section of your posts, insofar as it was clear to me whose opinions you were stating at any point in time.
The 9th Amendment is pretty clear, Dev. Here’s a link where you can read more about it. If you aren’t clear about the meaning of a clause of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, there is an incredible amount of excellent commentary by Constitutional Law scholars available on the web.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 1:47 am
Dev #338 - Not sure where you’re getting the idea that I said that the church doesn’t mean what they say. I absolutely believe that they mean what they say (or, at least, that they mean to say what they say, if you get the nuance, there). What I will say, however, is that on this point (that people are trying to take away their religious freedoms and free speech rights) they are wrong. And I’m not convinced that they do not realize that they are wrong. They have plenty of legal scholars within their own organization telling them that they are wrong. If they persist in believing that legal civil marriage for gays will rob them of their religious rights and freedoms, then I can only say that they are deluding themselves or attempting to delude someone else.
I’m glad you enjoyed the discussion and were able to take away some new ideas.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 1:51 am
britt #339 -
I doubt there are many married people who would agree with you that being sexually attracted to one’s spouse is unimportant. I know that you and I have had this particular discussion before in another venue and that you will (or at least would have, back then) swear to your dying breath that whether or not one feels sexual attraction toward one’s spouse is utterly unimportant. Your perspective, as I recall it, is that the marital relationship is one of duty and commitment and charity (I’d agree with all of that), but that sexual compatibility is utterly unimportant (I disagree completely).
My point to you back then was that, even if you chose your husband for reasons other than sexual compatibility or sexual attraction, as a heterosexual woman marrying someone of the opposite gender, at least you had at least some chance of achieving some level of sexual compatibility and satisfaction with him. A lesbian, however, marrying a heterosexual man, would have utterly no hope of ever having a fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationship with her spouse or ever achieving the level of emotional intimacy which can result from a mutually-satisfying sexual compatibility. Sex helps to bind a couple together and deepen their intimacy and emotional connection. But for a gay person married to someone of the opposite gender, that’s not going to happen. And not only is it not fair to the gay person — it’s also not fair to the straight person they are married to.
If you are as committed as you claim to the idea of reducing divorces and keeping relationships healthy and together for the sake of protecting children, then the rational position would be to support people being able to marry someone with whom they are sexually and emotionally compatible AND to whom they are ready and willing to make a lifetime commitment.
I did not get the impression that they taught the children the slur words. They simply asked them not to use slur words. Do you have information which suggests otherwise? I can’t imagine my kids K teachers teaching them slur words. But they would correct them if the children used those words because they had learned them elsewhere. I think that’s the point here, not to teach children “new vocabulary,” but to teach them not to use any words that are hurtful. I’m sure they do the same with racial slurs. I see no difference.
See djinn’s post #333. She says:
This is a very reasonable interpretation of the pledge. I read it as “being an ally of other students who would be mistreated by those who use such slurs,” such as my children, britt, who might well be victimized by this sort of behavior, if I hadn’t been able to be there for them and with them in the early grades, making sure that they were not outcast and that their schoolmates would accept their family at face value.
Honestly, you’d have a problem with your child being an “ally” to another student who was being victimized or bullied at school? I’d, personally, be so proud I could burst, if my child was being an ally to a bullied student. So proud I could burst.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 2:14 am
Pat #340 -
Pat, if there is an analogy or argument which I have not thoroughly addressed on this thread, I surely do wish you would point it out to me by number, because I will be glad to have the opportunity to go back and address it. I would hate to miss the chance to address someone’s point which I overlooked.
I don’t “pretend offense” to “shut down” arguments or analogies. I tell people quite honestly and openly when their statements are offensive, but I’ve never backed away from addressing any argument, no matter how rude, offensive, or ill-thought-out it might be. Notice that I even thoroughly addressed the arguments comparing same-gender orientation to pedophilia and bestiality, as offensive, rude and ignorant as such comparisons are.
And, by the way, Christian has posted on this very thread. If he backs away from a discussion, that’s his choice, not mine. I don’t have that much power. Christian’s a big boy.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 2:21 am
Lorian, you really are one of my new heroes. You continually exhibit grace, patience, righteousness, justice and an overwhelming commitment to those you love…. a perfect spouse and parent in my eyes.
Comment by Lianne — November 19, 2009 @ 8:11 am
no lorian I don’t have a problem with my children being an ally, I just find the ally card ridiculous for a 5yo; how would a 5yo understand what any of this means? I am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression,” read the pledges. “As an ally, I pledge to not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs.”
How would a child understand that? Which of those words are easily understood by a 5yo?
WHY not talk about kindness? What is so wrong about that? It’s definitely age appropriate. There is no reason the school couldn’t also have a no tolerance policy for any slurs. You understand the ally to be different? My understanding is not a stretch or unreasonable, though I do understand what your saying. It’s a total stretch on your part to say that just because I find that ally card ridiculous for a 5yo I don’t want my 5yo standing up to bullying or helping those who are being bullies. I am just saying, and will say again that the pledge card is NOT reasonable for a 5yo. The language would be totally incomprehensible. Why not pledge to be a friend? Or pledge to be an ally of people who are being picked on?
Some 5yo are still learning the difference between L, G, B and T (the letters) yet your sure the only way to teach kindness would be a card with terms like “gender identity/expression”? and bisexual? HOW IS THAT AGE APPROPRIATE? Being kind and not using any slurs is ALWAYS age appropriate.
I never said attraction was unimportant lorian, or that sexual compatibility is unimportant. I never said that. I don’t think it’s a good idea for a homosexual person to marry a heterosexual one-never have felt that way, never said it. I do think overemphasis on the importance of attraction in a marriage isn’t a good idea-or confusing attraction with love-you know selflessness, kindness, generosity.
Note again I’m not saying homosexual people aren’t capable of love, I’m just saying the continual emphasis on attraction and blurring of attraction with love is harmful to marriage. This did not start with SSM and will not end with it.
I’m done repeating myself as you continually insist on misunderstanding. I’ve been clear. teaching kindness does not mean I’m all good with bullying-so please stop saying it does. Teaching kindness does not mean I’m fine with children calling others faggot-djinn-you make me laugh…It does mean I think age appropraite teaching is a good idea. It does mean tolerance does not need to involve incomprehensible words for a 5yo. It gets really tiring clarifying arguments I have never made.
Do you think the blurring of attraction and love would be bad for marriage? Attraction is good in a marriage, what part does love play? IME attraction waxes and wanes (with sickness, or emotions, or hormones-not the ability to be attracted like homosexuality-but the actual feeling to one person). I think that waxing and waning is part of the fall out of love phenomenon. I don’t see love as a place you fall out of I see it as a way of being.
Again I’m not saying homosexual people are incapable of love, I’m just saying the emphasis on attraction and blurring of attraction with love leaves us with something less constant and stable to hold marriage together.
Comment by britt — November 19, 2009 @ 8:50 am
This is from the ally week website : Often referred to as “straight allies,” allies generally are non-LGBT people who are committed to ending bias and discrimination against LGBT people. While straight allies are an integral part of GLSEN’s Ally Week, the term “ally” is more inclusive within the Safe Schools Movement to refer to anyone who supports ending anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.
http://www.allyweek.org/about/index.cfm
It’s really not a stretch to say allies support homosexuality or at least support SSM- it says right on the website that allies are people committed in ending bias and discrimination-in which you surely would include SSM.
Comment by britt — November 19, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Um, no, britt. Pledging to help ending bias, discrimination or bullying against someone is not the same as “supporing homosexuality,” or even “supporting same-sex marriage.” It means that you don’t support bullying and harassment. What, please tell me, is so terrible about that? Are you afraid that if kids learn not to bully gays that they will come to support gay marriage? Do kids have to learn to bully and discriminate against gays in school so that they will keep voting to ban gays from marrying when they graduate?
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Liane #347 - Bless you and thank you for that.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 10:32 am
So, britt, say a kid, maybe 11, is remorselessly taunted with being gay. What should the school do? If they tell the children in any formal way to stop, will that make them supporters of “ending anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools, ” and therefore, according to post 349 of yours, guilty in your eyes of the sins of “supporting homosexuality” (your language, your reasoning) and supporting SSM? It sure sounds like it.
And if the kid kills himself, too bad? If this happens four times this year, boo hoo, because they’re just getting in the way of your anti-SSM crusade?
I suggest you look up the definition of the word “kind” in the dictionary.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:36 am
See britt, if you believe, as you stated, that ending harrassment of LGBT kids equals “supporting homosexuality,” then is this you outing yourself as actually be for such harassment? ’cause I can’t see any other reading.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Or do you, britt, believe that homosexuals don’t actually exist; or rather that they can be changed, etc., and so shouldn’t be given any encouragement?
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:45 am
this will probably get flames thrown at me…but it’s an honest question. The argument for SSM seems to be focused on the fact that as two consenting adults, they shouldn’t be precluded from the governmental benefits of marriage (note I didn’t say anything about religious). My question is whether the number (two) is important or whether consenting is the important word. We can all agree that bestiality (non-consenting animal) or pedophiles (non-consenting child) aren’t comparable, but what about relationships where there are more than two consenting adults? Is two a magic number and what is that based upon? Obviously polygamy would be an easy case to examine and ask “if these 3 people all love each other and are committed and agree to be married, should we stop it?” (please don’t go to the underage marrying done most prominently in the FLDS culture as that obviously breaks the “consent” arguement). Another example, if I’ve married someone and we separate but don’t divorce, and I meet someone else to whom I’m committed, why couldn’t I marry that person without going through the cost of divorce? I suppose the purpose of the divorce is to sever any ‘entitlement’ from the separated spouse (property, $, etc), but why if I don’t have the $ for a divorce would I be precluded from marrying someone else?
Please note…I am not comparing polygamy to SSM - what I’m asking is whether two is the magic number or if the number is unimportant and consent is the only requirement.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 11:04 am
britt #348 -
Kindergartners don’t understand a great deal of the things they are taught. Things like the “Character Counts” program that our school uses throughout K-5. But they teach it anyway, because the children learn by rote at first, and then come to a deeper understanding as they progress through the grades. I’m all for starting anti-bullying programs young. If the school waits until kids already know the slurs and are already engaging in the bullying, it’s too late.
If all the children in the school are signing the same pledge, and the teachers are giving age-appropriate explanations in the classroom, then there is no reason to balk at this that I can see. My kids have to sign numerous pledges at the beginning of the year, including pledges not to bring knives to school, pledges not to vandalize school property, pledges to do and not to do all kinds of things of which they had absolutely no understanding and no real likelihood of doing when they were Kindergartners and even 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders. Do I think it’s ridiculous? No, because every student is asked to sign those pledges and asked to refrain from those behaviors. It is a standard part of teaching children how to behave in this social setting, how to get along with their peers, and how to comply with authority. Do they understand all of it? No. Do my children normally carry weapons ANYWHERE? Of course not.
But the problem is, britt, that your argument , here, presumes that gay relationships are MORE based in attraction and less in love as compared with straight relationships. By its very nature, your argument presumes that there is an innate superiority in the way straight people find love and make commitment. You cannot, on the one hand, claim that gay marriage lowers the standards by “blurring the lines between attraction and love” and then on the other hand claim that you are not disparaging gay relationships as a whole.
I’m not okay with that, britt. I’m really not. Who are you to presume that the quality or essence of gay relationships and love shared between same-gender-oriented people is in any way different, let alone inferior to, LET ALONE DETRIMENTAL to, straight relationships? Can you truly not see how disparaging and belittling this argument is, britt? Really? Can you not?
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 11:11 am
newbie #355 - You are raising the “slippery slope to polygamy” argument.
While I, personally, do not take issue with people who wish to engage in consensual, adult polygamous relationships, which, after all, have been common practice through much of history in most parts of the world (with the caveats that you state: no child marriage, no forcing uneducated, oppressed persons into marriage, no discarding of “extras”), I do not see legalization of polygamous marriage as being remotely related to legalization of marriage for same-gender couples for the following reasons:
Family Law as written in the various states of this nation is specifically designed for couples — two parents, two spouses. Inheritance law presumes that there are two adult members of the relationship who will inherit from one another, followed by any children they may raise together. Custody, child welfare, medical consent, all applicable family law is designed for 2-parent families or two spouses.
Legalized polygamy would require an entirely new set of family laws redesigned to specifically accommodate the manner in which polygamous marriages are structured. Divorces, inheritance, child custody, child support, all of these things would have to be completely redesigned.
I’m not saying this should or should not be done, but what I am saying is that it is an issue which is entirely unrelated to gay marriage.
When two people of the same gender marry, adopt a child. divorce, when one dies and leaves the other alone, when one is hospitalized and the other has to consent to medical treatment, when any of the issues takes place for which current family law is designed, the laws carry over to same-gender couples with very little, if any, need for adaptation whatsoever. Our laws are designed for couples, not for triads or more.
So, while legalization of polygamous marriage may (or may not) be a legitimate cause, it is by no means the same cause as gay marriage, and legalization of gay marriage neither predicts, nor enables, the legalization of polygamous marriage.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Well, anon..newbie, Polygamy and miscegenation (allowing whites to marry other races) walked hand in hand from the 18th century right up to Loving v. Virginia decided in 1963, which finally gave whites and blacks the right to marry.
Now that everyone has decided that it’s silly to discriminate against marriage partners on the basis of race (except for that parish justice of the peace in Louisiana), Polygamy is once again being used as an argument against the next group that is seeking equal rights here in the US–gays.
It just dawned on me that a possible reason for Brigham Young (and other early Mormon leaders’) virulent racism was this intertwining of polygamy and misecegnation–they surely did one, but not the other! Here’s an informativish article at Juvenile Instructor.
I, personally, don’t see why one should lead to the other. There are many countries that currently allow polygamy; many, such as Saudi Arabia, are beyond important trading partners with us. We seem to informally allow such imported polygamy. If a man has two wives in, say, Yemen, should he be forced to leave one of them behind if he moves to the United States? Such questions about the propriety of polygamous marriage have nothing to do with the status of gay couples.
Rather, polygamy is always trotted out as the next horror that will result if marital rules are widened just a bit. Now, anon..newbie, I don’t know your religious background, but mine, like many commentators here, is Mormon, including polygamists. So, I have a difficult time seeing polygamy as such a terrible thing.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Lorian! Geez. I”m OK with my kids learning about gay people, I just don’t want them to learn all the crappy things people call each other.
Love ya…
but I feel like you’re very ready to believe I’m a gun-toting, bible-bashing, blonde-haired feminazi. I understand this issue is frustrating and very heart-rending to you, but if you’re going to knee-jerk react anytime someone questions something you’ve written about, you’re not going to get much of a conversation from those you could actually help.
Comment by sare — November 19, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
sorry, meant nazi, not feminazi… Anything Rush Limbaugh makes fun of, I’m proud to call myself.
Comment by sare — November 19, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
That and marrying your sister, your box turtle or your grandchild. Heavens, what’s next? Marrying lampshades and dead bodies? Marrying clouds? Marrying earthworms??? :faint-dead-away-from-the-vapors:
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Lorian #357
Interesting response - I wasn’t trying to address whether SSM approval by the government lead to polygamy, I think that is, as you note, a red herring.
My question is different…if the core argument of SSM is “the relationship is between two consenting adults”, what is the most important part of the argument…the # of adults or the consenting adults portion. you’ve brought up that it would be less taxing on society for the answer to be the two adults (not many, if any, rewrites of laws, etc), but that seems to not be the core argument of SSM. The core argument is that these individuals are consenting and cause no demonstrable harm to others via their marriage, thus the government has no right to exclude them. If the argument is stated in that context, would the government have the right to stop some group of 3 people or 4 people who are also consenting and show no demonstrable harm? is the fact that “well, it would make us have to re-write a lot of laws” the only argument against the number?
It seems to me the consenting adults is the more important phrase (after all, based on arguments you’ve given, if I love 2 people and want to show my committment to them and allow them rights associated with spouses…rights that are civil rights, the government should not step in and tell me I can’t - unless they can show harm, which they can’t).
This whole debate is fascinating to me as there are many tangential issues that I think get overlooked. Until we deconstruct the arguments to the core issue, I don’t foresee any resolution. Unfortunately, when we get down to the core issue on anything (not just specifically SSM), there seems to be a lot more vacilating. That’s how we have 10 word laws that require 50,000 pages of ‘backup’ to interpret the law.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
No, sare, not at all. I just don’t believe that this program britt mentioned is actually teaching Kindergarners the specific hate words. I sincerely doubt that that’s the case. And I think that claiming that it is, takes the focus off of the good that the program is doing or aiming to do. It’s just one more way to try to discredit anti-bullying programs in schools by claiming that they “give children too much information” by telling them that glbt students and students whose parents are glbt, exist and deserve not to be treated like crap by their fellow students.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Ooops. First paragraph should read:
Well, anon..newbie, Fear of Polygamy and fear of miscegenation (allowing whites to marry other races) walked hand in hand from the 18th century right up to Loving v. Virginia decided in 1963, which finally gave whites and blacks the right to marry. If Blacks were allowed to marry Whites, then, next thing you know, polygamy would surely be required to be legal.
*******
New section of comment after some thought. Polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage. A heterosexual polygamist has the chance to marry a single person of his/her choice. This is not the case with gay marriage.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
djinn #358
seem my response (#362)…I’m not trying to say polygamy is bad nor wrong. I’m also not trying to say that it is the next logical step in some erosion of marriage scenario as you paint. Rather, I’m simply asking what is the core question of rights and how does the answer to that question apply in other situations. You are very right, other countries allow polygamy, should we ‘discriminate’ against those individuals if they come to the US by not recognizing their married relationships? It seems that the core argument is that consenting adults (not two, not three, however many, as long as they are all consenting) should be allowed to marry by the government and receive all the benefits associated with marriage. Let’s please disregard the “marry your sister/cousin/dog/child” histronics…I’ve already stated those are terrible analogies and have no bearing in this discussion…I’d like to have a legitimate discussion.
If the answer is that consenting adults is the only stipulation, regardless of sex/race/number/etc…then why are the laws not attempted to be written that way? I understand that perhaps they are written incorrectly today (excluding SSM), but if we are trying to change it and allow SSM’s under the law, why wouldn’t we fix the whole thing and re-write it correctly?
This isn’t a discussion of right or wrong on polygamy, nor whether the practice by the early LDS church of polygamy was right. It is not a discussion of whether SSM will lead to polygamy or anything else…it’s simply a question of why if we believe the laws are wrong, would we re-write them to exclude others…shouldn’t we re-write them correctly?
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
newbie #362 -
I think there are many arguments to be made against polygamy, some of which are probably quite valid, such as the fact that most polygamous groups DO force young women into marriage with little or no education, world experience or real, concrete choice, and the fact that widespread polygamy as a societal value and practice leads (at least if polygyny is the only or main form of polygamy practiced) to a surplus of unmarried young men, who must be disposed of by some means, either by exporting them or by engaging in territorial, warlike behavior so that their lives can be expended in soldiering and not put too great a burden of unattached young men full of testosterone hanging about and causing trouble.
But you already touched on and excluded those types of arguments, so, yes, the most concrete argument in which the state can show valid cause (not “immorality” or “un-Biblicalness” — after all, polygamy is pretty Biblical) for not legalizing polygamy is that it is a completely different family structure which does not fit our laws as they are currently structured. But as djinn pointed out, not one bit of that has anything to do with gay marriage. Polygamy is the monster in the broom closet brought out to say “BOO” and scare people when any other sort of marital issue is discussed — first interracial marriage, then gay marriage. Clearly, you can legalize interracial marriage without legalizing gay marriage, cousin marriage, child marriage, polygamy, dog marriage, turtle marriage or cloud marriage. Therefore, you can also legalize gay marriage without legalizing cousin marriage, turtle marriage, child marriage, polygamy, cloud marriage, etc. And, by implication, you can legalize polygamy without legalizing gay marriage, et al.
They are separate issues, newbie. Legalizing one does not legalize another. Each is and must be dealt with on its own merits. While the overturning of antimiscegenation laws did establish marriage as a distinct civil right, which implies that gay marriage or polygamous marriage might have valid standing, each is dealt with separately, based upon its own merits or issues. If no demonstrable harm to individuals or society can be established (including, perhaps, the necessity of rewriting the entirety of the family code in each of the 50 states — which might or might not be viewed by the courts as sufficient grounds for continuing a prohibition against polygamous marriage), then there are good grounds for legalization.
But linking the two together is not helpful and is generally brought up by way of attempting to distract from the real and valid issues in a discussion about gay marriage. Hence my response to your question.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Gold star for the most insightful comment of the day goes to djinn!
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
newbie #365 -
What you are missing, newbie, is that no one here is arguing for or against polygamous marriage. That is a completely different subject. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. And trying to tie it in, as you are doing, is a huge reach, because no one here is making an argument that 3 or more people, of whatever gender, should be allowed to marry. Not on the radar at all. That is someone else’s issue, entirely. It’s not part of this subject.
If you want to make a case for or against polygamy, I’m pretty sure Lisa would at least consider a guest post if you asked her, but it just really is not any more germane to this topic than is cousin marriage, or turtle marriage.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
This just in, Massachusetts (which allows same-sex marriage) not only has the lowest divorce rate in the country, but has a divorce rate equal to that in the country in 1940. (Back when divorce was really really really really difficult to get.)
Based on objective evidence, allowing same-sex marriage lowers the divorce rate.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
#368 -
But isn’t it applicable if the reason I vote against SSM isn’t because I think it’s wrong, but rather, I don’t vote for it because I think it is a poorly written law. If the law was written correctly I would support it.
Think of the $’s spent (wasted really) in this fight re: SSM. Had society stepped back when they were re-writing laws relative to race, etc and asked what is the core issue…consent between adults regardless of Gender/Race/Etc - then we wouldn’t have to waste the $ today to fight the battles. I don’t want to have SSM pass and then turn around in 15 years and find another group that wants to take up the fight on what grouping/relationship/etc needs to be given marriage rights. Let’s just get it right this once and be done with it. Until that’s done, I won’t support any SSM vote, not because I’m opposed to it, but I’m opposed to the short-sighted creation of laws. You, yourself, say “this is someone else’s fight”…that’s the problem, we peck at every little law instead of looking and trying to determine what is the core question and how do we address this with law. I submit that it is a much more intensive process…but in my estimation would result in better laws with less of this constant upheaval.
One last comment, then I’ll be done here (and I’ve enjoyed the discussion) - be careful at jumping to conclusions. I understand that you have dealt with this for a long time, but don’t infer connections where they don’t exist. I’ve stated twice that I’m not tying polygamy to gay marriage - I don’t think allowing one leads to the other…rather I believe the core question is the same and we should address the core question rather than specific cases. Unfortunately twice now (actually more, but we’ll leave it at twice) you’ve addressed the issues arguing why SSM doesn’t lead to gay marriage. That’s great - but doesn’t address the questions/comments I made. You are very gifted in writing and knowledgeable on the topic, but I’d simply provide the feedback that you despite the anger and frustration you have to address the actual issues, not the perceived, not the expected, but the real issue that’s to be addressed.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
But newbie, you ARE tying polygamy to gay marriage, because, if I’m reading you correctly above, you aren’t willing for my children to have full civil rights in this society until lawmakers sit down and agree on every possibly permutation that marriage could ever involve in this or any other century. Then and only then will you vote for a law which allows my family equal civil rights protections.
You are holding my family’s civil rights hostage to your dream of a perfect, all-encompassing law because you can’t stand the mess of multiple laws for multiple issues. I’m sorry, but the law doesn’t work that way. If it did, we would only have the Constitution — no Bill of Rights, no 17 other Amendments. There is no way to right one, single, perfect law which covers every possible issue or question which could ever be faced by humanity (or even only those which apply to marriages and families). I understand it’s a messy business and sometimes frustrating, but it’s not fair to take rights away from children because the law didn’t also define the specifics for polygamy and any other type of marriage one could ever conceive of. That’s not realistic.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry - “… no way to WRITE one, single, perfect law…”
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
371 -
semantics…I’m not willing to keep changing the laws and reinterpreting and adding piecemeal to the laws based on the loudest group. I want to address the core issues and allow the law to rest on that. Yes, I understand that there are casualties of that fight, but all the more reason for those protecting those who are injured to come to the right decision, not just the easiest one. We want to legalize SSM, but leave other fights “for someone else”…aren’t there children/casualties of those fights - don’t they deserve rights - why should we allow them to be precluded from the rights that are theirs? It seems implicitly you are saying it’s ok, as long as your children aren’t harmed that’s someone else’s battle.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
#371 -
Oh and by the way…many religions (particular the Mormon church) would take issue with your comment
There is no way to right one, single, perfect law which covers every possible issue or question which could ever be faced by humanity (or even only those which apply to marriages and families).
Mormons, in particular, believe that when Christ returns his law will reign supreme and my guess is the law will be a single law that is perfect and applies to all. Additionally, any religion which has any belief in a final judgment (most of them) must have a set of ‘perfect’ laws right? Now maybe humans by themselves can’t write those laws, only a deity could. Of course, if a diety could, wouldn’t that advocate us seeking divine guidance in the writing of our laws? uh oh…now we’re back to including religion/god in our laws…not the argument we want to have.
I don’t mean this to be a new jumping point for further discussion…I just laughed a little to myself of how all of these issues can get us to run in circles ending back at the same place over and over again.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
No, newbie. What I’m saying is that there is no practical way to write a single law which covers every possible permutation. Nor would it necessarily be correct to legalize polygamous marriage based upon the same justifications for legalization of gay marriage. They are two entirely separate issues. The fact that they both revolve around the topic of marriage is really the only thing they have in common. It’s like an argument that we should not legalize medical marijuana for cancer patients until we legalize steroids for baseball players. They are two entirely separate and distinct issues. The law doesn’t work like that.
Please name for me one country in the history of civilization which has had one, single, all-encompassing law to govern every question or issue the populace could raise.
This is nothing but a red herring to distract from the need for equal civil rights for gay couples and their children. The more argue the more I become convinced that you are being disingenuous.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
That’s fine. If Christ returns and perfects the world, then his law can and should definitely reign supreme and be the most simple, elegant and all-encompassing law ever written (the ones God gave to Moses, however, are pretty complex, detailed and verbose, though, wouldn’t you agree? Not to mention the many that Joseph Smith and his successors have passed down…).
But that’s not at all what we are discussing here, and again, you appear to be disingenuous because you continue to stray from the actual issues involved for real people in real circumstances right here and right now. What kind of law Christ may or may not give when he returns has nothing to do at the moment with whether or not my children should be protected by the laws governing civil marriage, any more than do the plethora of laws passed down by Moses, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or Thomas Monson. Those laws are religious laws and govern the religious groups who subscribe to them, not the USA, any more than does Sharia law, or the civil codes of France or India.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
#375 -
so then you’re fine with the polygamous children who are being denied their civil rights because the state won’t acknowledge their consensual committed relationship?
My favorite part…
They are two entirely separate issues. The fact that they both revolve around the topic of marriage is really the only thing they have in common.
um…yeah that was my point…let’s address what marriage is and what we should define it to be…not let’s pick and choose laws to deal with application to a specific issue. You seem to be saying “I only care about making sure my particular case (SSM) is included…don’t care about the rest”…why aren’t we willing to open up the discussion to the core component “what is marriage”? Why the hesitency? Because more people may not like answers that come and that hurts your position? takes too long? why won’t we address the underlying issue?
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
you appear to be disingenuous because you continue to stray from the actual issues involved for real people in real circumstances right here and right now.
So the fact that I’m a taxpayer and my $’s are be spent on elections and court cases, etc on this issue doesn’t mean anything? I do have an issue…we’re wasting my money today and we’re trying to create laws that will waste money in the future. If we’re going to spend the money - we should spend what it takes to get it right. Perhaps you don’t like my position, but just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact me. I’m a real person…I’m in real circumstances…I’m right here and right now…don’t I have a say? I don’t want my tax dollars wasted in this way (the constant litigation back and forth and elections, etc).
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
That’s not at all what I said, newbie (#375). You are putting words into my mouth.
And the fact is, children born into polygamous marriages already have far more civil rights than do my children, because they have an automatic legal relationship to both of their parents. They also have at least one pair of adults in the house who can provide legal civil rights of marriage for the family, and as the legal children of one of those parents (usually the father), they are covered by those rights and protections.
Because it is not legally relevant. Those who engage in polygamous marriage already have the right to marry one person whom they love. Gay people do not. The issues are far too dissimilar, and entangling them, contrary to your claim, only complicates the issues for both — it does not simplify. You are attempting to distract and discredit, not to add to the discussion of the issue, newbie.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
only complicates the issues for both — it does not simplify.
so we shouldn’t try to solve complicated problems? we should just address “simple” solutions regardless of whether they address the fundamental underlying issue? Supposedly I’m trying to distract and discredit (don’t know who/what I’ve distracted or who I’ve discredited) but it seems that’s exactly what you’ve done with me Lorian…distract from the point that we should be defining marriage…not trying to address one corner case.
and to be correct - I never put words in your mouth, nor imply I was, nor in #377 - I simply asked a question to test whether I understood your viewpoint. That’s what the question mark was for…to say “here’s what I’m interpreting, is this what you’re saying?”
This is actually pretty humerous - I bring up points that you don’t like…so then instead of addressing them you simply argue “that doesn’t apply” “you’re putting words in my mouth”…etc. Who, again, is distracting and discrediting the other?
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
newbie #378 - And I am a real person who pays real tax dollars into a system which doesn’t provide me with over 1000 of the rights and benefits for which I am paying just as much as you. I have no legal means of obtaining any of those rights and benefits (as opposed to a single straight person, who does have the possibility of legally engaging in a civil marriage if he or she so chooses, and can even be married to someone with whom s/he is sexually and emotionally compatible, which I cannot).
So what about my tax dollars? I don’t want them spent paying government workers to sit around for the next 30 years trying to cook up a universalperfectlaw that will encompass every possible permutation of marriage, divorce, child custody, etc., all rolled into one. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money. It is already to long and difficult a process for lawmakers to formulate and pass laws, let alone if they had to all agree on one perfect law that applied to every possible situation. Can you not see the utter impracticality of what you propose here? No law would EVER be passed. No harm would EVER be redressed. No progress or change of any sort would EVER be made.
I really don’t think you have thought this through very carefully. Or else you really are a troll who is just trying to bog down the conversation with more “what ifs” and unrealistic comparisons. I’m leaning towards the latter, because I cannot imagine that someone who appears as intelligent as you could honestly believe that this proposal you make is something which could actually pratically work as a legislative process. In any case, it is not the legislative process of our government, so I guess if you want to see it put in place, you’ll have to overthrow the government and get all 305 million of your fellow citizens to agree on your one-law-to-fix-everything idea.
I’m still waiting for your example of any major civilization in the course of world history which has functioned under a single law.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
newbie #380 - I’ve addressed your points, over and over and over again, but you don’t like my answers, and you insist upon reframing them as me not having a concern about the children of polygamous marriages. You don’t seem to get the point that polygamy and gay marriage are separate, unrelated issues, and that there is no reason to address them in the same law (other than it meets your standards of “tidiness.” Really, all it would do is create a much longer, much messier, law).
Instead, you sidestep my questions about the history and practicality of the new system of government you are proposing. If you have a great new idea for running the government, then you should by all means run for office and see if you can get it put into practice, but it is not how our government is currently run, nor is it a valid reason for denying equal civil rights to my children.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
re 381 & 382 -
so you’re telling me it’s really that hard to write a law that says “the government will recognize as marriage any union between consenting adults regardless of gender/race/origin/religion” If that’s the case, maybe we do need a new government (or at least legislators) that can actually write common-sense laws.
And for the record - I did not state that there should only exist one law that covers everything, but rather on certain areas (such as marriage) there should be one law that defines the core belief. In the example above, there is little leeway…if it’s not between adults they can’t consider it marriage, if all of the adults aren’t consenting not considered marriage, different races - that’s allowed, therefore they can be married. Now I don’t believe, and never stated, that this marriage law would apply to patent laws, yet you seem to be drawing some conclusion that I believe we write one law for the universe of issues. what I advocate is that on marriage, instead of trying to add all these little pecks here and addendums there…let’s sit down and write a law that says what it is and what it isn’t…is that so much to ask? You’re telling me that law wouldn’t be enforceable?
By the way - (see your post #381) As an unmarried individual, we both have the same rights. Since the person I love has passed away, I have no legal way of gaining those rights either. I suppose I could enter a relationship but I wouldn’t be socially/sexually compatible therefore it’s not an option.
Guess it’s just easier to call me a troll and go on to something else. Either way…until the fundamental issue I’ve been talking about gets resolved I won’t support laws that recognize SSM. I understand that there is collateral damage, but we can’t be willing to tackle the tough issues unless we’re willing to accept some collateral damage.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
newbie #383 -
Yes, I’m telling you that, because that is not a common-sense law. For one thing, it would allow parents to marry their offspring or grand-offspring. It would allow brothers and sisters to marry.
Should they have the right? Society has decided that the risk to the genetic pool is too great from this level of consanguinity. The number of disabilities which would result and would be reinforced in the gene pool outweighs any possible benefit from allowing close relatives to marry one another. Some states allow 1st cousins to marry. Others do not. Some countries allow uncles to marry their neices, but our country does not. There is good reason for this, and a law such as you propose above would never be passed. There are too many exceptions and variances.
And again, I don’t think you really want to see such a law passed. You just want to create a distraction from the actual, pressing, real issues faced by gay parents and their children.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
I’m sorry for your loss.
However, realistically, you DO have the possibility of again falling in love with a person with whom you are sexually and emotionally compatible, and you would still have the legal option to marry that person.
I do not.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
And the fact is, that is in essence what we have — but the law is adjusted and changed as situations come to light which require it to change — such as the gradual realization by society and the courts that barring interracial couples from participating equally in civil marriage was unconstitutional. Civil marriage, itself, did not change when interracial couples were no longer denied access to it. Nor will civil marriage change when gay couples are finally no longer denied access to it. The institution, itself, remains unchanged. The rights and protections attached to it remain unchanged. The only change is that people are no longer barred from participation.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Oh my! Lorian and newbie you two need to agree to disagree and move on. It is obvious you both disagree with each other and on a blog like this there is very little chance of you convincing one another that their position is wrong. Why not just let it go? This whole discussion seems like such a waste of brain cells. Every time this subject comes up it goes back and forth back and forth without anyone moving from their position. Let’s just all move on shall we?
Comment by Tired — November 19, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
I think that’s just exactly what newbie wants, Tired. Take a relatively “simple” legal and civil concept (saying nothing about religious implications, but those have no bearing on a civil law) and make it so confusing, convoluted and ponderous as to have us all sit back and say “My! I’m in a dither. We should just sit back and leave all this for another day. Or decade. Or century.”
I have an idea, newbie-anon. Since the whole concept of civil marriage and all the correlary laws that go with it, including inheritance laws, child custody laws, tax laws, divorce laws, health care laws, etc., all in various local, state and federal jurisdictions, is SO confusing and impossible to define with any degree of certainty of it ever becoming the last. possible. law. ever. on. the. subject…. maybe it would be better to eliminate marriage altogether?
Just a simple “fuggedaboudit, everyone”. That would save your tax dollars, now, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Lianne — November 19, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Precisely my thought, Lianne.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
So you’re saying Lianne…you believe that marriage as granted by the government isn’t a civil right? you’re statement seemed to indicate that the government could just take it away. If that is the case, it isn’t a civil right, by definition.
Wait a minute…if it isn’t a civil right, then why are SSM supporters calling it a civil right? or is it a civil right when we want it to be and not one when we don’t need it to be so…
(sorry - bad pun)
You’ve got some excellent circular logic going on there - I commend you for it. Literally throws me for a loop!
The truth is you see this as a simple subset of an issue, while in that scope you may believe it to be easy to conclude what should be done. I look through a different lens, based on personal experience and my own thoughts/beliefs, and conclude that there is a bigger question that should be answered and it isn’t as simple as you lay out. I acknowledge and concede that I’m using a different frame of reference, but in the frame of reference which I choose to view this topic, I see things differently.
Comment by anon..newbie — November 19, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
It’s a civil right only because there are rights and protections attached to it which are granted by the government, newbie. If those ceased to exist, there would no longer be anything to consider a civil right. Anyone could call him or herself “married” and have the exact same rights as everyone else. Which is the point — equal access. If there is nothing to have equal access to, then no equal access is necessary.
It’s not my solution, by any means, but it certainly is one solution.
Comment by Lorian — November 19, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Tired,
For what it is worth, actually, there are a few folks who have moved in their position just from reading debates on this blog. And even if there are only a few here or there, it is worth every last word. This is how injustices are fought - one little bit at a time. Is it tiring? Sure. Is it necesarry? If the GLBT are going to get their civil rights, it is.
If you were being denied civil rights for you, your spouse and your precious children, you might be as tireless and passionate as Lorian.
Let the debate continue!
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 19, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Marriage in the US is based on a couple(pair bonding) and all the laws are based on couples. This is what is held to be a civil right.
To include polygamy or group marriage would bring a enormous change in the law. What would be a group marriage? Would everyone in the group(all the men and women) be considered married to each other, or would this be done individually. For example Person A is married To B, C, D. B is married to A,E,F. C is married to A,G,H. D is married A ,F, I. E is married to B, H, J. So on and so on for thousands of multiple marriages. Not very simple.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 19, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
I’m not equating non harrasment with full support…I’m just quoting from the ally website that makes it quite clear their understanding of ally-full support of homosexuality and no discrimination (it’d be impossible to assume they meant not to support SSM). The GLSEN website is clear in it’s definition of ally..it is clear that it broadens it for schools-but for ally week what they mean is clearly support of homosexuality. Are you wanting me to assume that the school concept would never fit in or work towards their goal concept of ally? When it’s on their website what their ideal concept of ally is? really?
djinn…really so when I say a 0 tolerance for hate speech you assume that means I want lots of teasing of 11yos? really? The first negative thing said should be reported and taken care of-I don’t care if it’s racist or sexist or insulting to whom…. we speak kindly. the end. Many schools have language policies-you just make consequences, immediately reinforce them and nip things in the bud…kindness.
They had 5yos sign these exact cards…what 5 could understand that? Do you want me to think they didn’t read it to them before they signed it? I get that Lorian is comfortable with her 5yos hearing words like transgender and gender confusion…but frankly most americans would rather not. WHY should they when kindness and friendliness will do the job? Saying so does not make me pro harassment -I mean 0 tolerance. surely most sane people reading the thread understand that by teaching kindness what I mean is teach kindness…then easily enforce it with a 0 tolerance for unkind speech. Somehow that translates to me wanting 11yos to be teased mercilessly and that I’m unaware homosexuality actually exists….seriously?
ahh the polygamy question…This is what’s going on in Canada..
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091023/polygamy_minister_091023/20091023.
Canada is considering polygamous marriage as an “as long as it’s consenting adults” thing…. does the prime minister have a leg to stand on saying keeping marriage to do fits our “values”?
Netherlands…polygamy has been legal for a few years. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
Now the united states is not canada and surely not the netherlands…but to say now that polygamy is a ridiculous slippery slope is naive at best. Here’s a fun little tidbit about what is happening in America… http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2009/11/03/obama_makes_polygamy_a_21st-century_issue?page=full
The above link is not to say that Obama is for polygamy-we haven’t even a concrete clue where he stands on SSM-except in nebulous zone.
marrying underage or other weird things are generally considered wrong and not even on the table anywhere-
Comment by britt — November 19, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Phyllis Schlafly, now that’s an impeccable source.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 19, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
No, britt, what I understood you to say was that, let me quote you at comment 349:
[Emphasis added.]
You said that “anyone who supports ending anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools”… “support[s] homosexuality or at least support SSM.” You originally used this quote to prove that homosexuality was being taught to kindergarteners.
What you showed was that kindergarteners were taught to “end[] anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.” (all quotes from you.)
You have continually objected to ending anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools,” using as your cover some ludicrous reading that equates the pledge:
with “allies support homosexuality or at least support SSM,” which you see as pretty horrible, based on your reason given in comment 320 that the anti-bullying and harassment card counts as “teaching homosexuality in school.”
What else am I to believe but that you believe what you say, and that “stop[ping] efforts to end bullying and harassment” are, as you said in comment 320 that it counts as “teaching homosexuality in school.” (Your words.) You’ve made it very clear how horrible “teaching homosexuality in school ” is. Your definition of “teaching homosexuality in school” amounts to telling kids to not bully or harass a disfavored group, homosexuals, or use homosexuality (real or assumed) as a reason to bully or harass. You think “kindness” should be taught, but have never suggested (that I can find) that this sort of bullying and harassment falls outside your bounds of what “kindness” is. I am guessing here, so please correct me, but your inability to specifically decry bullying based on sexual orientation indicates that you’re afraid that if kids aren’t told from a young age that being gay is very very very bad, they may not get the memo.
Your posts appear to be very carefully written to avoid discussing the specifics of the sort of harassment of which you disagree. If you don’t consider anti-gay slurs harassment (because teaching kids to not harass using those terms is “teaching homosexuality in the schools,” not to mention “full support of homosexuality and no discrimination–your words form comment 394 — then I find your insistence on kindness somewhat lacking.
If, on the other hand, you do feel that anti-gay harassment is in fact harassment, then I find your insistence completely baffling that teaching kids to not harass using gay terminology is “teaching homosexuality.”
Plus, I was somewhat charmed by your comment in 320 that you were “actively lobbying for marriage,” as every comment I have read from you shows you doing the exact opposite. You seem to be actively lobbying against Lorian’s marriage, for a very clear example.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
suzanne, it’s a quote from Chai R. Feldblum’s book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness,”
It’s easily verifiable. She also signed a manifesto entitled “beyond Marriage” which supports polygamy… here’s another source for that -with a bias, but perhaps more to your liking…not as you scroll down to find the quotes about signing the manifesto-it says she did do it, but that it’s not relevant to her job. http://mediamatters.org/research/200910060029
Comment by britt — November 19, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
anon..newbie, your comments are becoming perilously close that kiss of death on a blog–tiresome. We get the point that if this specific narrow portion of human activity (marriage) doesn’t meet your unmeetable standard of perfection, you’re against it.
Oh, I forgot britt, the question of Polygamous marriage in Canada is arising, not because of gay marriage, but because of people who are married legally and polygamously in other countries wanting to emigrate to Canada. The specific question: “Is it fair for subsequent legal wives to be separated from their lawfully married husband (in their country of origin) so the husband can emigrate to Canada?” No connection with gay marriage.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
djinn…I am against any mean speech. How can I be clearer? zero tolerance. How can I be clearer than that?
Just because I don’t think a 5yo needs to hear the words bisexual and gender confusion to get the message to speak kindly, does not imply ANY tolerance to ANY SLUR.
any slur, any unkind word, any name calling…AT. ALL.
what are you quoting with “teaching homosexuality” because I never said that? maybe your having another conversation with someone who doesn’t exist….
I did quote the Ally website which is here… http://www.allyweek.org/about/index.cfm Their goal for ally week is clear.
I don’t need to support SSM to teach my children to never say faggot. Any slur towards any person protected by ally week should be on anyone’s and any school’s no tolerance list. No one needs to have 5yos sign a pledge card to do so…one needn’t mention bisexual and transgender to a 5yo to do so.
It’s impossible to be more clear.
Comment by britt — November 19, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
It seems to me that for Mormons, the slippery slope to polygamy get a major lube job from D&C 132.
I find it beyond funny, that I keep hearing that marriage is between one man and one woman, while certain Apostles are sealed to more than one woman. That slope has been slid.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 19, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
djinn there are some connections between SSM and polygamy. Some say cases like this http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Threeparent_family_heads_back_to_court-2128.aspx
open the door to polygamy
Comment by britt — November 19, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
britt, from comment #320:
You gave as an example of this teaching homosexuality, in comment 349, a website that discussed the pledge
You mention the words “bisexual” and “sexual confusion,” but I don’t see them included. Where did they come from? Besides, how are you going to specify which speech is “mean” without occasionally referring to something an offending student said. I just can’t see it.
You again insist that anti-harassment training is supporting SSM. Your words: “I don’t need to support SSM to teach my children to never say faggot.” But the anti-harassment training doesn’t “support SSM,” it just teaches kids to not bully. Again, you’re eliding the issue. I now think you have a list of “bad” words, “faggot” is one of them. You don’t like your kids to say them, but if they could pick on some kid using different language that you find appropriate, you’d be all for it, because otherwise, someone might get the mistaken impression that you’re “support[ing] SSM.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
britt, I’ve got quite a number of polygamous Mormon ancestors. I really have a difficult time getting worked up about polygamy.
In 1878, the Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States forbad polygamy; pretty much all church property was seized by the feds, basically bankrupting the Church, until Wilford Woodruff in 1890 issued the Manifesto ending Polygamy, mostly;(polygyny, for you purists).
Do you think the United States Government had the right to seize all that property, not to mention throw pretty much the entire Mormon leadership in jail, and cause lots of other men to go into hiding?
I’m not sure this is the correct place to equate the “horrible” practice of Gay marriage with the “horrible” practice of polygamy.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Not to mention (but I am weak, and couldn’t resist), the vestiges of polygamy that remain in Mormonism to this day.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
See, britt, if you see homosexuality as horrible as it seems from this comment string, it is quite possible for a disinterested observer to believe that you don’t see anti-gay slurs as “mean speech,” (because those people certainly don’t support SSM, like you–they’re your allies.) Rather, such comments are instilling morals.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
I speak from experience, if you wonder why I’m so het up. I’m still dealing with the fallout from people that I dearly love being treated really really poorly by, uh, people (in Utah, if you’re curious) who clearly saw themselves as, well, how does one say this: self-righteous adults who treated children really cruelly under the sheltering auspices of (their version of) a specific religion.
So I’m a bit testy when I hear about someone who claims that a single case of kindergarteners being given an anti-bullying lesson (britt’s original link–a single school, a reference to a single class of kindergarteners) equals kids being taught about homosexuality in schools (with its much more sinister implications–britt comment 320), and uses this as a reason to not only deny an entire class of people a civil right, but also uses it as a reason to disregard teaching kids not to bully gay kids and kids from gay families (four deaths this year that I know of.)
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
See, britt, if you really believe that being the thing represented by the word ‘faggot’ is really bad, then you agree with the name-caller, just not with the specific word choice, and all the kids know it.
Comment by djinn — November 19, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
400–
My uncle is sealed to more than one woman. One of them is dead.
My grandpa is not a member but I feel certain if he was, he’d be sealed to more than one woman. ONe of them would be my biological grandmother, and the other would be the lady I have known all my life as my grandmother, and love dearly and would definitely want to spend eternity with.
Polygamy=not such a worrisome thing for me either.
As long as I don’t have to share DH (see, that’s where I think most people get het up over it.)
This thread and sprouted so many branches and twigs I feel like every comment I’m making right now is completely off topic. Oh well
Comment by sare — November 19, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
(btw… forgot to mention, biological grandmother, also dead. When my mom was 6).
also wanted to say…You guys are being so mean to each other! I’m wincing internally at every comment at this point.
Comment by sare — November 19, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
sare
I’m presuming your uncle and grandfather were with their significant others when they were alive.
In a thread that contains polygamy and bestiality, why not throw in a little necrophilia and be completely off topic.
Which gives new meaning to johnny lingo(revised version) and his eight cows wives and subsequent barbecue.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 20, 2009 @ 12:18 am
#390 newbie anon:
I didn’t write “civil RIGHT” anywhere in my post, as I’m sure you’re aware. I wrote “civil concept” “civil law” civil marriage”. In no place did I say civil “right” as I agree with Lorian - a civil “right” in this case boils down to discrimination. If one sub-set couple has the legal means to obtain local, state and federal benefits, then all sub-set couples should be able to obtain those benefits.
No “circular logic” whatsoever. Very linear. If you are feeling dizzy, it is a spin of your own making.
Comment by Lianne — November 20, 2009 @ 12:22 am
djinn, i say it with deep love and lots of respect for a lot of what you’ve said here, but now? you need to take full advantage of your non-member status and make yourself a hot toddy and snuggle up with some Trollope.
I love fMh. Lorian I wish I had your stamina and grace.
And thanks Lawyerlady for the compliment a million comments ago. I read my toddler the new Patricia Polacco book about the family with two mama’s this morning at a bookstore in Lander, Wyoming. SO good! Maybe a better place to start with kindergarten kids- a good book. I remember when my 17 year old was 5 and we were walking through a parking lot. He pointed to a car and said, “that car is gay.”
I was shocked down to my toes. We lived in a co-op with a lesbian couple and their daughter, his school was thoroughly diverse and accepting, I just couldn’t imagine where he’d heard that.
So I dropped down, looked him in the eyes and said, “Buddy, who taught you to say that? Why did you call that car ,”gay?”
And he said, “because it has a Pride sticker on it.”
Hee. Savvy marketers, those gay folk.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 20, 2009 @ 12:34 am
410 a) that wasn’t very nice, sare has been very civil, even if we don’t agree and b) it really hurts that you aren’t acknowledging that I already opened the door to necrophilia way back in comment #277. Alison Moore Smith’s (alleged) new motto: Necrophilia; because silence means consent!
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 20, 2009 @ 12:43 am
crazywomancreek
My humble apologies. I should be a more careful thread reader. I abase myself. Your comment long preceded mine.
In my defense, I managed to in one comment to bring up polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia and cannibalism. Do I win a prize?
I meant no ill will to sare. But she did talk about her relatives being hitched to dead people. Sounds like something I would say. I think I am presuming correctly they were alive. It late, and I need to get back to watching, “Revenge of the Zombie Lesbian Bride.”
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 20, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Hey, cwc, I’ve been quiescent for almost four hours now, going on forever. britt is surely a lovely person who (whom?) I have just misunderstood.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 1:39 am
I’m not a non-member, cwc, I’m just a very bad member.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 1:41 am
Member is kind of a wierd word. Signing off….
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 1:41 am
weird. Darn useless rules we memorize in grade school, in between signing indoctrination cards.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 1:43 am
I find myself in the peculiar position of having nothing to add.
Goodnight, y’all. Hot toddies, caffeine-free tea, postum or what-have-you, all around and raised in a toast to good friends and to love.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 1:48 am
oh djinn…which part of love the sinner but hate the sin…. I don’t have to speak rudely about homosexuals to think that acting on homosexual feelings is a sin. How could I possibly know if any random Lesbian. for example, is currently active sexually so why would I even assume she was sinning…to be honest it doesn’t even occur to me that my parents are sexually active-it just doesn’t go through my brain
Even people with children-it’s not like I think about peoples sex life all the time (and with lesbian people -or with all the IVFers in general, you can assume pregnancy began in the dr. office ;))…it’s more of a situation of if someone identifies themselves as homosexual I assume they are attracted to people of the same sex-I don’t assume they are acting on it any more than i assume any random heterosexual person is having sex. So even if I didn’t understand loving the sinner and hating the sin, why would I have to go around actively feeling bad about homosexual people, when I’m assuming their not even sinning? (now logically I know some homosexual people are having sex, but do you get my point at all?)-now don’t go crazy on me and analyze this to mean I’m weird about sex-I think it’s totally normal. I just don’t think anyone spends a ton of time thinking about other peoples sex lives. Am I wrong? Our church leaders have been pretty clear on this point too–the homosexual feelings v. acting on it (not the thinking about peoples sex lives).
In addition to my general tendancy to not focus on other peoples sex lives, I am Christian. I think everyone, myself included is a sinner. Everyone I currently love, ever have loved, will in the future love, is a sinner.
Here’s a random example. My family likes to watch (well the older part of the family) amazing race. There is frequently a gay couple on there. Sometimes, but not generally, their voice or their behavior is different than what a person would normally expect. My children have noticed that (not a general gay people act differently, because they don’t-more of a this person is acting differently) This happens with project runway too-when we watch that. I have always addressed by refering to people they know-some boys are more sensitive, some people are more dramatic..voices seldom affect them because they have sung in choirs and know some boys just have higher voices, and some have lower…The only behavior we criticize is when people are mean, or rude-we talk about the differences between their behavior with their partner and with other teams…
I did say teach homosexuality-in some form. sorry about that
How do you think this card signing went down? You think she passed the cards out, they printed their names and handed them back? You don’t think she explained what the card said? You don’t think it’s possible she explained what LGBT stands for? It doesn’t say gender confusion on the card it says “gender /identity expression” which is different in meaning but still incomprehensible to a 5yo…
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 5:55 am
britt, I’m having a hard time understanding why you are so obsessed with this one example as being “proof” of (what I can only imagine you feel is widespread and inappropriate given that obsession) support of homosexuality and SSM in schools.
The article you cited specifically says that giving out the Ally cards was a mistake, by one teacher. It didn’t happen across the school or town or state, and the school took steps to make sure that age-appropriate material will be provided in the future. Is this, and a “We’re sorry, it won’t happen again” not enough?
Do you believe that the parents who actually took their children out of school (!) because of this were justified? Would you think that those children were harmed by hearing a word they didn’t understand from a teacher, or more from being out of school that day, and possibly what those rabidly angry parents may have said or demonstrated by their actions? Which set of children do you feel will grow up to be more like how you would want yours to grow up?
I get that you feel homosexuality is a sin. I don’t agree with you, but I can understand how you would feel that way if you interpret the bible and it’s preachers over the years a certain way. I get that you want to instill your values, which you hold dear, to your children. My own values (I am not Mormon, I am Catholic-turned-atheist-turned-agnostic-turned American Baptist) focus more on destructive *choices* vs. inborn characteristics. My big no-no’s are abuse, addiction and adultery. I cannot see myself ignoring or supporting those actions as they are destructive to the soul. SSM reduces adultery. I’m all for it.
Comment by Lianne — November 20, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Lianne, there were only two months of school during the time SSM was legal in CA. There is a big concept that the whole homosexuality will come up in schools thing is a big lie…yet here we have a quick example in the short time it was legal that it came up…
It was a mistake but she didn’t bring the cards to class or give them by mistake..it was during ally week which the school was supporting-though generally at the older grades where it makes sense. It feels like the only reason the school is calling it a mistake is because of the reaction of the parents…not because it found the actual action taken by the teacher as wrong.
I just think it’s ignorant to assume it won’t happen again when SSM is law. To say that people worrying about that are crazy liars is really disingenuous.
I’m not really obssessed about it. it is just a simple clear example and then I just tried to correct and correct and correct people’s misunderstandings that somehow because I don’t think 5yos need to hear the words in the pledge to be kind, it means I’m really mean and spiteful and secretly wish to find ways to demean homosexuals at any chance and want 11yos to be abused and on and on.
Were parents rabidly angry in front of their children? Do you think that could have been an exageration? Do you think anger at the school = rabidly angry in front of their children? Were they actually foaming at the mouth and biting trees? Sorry I couldn’t resist.
If I had children at school and this came up I’d just keep them out and we’d go to the museum or the park-I doubt there’d be a big discussion about it…why? the child is 5.
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Ally week is not associated with SSM at all. This didn’t “come up” because SSM was legalized, it came up because an atmosphere of discrimination and hatred caused some teens, years ago, to choose to join together to support friends who were being verbally and physically hurt by that discrimination and hatred. It was a coincidence that this happened to have occurred during that time period.
Re: “rabidly angry”…. you are correct, I may have overstated there and sunk into hyperbole. I made an assumption that only those over-the-top homophobes would be so distraught as to make a statement by choosing to pull their children out of school, thus losing a whole day’s education and teaching them that even education isn’t as important as opposing SSM or not hearing certain words. I was wrong, it is also those who teach “kindness” towards sinners to their children.
I don’t know why that makes me feel even worse.
Comment by Lianne — November 20, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Based on their website…here http://www.allyweek.org/
ally week is all LGBT…is there another ally week?
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 11:22 am
britt - Lianne said “Ally week is not associated with SSM (same-sex marriage) at all.
You state, “…ally week is all LGBT…is there another ally week?”
Are you completely missing the point that a program which advocates NOT BULLYING gay people is not remotely the same thing as a program which supports gay marriage? Are the two things completely conflated in your mind? This is why djinn is so frustrated with you right now, because it seems that to you, advocating a direct stance of not bullying gays equates to “we support gay marriage.”
That being the case, it is not unreasonable to assume that the converse, in your mind, would also be true — that holding the position of opposing gay marriage would legitimize the bullying of gays. You keep saying that the latter does not describe you, but then you keep conflating the two over and over again, claiming that teaching kids not to bully gays is the same thing as advocating same-sex marriage. You don’t seem to be able to read a phrase which says something about be allies against bullying and harassment of lgbt people without seeing “we teach kids to support gay marriage.”
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
britt #420
But what you don’t seem to grasp, britt, is that, just because you think I’m a sinner for being gay, that doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to deny me and my children equal civil rights. That’s what it all comes down to. You can love me and hate what you consider to be “my sin” all day long, but don’t stand between my children and their civil rights. That’s what I consider a sin — hurting kids by disenfranchising them and treating them as less deserving, less human than your own children — because you think their parents are “sinners.”
If my “sins” give you the right to take away my children’s civil rights, then your sins should give me the right to deny civil rights to your children, right?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Lianne #421 -
Wow, Lianne. Now THAT’S what I call a wild ride!
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Lorian, The ally website makes it clear that there concept of ally “Often referred to as “straight allies,” allies generally are non-LGBT people who are committed to ending bias and discrimination against LGBT people. ” The school week is about ending any derogatory comments-the outside of school weeks is about also suporting the LGBT community. Is it really possible to see only the school side ( no teasing, or derogatory comments), and refuse to accept that the actual official website is shooting for allies who end bias and discrimination-then ALSO assume by discrimination they don’t mean SSM? Are you trying to say the school “:ally” concept is totally unrelated and they never intend it to relate to their stronger definition of ally?
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
britt #422 -
And I don’t consider it a bad thing for Kindergartners or any other students to be told that it is unacceptable to harass or bully fellow students because they are different from themselves, or come from families that look different from their own family. I really cannot see how that is harmful, wrong, shameful or terrible. If the information is explained in an age-appropriate way, which I’m quite certain it is and would be, I don’t have a problem with a child being asked to sign a pledge not to bully “LGBT” people. I can think of lots of very age-appropriate ways to explain that to a five-year-old. And not one of them involves anatomical descriptions or graphic depictions of s*x.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
britt #428 - The information they distribute to students in no way refers to gay marriage. And from what you are telling me, even the website, itself, does not refer to gay marriage. It refers to ending discrimination. Why is ending discrimination such a dirty word to you?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
Lorian, why be specific…who is it okay to bully? NO ONE. I think just raising the issue alone brings up ideas…we don’t bully Sam because he has two mommies and we don’t bully Manuel because his parents are form Mexico and we don’t bully Shauna becuase she’s African american….
Why not just say we don’t bully or tease? then follow up That’s not terrible either and it doesn’t separate and divide people.
I’m not assuming graphic discriptions. There isn’t a reason to believe that happened here.
Because of this convversation my chidlren and I were wondering how we would explain just LGBT -simply yet completely.
I don’t think you can say women who are attracted to or like woman, because every 5yo girl likes girls and doesn’t get “Attraction” yet. I think a woman who likes a woman the way mommy likes daddy is what we decided on.
I had problems explaining transgender …most little children aren’t gender speciifc in their actions and play-just normal epxloration. How would you explain transgender to a child?
I’m not saying it can’t be don’t in age appropriate ways, I jsut find it completely unnecesary if the purpose is to teach not bullying and not teasing alone.
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
#429 -
Lorian - I completely agree with you that it’s not a bad thing to teach children (of any age) that they shouldn’t harass or bully others. In fact, it’s a very good thing that we teach them that (perhaps it would eliminate a lot of problems in society). The question is why do we have to specifically target LGBT issues as ones to avoid harrassment? Why can’t we say “harassment” and leave it at that? Why a specific week for LGBT only? What about Race? Is there a separate week to teach race harrassment and how it’s bad? What about color of hair? (True story - I work with a red-haired woman, she gets extremely frustrated and feels put down when someone makes a comment about “red-headed step-children”)…we talk about families with two moms or two dads, what about one’s with only 1 parent…or no parents? What about adopted children…you get my drift.
Why do we have to have each group having their own week, versus simply saying there are no reasons to bully or harass someone. It doesn’t matter skin color, gender, family situation, money, the list goes on and on. Why do we specifically need a week just for LGBT?
Comment by anon..newbie — November 20, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Lorian I don’t think you are a sinner for being gay…that’s what I just said there…I happily go on assuming you’ve never had sex, just like everyone else here on the board has never had sex ;)…
I was specifically talking about hatred and love there anyway….
You may separate church from state, but good luck separating personal religion from state.
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Sweetness, I was only joking when I said
You should be bludgeoned in your bed.
And now I know how Joan of Arc felt;
Bigmouth strikes again.
–The inestimable Morrissey.
Ah, Lorian, that’s my point. If you can’t find it in your heart to to allow your children to hear about ending bias and discrimination against LGBT people (by tip-toeing out of class) then your description of “loving the sinner, hating the sin” somehow rings hollow: more like being biased and discriminatory towards those you view as sinners and calling it “love.” Those on the receiving end of such “love” will not be convinced.
britt, you sound like a really decent person who tries really hard to behave kindly. I just don’t understand the disconnect between your desire to be kind and your terror of ending bias and discrimination against LGBT people.
The argument you’ve given, that ending bias and discrimination inevitably and necessarily leads to same-sex marriage, even if that infamous website you posted doesn’t discuss same-sex marriage is telling. What does it tell?
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
britt #431 - Why be specific? Because gay kids and kids of gay parents are among the most bullied kids in schools, and because bullying of lgbt people is one of the last types of bullying which is still quite acceptable in many places. Anti-gay slurs are common and are not typically greeted with the same shock and disgust that anti-black, anti-women and other similar slurs are greeted with. It is still very acceptable in many schools to call someone a “queer” or a “faggot” or to say, “You’re so GAY!” by way of an insult.
That’s why it’s necessary to specifically address anti-gay, anti-lgbt bullying in schools. Everyone knows they are going to be in deep crap if they call someone the “n-word.” But they know it’s perfectly fine to call someone “gay” or “faggot” as an insult.
Gay kids kill themselves at rates phenomenally higher than the general population, because not only are they subjected to lack of acceptance at home and at church, but they are often mercilessly bullied at school. My neighbor growing up was a transgendered boy who later transitioned to a woman. She was one of the first surgical male-to-female transgenders in this country. I found out a couple of years ago that she died very tragically, mostly as a result of the emotional problems that came from the incessant bullying she endured throughout her school years (she was about 3 years ahead of me in school).
Back then, she was Greg. Greg was a sensitive young man, who danced ballet and competed at a high level in gymnastics on the school team. He had beautiful blond hair that he wore kind-of long, but it was the 70’s so it wasn’t that outrageous. He was graceful and sweet. His hobby was doll-making, and he eventually took this to an art-form which, after her transition, made her quite a famous artist, who is still well-known in the modern art community, though she died some 13 years ago.
I had several conversations with famliy and friends of Greg/Grier after her death. Her parents had tried to help my mother deal with my coming out, but she could not accept their advice that she should love and accept me for who I am. I talked with Grier’s mother quite a bit, and found out some things I didn’t know about Greg’s time in school. He used to be routinely beaten up in the boys’ locker room. There were incidents where the other boys beat him badly, urinated on him and shoved him in a locker. He was ostracized and mistreated over and over and over again in school, victimized to the point where his pain was so great that it followed him after he became Grier and was an intense part of her pain and ultimately led to her death.
Grier, as I said, had among the earliest male-to-female surgical transitions performed in this country. It was not well-done and left her with intense chronic physical pain, which she self-medicated with drug use, along with her intense emotional pain from the traumas of her childhood and adolescence being bullied in school. She died after being raped in the alley behind her small Chicago apartment, while under the influence of drugs. She was tossed in a trash dumpster to die, but survived, only to die a few days later from the trauma of the experience combined with the effects of her drug use.
Are those boys who beat her up in the locker room every day and urinated on her and stuffed her lockers responsible for her drug use, rape or death? I won’t go that far, but I will say that, had Grier been accepted and treated the way she deserved to be treated back in school when she was just Greg, the gymnast and dancer, I wonder — wonder a LOT — whether her life would have turned out quite differently.
LGBT kids face this kind of treatment quite often in schools, britt. My impression is that, as acceptance broadens, things are getting better, but there are still plenty of kids who get beaten up and verbally abused, and even urinated on and shoved in lockers. Boys generally have it harder than girls, but girls take their share, too.
Yeah, it IS necessary to say the words. It IS necessary to call out anti-LGBT bullying BY NAME. If we are too squeamish to say the name, then we are just signaling to kids that there IS something “wrong” with being LGBT, and that, therefore, it IS okay to treat those kids differently, to abuse them and harass them and bully them.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Ahhh! I missed the most inportant part!
Sweetness, I was only joking when I said
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed.
More Morrissey than the first.
And yes, it applies to me, too.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
#432 - newbie - Please see my #435, above.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
britt - #433.
But that doesn’t work with your religion’s teachings, britt. LDS official position does not allow gays to even live in non-sexual relationships with emotionally-intimate partners. It doesn’t even allow for holding hands, sleeping non-sexually in the same bed. It doesn’t allow for socializing with gay people, unless they are in a “recovery program” like Evergreen, and even then, I’m pretty darned sure you’d get in trouble if you tried to move in together as platonic “roommates.”
You can get kicked out of BYU for holding hands with someone of the same gender. In fact, church security guards recently arrested and held two young men for walking down the sidewalk near the SLC Temple with their arms around each other and one of them giving the other a peck on the cheek. And they weren’t even LDS. They were just walking home down what they assumed was a public sidewalk in downtown SLC.
So telling me that you assume I’m not sinning because you don’t sit around picturing me having sex with my wife doesn’t really hold water. It doesn’t matter whether we have sex or not. According to the church’s standards, we are committing a sin which would get us excommunicated if we were Mormon, just by living together in loving relationship, sex or no.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Lorian did you miss the whole not a sin for having attraction, only a sin for acting on it/no one has ever had sex
post? No one is a sinner for being attracted to someone of the same sex. Thus gay doesn’t = sinner, unless you are talking about the broader gay is subset of human, all humbans are sinners thing…
If you did you also missed the “we are all sinners” thing….
I know you want to separate church from state, but it is in all ways impossible to separate personal beliefs from state. Is the president able to make decisions completely devoid of his religious upbringing? IS anyone? Do we vote in cute little frontal lobe vacuums? How can anyone NOT vote based on religious principles if they are a religious person? Again, not voting practices here…principles…
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
anon..newbie, britt, and anyone else who would care to speak, would you be against children being told that the very common phrase “that’s so gay” should not be used?
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
#437 -
Interesting response. Tragic story - and a definite example of why we should work tirelessly to stop bullying/harassment/etc. My question - if the person hadn’t been transgendered…if they had been poor or if they had been handicapped or if they had been islamic (or choose some other religion) would it be less tragic? That’s a somewhat inane question as the answer is “no”…any bullying/harrassment/etc for whatever reason is wrong, no if, and’s or buts…
So while the tendencies/mannerisms were the assumed cause of the bullying, the fact is regardless of the cause, the bullying is what we want to stop. Why talk about all the reasons that someone might bully when you can focus on the action and clearly and without equivocation state “do not bully - under no circumstances is it right or acceptable”?
Comment by anon..newbie — November 20, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Because of this convversation my chidlren and I were wondering how we would explain just LGBT -simply yet completely.
I don’t think you can say women who are attracted to or like woman, because every 5yo girl likes girls and doesn’t get “Attraction” yet. I think a woman who likes a woman the way mommy likes daddy is what we decided on.
I tell my children that, when they grow up, most men and woman like to live together and have a family (I realize that some people don’t have children at all, but that’s my kids’ frame of reference right now) with men or women. Some women with women (both children have friends with lesbian parents), some men with men, and some women with men. My kids are way too young to understand attraction, too, but this description has worked just fine. We don’t even use the word “gay” to describe it, yet. Just “family,” some headed by women, some headed by men, some headed by a man and a woman, and some with lots of people. My kids get this at 3 and 4. It’s not that difficult a concept.
I had problems explaining transgender …most little children aren’t gender speciifc in their actions and play-just normal epxloration. How would you explain transgender to a child?
I disagree that children aren’t gender-specific. On the contrary, children are gendered from the moment they’re given a sexed name and put in blue or pink. Gender issues go all the back to infancy when boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls, girls are told to be ladylike and boys are indulged in their rambunctiousness. Most kids are forced into gender stereotypes from birth, and as early as 2 or 3 they demonstrate gender identity and an aversion to “boy things” or “girl things,” so it’s probably not that foreign to imagine that some people seem to be more like the “other.”
My kids know transitioning men and women. I let the person explain it him- or herself, if s/he is willing. If it’s just me, I just try to keep it simple. I explain that some people feel they’re really a man or a woman even if they don’t look like that yet. So they try to look more like a man or a woman. My son asked if that means a man can have a baby (since this is what we’ve emphasized, other than genitals, as the difference between men and women), and I said that she can’t give birth, but she can still have a family with another woman or man, maybe by adoption (which is also a pretty difficult thing to explain, yet we don’t hesitate, right?).
When they get older, I’ll bring up lots of discussions about gender vs. sex vs. sexuality and the differences between the three, but for now - short, sweet, and simple, no value judgments, just fact. They’ve handled it just fine. It’s different, interesting, a new idea, certainly confusing, but it’s better than saying nothing, and perpetuating ignorance.
Comment by Chandelle — November 20, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
re: #440 -
why shouldn’t that be used?
I looked up Gay in the dictionary…here are the definitions…
1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
5. homosexual.
6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
So in 4 of the 6 instances, I see no issue with using the phrase. It seems like you’ve precluded those children from using appropriate words for those circumstances. Are you telling me I’m wrong to use the word gay other than to refer to homosexuals ?
Comment by anon..newbie — November 20, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Re: #443 Context, intended meaning and tone of voice. The dictionary doesn’t say it all.
Hey Lorian, I sincerely love your calm and clear writing. Just one question: Do you ever sleep?
Comment by numi — November 20, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
newbie #441 - No, bullying is always wrong, and tragedy which results from it is always tragic, and gay kids are not the only ones who get bullied. HOWEVER, in our society, gay kids often take the brunt of much of the bullying, AND it has, up until quite recently, been a great deal more acceptable to bully a gay kid than a disabled kid or a kid who is of a different race or religion. Schools have had a tendency (and some still do) to turn a blind eye to anti-gay bullying.
Additionally, slur words against gays are more acceptable and commonly used than racial slurs, religious slurs (how often do kids call other kids “n*gger” or “k*ke” on the playground anymore? Most kids probably don’t even KNOW the word “k*ke” anymore). I’m not saying that sort of bullying and harassment doesn’t occur. I’m just saying that society deems slurs against gays a great deal more acceptable that religious and racial slurs. That’s what groups like the one britt brought up are attempting to address. When society stops countenancing slurs based on concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity in the same way it has stopped countenancing the “n-word,” then we will have made some significant progress towards lessening discrimination against GLBT persons.
As it is, “queer,” “faggot,” “homo,” “lesbo,” “dyke,” and “gay,” are acceptable terms of insult in most schools, while the words “Lesbian,” “Gay,” “Bisexual,” and “Transgendered” are “dirty words” which cannot be said aloud in the classroom for fear of bringing down mobs of angry parents to pull their kids out of school because they are “being taught homosexuality in the classroom!!!!”
THAT’S why, newbie. THAT’S why, britt.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
I used to have a life (that may be a bit of a stretch), now I have a thread. Good morning, thread, how did you sleep? Me? I had lots of dreams, mostly about Smiths; both The and Joseph.
ps. anon..newbie; “that’s so gay” is a slur. For folks of a certain age group.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
britt, let’s say a young child moved into your neighborhood or school system and became friends with your child/children. There’s a birthday party at their house to which your child is excited to be invited, but yesterday you just found out that this kid has two mommies and those two mommies “sin” publicly by acting like normal spouses in front of their children - maybe hugging, a peck on the cheek, looks of love in their eyes.
How do you handle this with “kindness”? Is your child allowed to go to the birthday party? What if it’s a sleepover?
How do you teach a child kindly what is sinful in someone else’s behavior without instilling a sense of disgust or discouraging them being around that other person?
Comment by Lianne — November 20, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
numi -
Sleep?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
newbie #443 -
Only if you are using it as a pejorative.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
I want to be Lorian when I grow up. I suspect that will take a long long time.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Chandelle #442 -
Exactly, Chandelle. My kids didn’t know the word “gay” until Prop 8 — not because I think it’s a dirty word or wouldn’t want use it around them, but because it just didn’t come up. We explained things in terms they understand. When the word “gay” came up, we also explained it in terms they understand. I don’t have a problem with them knowing it. I have a problem with them learning it from anti-gay hate commercials and groups of people carrying signs and chanting slogans against my kids’ family on streetcorners. I would rather they have learned it in Kindergarten than learn it that way, and I’m sorry I let that happen.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
djinn, I adore you. I’d like to put you in a magic lamp and keep you around all the time.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Re 412 (and the general idea of talking to kids about GLTB issues). A while ago my boys were playing with some older neighbor kids in the backyard when my oldest (9) ran in and asked, “What is gay?” I asked why, and he said that one of the boys called him gay when they were fighting. I said, “Well, gay means that a boy loves and wants to marry a boy, or a girl loves and wants to marry a girl. But, that’s not why he called you gay. He was trying to be mean, calling you a name, like calling you stupid”. (not to justify the behavior, but that’s the context of what the boy was doing)
A few weeks ago, I got a call from the assistant principal. My son was in line and saw two girls hugging. He said, “That’s gay” (like you would say, “The sky is blue” or “Her hair is red”. He saw them hugging and thought, “Girls who like girls. That’s gay”. And, since he is one of four brothers who don’t really do things like hug each other, this was unusual behavior for him. I told him later that it is very common for girls to hug each other. We like to do that even if we don’t want to marry other girls.) Well, two boys standing near him started shouting “_________ called her gay!” and soon the whole line was in uproar, taunting, etc. The girl burst into tears, and my son burst into tears. They both got hauled into the principal assistant’s office to sort things out. The girl’s feelings were hurt that she was being called gay and being teased. My son was crying because he felt bad and was scared and wasn’t sure why everyone was freaking out. To try to make things better, he said, “But my mom says gay means stupid”. Thanks, son.
So, then the assistant principal calls me to fill me in, and I explain how no, we are not homophobic, no, we don’t call gay people stupid, and I explained how my son gathered that from what I had said. Then, when he got home (and burst into tears right after walking in the door from the emotional trauma of it all), I tried my best to explain it again.
I’m trying to raise my kids to be kind and tolerant. We’ve talked about bullying in several FHEs - don’t bully others, walk away when someone is bullying you, stand up for someone else who is being bullied (there was a great story in a recent Friend magazine). I’m also trying to teach them to navigate the world around them. I think it is hard for kids growing up with so many different messages and prejudices. It’s a lot to deal with.
Comment by Stephanie — November 20, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
Chandelle
Excellent point. You can join djinn in my magic lamp, if you’d like. Or just come over for tea. Maybe we’ll both join djinn in the lamp for tea. Do you serve tea in there, djinn?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Oh, my, Stephanie. Talk about the perfect storm!!! Sorry you had to go through that. It’s amazing how literally kids understand the things we tell them, sometimes.
I’m glad the school reacted so appropriately, and that they understood your explanation.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
By this, I mean the messages they are getting from other kids and whatever they’ve been exposed to. I teach my kids in my own home, but who knows what they encounter out in the real world.
Comment by Stephanie — November 20, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Lorian, I did think the school handled it appropriately, and thanked the assistant principal when she called.
Comment by Stephanie — November 20, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
britt #439 -
Um, not just me, britt. Our founding fathers (and probably mothers, too, but people didn’t care so much about the mothers back then). It’s a foundational principle of our government, written into the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights, though the wording is different. The principle is not, however.
No, I don’t think people don’t vote their religions. Of course they do. But laws should not be based upon religion, as I’ve said many times over. And laws which are based solely upon religion will be found unconstitutional, eventually, particularly if they disenfranchise or otherwise harm citizens.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Lianne, My children don’t have any friends who’s parents don’t sin. They still go to birthday parties. We don’t do sleepovers..we do late nights, and I don’t see the problem…it’s not like they’re pedophiles. It’s not like they’re going to makeout in front of my child (which I would find inappropriate whether straight or gay)…I’m not sure what you think will happen that I would be trying to avoid?
A harder test would be if my 14yo had a lesbian friend and that firend invited her - but I can’t imagine letter her stay the night anywhere someone was attracted to her…guy or girl.
Lorian, it still doesn’t make sense….why isn’t a zero tolerance policy enough? Why not have a pledge card that says I will speak kindly…once you get older or if words have come up you can have a different discussion.. Why isn’t that enough? Why not campgin the teachers and admin and parents on the issue of how much is going on? Why bring it up with the 5yo?
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
britt #459 - Why are you so ashamed of having kids know that there are gay people in the world? Why should schools be too ashamed or scared to use the words “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” or “transgendered?” They don’t need to go into detailed explanations with graphs and illustrations. All they need to do is say that some families have two mommies or two daddies, and some other people are not comfortable being the gender (boy or girl) that they were born, and that there are mean words that refer to people like that in hateful ways, and that we don’t use those words here and we don’t treat people like that, or their children, meanly here.
What, really, is so horrible about that, britt?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
See, britt, I think the issue here goes back to your “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” adage.
You see being gay as a sin, like adultery or prostituion or marrying one’s box turtle. It is shameful and dirty to you. You wouldn’t want your kids to learn about the existence of box-turtle-marriers in school, or johns who frequent prostitutes, or even daddies who go have sex with a mistress on their lunch hour. These things are sordid and filthy and should not be taught to children in Kindergarten.
I think that, to you, my marriage to my dear wife is very much in the same category. It’s dirty, and we don’t talk about it. You imagine it’s not happening, so that you can deal with me as a person, rather than as a molester of box turtles.
THAT’s what’s wrong, for you, in teaching kids specifically not to bully gays. You being gay as a sinful thing that people choose to do in much the same way they choose to have an affair or molest a turtle, and therefore, you don’t want kids to get the idea that it is a normal part of life. If we tell kids that these people exist and are a normal part of life, then they will not be properly disgusted by the sinfulness of them loving someone of the same gender (and might, themselves, decide (in your parlance) to love someone of the same gender).
So we just tell them, “Don’t bully anyone,” but when they call someone a “queer,” we have a hard time addressing it, because to address it would mean that we have to explain to the child what the slur “queer” means, and why, if it is actually a sinful, bad thing that the “queer” person is CHOOSING to do, it would be bad to call them a “queer” in the first place, since we SHOULD be properly disgusted by the evil things people do, right?
Yup. Teaching kids specifically not to bully gays implies that they did not choose to be gay, and should be respected for who they are, not treated as a sinner, whom we “love” but whose “sin” we deplore.
Right? I think I got it this time.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Oh, Lorian, not only does my lamp (tastefully decorated in my favorite colors persimmon and leopard print) have excellent tea, but my china will knock your socks off. (But nothing else, and I have spares. Socks.) You can use the 1830-1860 fluted Limoges porcelain cup (in the most amazing sage colors with gold trim) that I picked up in California gold rush country; Chandelle can use the white and (astonishingly vivid) blue-gold leaf Parisian china cup I found at a flea sale.
Everyone can come! I have cups for all. I’m planning on using my Queen Elizabeth Coronation Spode cup. (Complete with portrait of said queen). Amazing what you can find at yard sales.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
:clap: Oh, my!!! That sounds like fun!!!! I’ll be right over, with my socks on.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
You’re welcome too, britt; I have an early 20th century chintz-pattern Royal Standard cup that I think you’ll find quite fetching.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
(embarrassing admission) I actually looked through my cups to find one for you, britt.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
I think this is a hopeful turn.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Yay! Tea party at djinn’s everyone. Ten minutes.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Lorian, that made me laugh!
I don’t know… I remember when my little sister heard someone calling her friend a hoe at school and asked me what it meant. I just told her it was a mean thing to call someone and she shouldn’t say it, etc. I didn’t think it was necessary to say what a hoe was…
Comment by Enna — November 20, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Oh can i go too?? I promise to be nice? with maybe an oriental cup with a dragon or something on it?
Comment by Samantha — November 20, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
I have a beautiful dragon-red cup (with gold leaf trim) actually stamped (for place of manufacture) “Occupied Japan.” Even though no dragons are involved, I dearly hope it will do.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
beautiful! I’m jealous.
Comment by Samantha — November 20, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
But, please, Samantha, not too nice?
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Enna #468 - The problem, though, is that just saying “it’s a mean thing to call someone” only addresses one side of the issue. The other side is that kids get bullied and harassed BECAUSE they are gay, and because kids don’t understand that it is normal and okay for them to be gay, and not something for which they should be harassed and bullied. You cannot make this connection without explaining what “queer” means, and why it is inappropriate to use that term against someone, whether they are gay or not.
You don’t typically face a similar issue with the word “ho” in school, because generally kids in school are not actually prostitutes. And if a child IS behaving in a sexually promiscuous manner, then there is a more serious problem, IMO, which needs to be addressed, which is not the case, again IMO, if a child is beginning to manifest that s/he is gay (assuming also that the gay child is not behaving in a promiscuous manner).
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
#445 & #461 -
so I disagree with the assessment Lorian. The problem isn’t what is being taught, it’s what is being enforced. Regardless of what the person was called that was derogatory and hurtful (assuming it was verbal harrasment…extrapolate to other types of harassment as you please) the problem was that consequences (actions) weren’t enforced. As an analogy - if I’m speeding and a cop fails to pull me over is the right solution to put me in class and tell me not to speed? No, I’m going to continue speeding until a cop pulls me over and tickets me…I have to have consequences.
In the case that administrators/others are looking the other way, the issue isn’t about the LGBT group, it’s about administrators inability or reluctance to enforce rules. It’s an administration problem, not a children understanding problem. All this method (of teaching this applies to this specific group of people) is separate those people and point out that they are different. Then we have a different “group” every week that we must explain why we don’t treat them poorly/harrass, etc. Sorry - I don’t accept the premise that LGBT should be treated any different than any other group of people. I love the argument that says “I’m no different, don’t judge me on my sexuality” but then they turn around and say “I’m special, give me certain rights because of my sexuality” - seems very incongruent.
by the way…re #449 - the original question was whether I would want to allow people to say that specific phrase. As it was written , it allowed too much leeway and to say no bordered on censorship. I would agree that if we include using it as a perjorative then it is wrong. Then again, I think any time we use any word as a pejorative it is wrong. Why do I only mention words relating to LGBT? if someone calls me “dirt” in a pejorative manner, that’s offensive and shouldn’t be done. Don’t you see the point…I agree we should be harassing, but I see no reason why I should specifically call out certain words/phrases as ones to avoid…any and all harassment should be stopped. Or am I missing some time where harassment is supportable?
Comment by anon..newbie — November 20, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Lorian being gay isn’t a sin, being gay isn’t a sin, being gay isn’t a sin…I have said that how many times on this thread? It’s not a matter of my older children learning about it. I think 5 is too young. I think the actual bullying and harassment can be taken care of without discussing which groups are separate and unique and different form you, so they need unique treatment. I have said time and time again on this thread that you just have to enforce the policy and a no bully, no harrassment thing works. If a child has said queer or whatever other word, then they need to be calmy told the definition and why it isn’t accurate in the case, or why it isn’t accurate to say it as a mean thing. the problem there is the administration.
As far as support for homosexuality…which is what you are talking about in 473-that is what ally week is about and I don’t think it has a place in the younger elementary grades. The reason they separate it out IS to give support to gay children. It’s not just to stop harassment. Thank you for admitting that.
djinn I’ll go pick the peppermint leaves that smell so good right now outside my front window.
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Well, anon..newbie, considering the uproar documented in britt’s link that the mere suggestion that harrassing LGBT students was problematic, I think you’re flat out wrong.
If adult grown-up people in actual schools are so afraid to even mention the existence of LGBT people, it seems a natural result that child A calling child B something hurtful along LGBT lines (queer, gay–I have not forgotten that you think that the word “gay” is hunky-dory (but not in the androgynous David Bowie way) ) would be ignored, or else the anti-SSM crowd might descend and wreak havoc,
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
No cup for you. And I had one picked out, and all.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Djinn, chill. it’s not fear. it’s a reasonable, age appropriate attitude. They’re not running screaming. Their just asserting their right as parents to control the timing and information given to their very young child. None of the members of my family who voted for prop 8 would ever consider a slur appropriate. Please understand that. It’s not a hate fest. Go fight NARTH…we’re not that.
anon -newbie has clearly stated she’s against harrassment. So have I.
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Sorry I haven’t read all the comments. However, I wanted to comment about using the word gay other than to describe someone who is homosexual as brought up by #443. I am 21 and growing up MANY people used gay to be used from calling someone a name to it meaning that something is “stupid”. I.E. “this party is gay”. You brought up that in the dictionary it has other meanings. Give me a break. Yes, maybe back in the day that is what gay meant but everyone knows what it means now. I hate when I hear people say it as an insult and it also makes me cringe when people say it as a way of saying something is “stupid” or “dumb”. It just sounds so ignorant to me. So, if you are one of those people who wants to use “gay” to describe something that is “Stupid”, go for it but know how you sound to other people- ignorant.
Comment by Brittany — November 20, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
I take it back, you’re still invited. Your teacup has a picture of the Ottawa Parliament building on it, because I thought you might like something architectural.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
off to cut pepermint and google the ottawa parliament building
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
newbie #474 - Quick question — will you please outline for me the rights that I have because I am gay which you lack because of being straight?
As to your points about enforcement, you are correct, but only up to a point. The problem is multilevel and includes both the harassment from peers and the unwillingness of administration to address that harassment. Both issues are targeted by programs like this one, because students are educated about not bullying GLBT persons, and administrators are encouraged to understand that antigay harassment is harmful and should be addressed. They are empowered, also, to address it.
There is nothing about this campaign which suggests that hateful words used against gays are the only slurs which should be addressed by students and faculty, or that gay people are the only people who need protection from bullying. I’m not sure why you are so resentful that GLBT people should get any special attention paid to helping them not face as much harassment and bullying in school. Are you jealous? This is a case where to the one who needs much, much is given. It is rarely necessary to conduct anti-bullying campaigns for straight white people. Now, if they are differently-abled, or have braces, or are Jewish, or are immigrants, then, yeah, they might need some extra help in this department, too. Do you resent anti-harassment/anti-discrimination campaigns for differently-abled people? Don’t think they should get special attention?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
britt #475
Then why do you keep repeating to me that you “love the sinner and hate the sin?”
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
what does that have to do with it? How does loving the sinner may being gay a sin?
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
britt #475 -
Huh? Admitting what? That anti-bullying campaigns are intended to keep gay kids from getting bullied??? Of course they are. Has that been under dispute?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
But britt, then why are you terrified (read comment 320, for examples), of a single instance in a single classroom of an innocous document telling kids not to be mean to others using LGBT slurs? Here’s your words:
That being taught in schools was just anti-harrassment. I’m guessing that a certain percentage of those pro prop 8 friends of yours agree with you that this single instance of “don’t be mean to gay people or call other people gay to be mean” in a single classroom is homosexuality being taught in schools. Or have you decided that your comment at 320 was overstating things?
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
djinn - Very phallic.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
So what part of homosexuality IS a sin in your book, then? We’ve already esptablished it’s OK for your child to go to a birthday party hosted by two mommies. They can act age-appropriately “spouse-like” in front of the children - hugging, a kiss on the cheek, showing love in their eyes for one another.
So these things are not sinful, neither is the love they have for one another, right?
I am assuming then, what is sinful is the sexual act itself, the one that we all do pretty much the same? Is it only specific sexual acts then? And are those sinful even when they are committed by spouses of different genders? Or do you think those things don’t happen among loving heterosexual married couples?
Or is it the adulterousness of partaking of those sexual acts of love without being married?
It’s a good thing being tall is not a sin. “Sure, you may enter our church. Just don’t DUCK when you enter through the 5′2″ door. That’s the actual sinful part - not that you were born with tall genes…no you couldn’t help that part. But you sure can choose not to duck.”
Comment by Lianne — November 20, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
I wasn’t goingg to say it. Just sayin’. Actual cup, too. !!!1!
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Or if I were to say it, I’d use fewer “g”’s.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
britt, eek! Your cup is early 20th century chintz-pattern Royal Standard. The other cup is for anon..newbie.
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
djinn (and britt, by implication) #486 - Yup. britt you specifically said that “[homosexuality] was taught in CA in those few months [gay marriage] was legal.”
Yet, you haven’t shown one case where “homosexuality” was taught in schools. Kids were not taught “how to be homosexual.” They were taught not to be rude to homosexuals. To me, that’s a massive distinction. It upsets me when people refer to anti-bullying campaigns as “teaching homosexuality in the schools!” As though they were having real, live homosexuals come in and give demonstrations. Or even teaching kids a class using “The Joy of Lesbian Sex” as a textbook.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
I have often been quite gobsmacked about how people can even have the thought that homosexuality can be taught… it’s like teaching someone to be taller. It’s a conception based in fear and/or ignorance.
Comment by barmy stoat — November 20, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
Coming to the tea party, barmy? djinn’s buying.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
I love the word “gobsmacked.”
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Suzanne,
it is kind of a strange doctrine. We believe people are still alive in the spirit world after they die (which is fairly run of the mill, Christianity-wise) , and that they are still married (Definitely different from a lot (perhaps all?) religions.) Hard to get your head around if you don’t grow up with the assumption, I guess.
Comment by sare — November 20, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
lorian, I would see acting on attraction sin-so that includes hand holding…I also see drinking alcohol as a sin…it’s just that if my child saw an adult taking a glass of wine or kissing their lesbian partner-I don’t see those kinds of things as this huge damaging event to my child. Generally people who drink wine around my children…or if they saw their uncle kiss his partner…those people don’t feel it’s sin..they aren’t trying to do anything by it-just living their normal life. I wouldn’t be offended.
If say my brother in law, who used to be mormon, knows how I feel and made a point of showing my children the wine and that he was drinking, was talking up it’s taste or some such, then leaves his glass where easily reached…it sounds weird, but we all know people who when they leave a church are very anti–that’s a different feeling, and under those circumstances it would bother me….does that make sense. Because it’s really not a drink of wine. ( my bil used to have this attitude and we would all watch our children like crazy around him)
Lorian, teaching homosexuality does not mean joy of lesbian sex demonstrations… anti bullying campaigns are just that anti bullying… ally week isn’t just that…it’s specifically designed to protect LGBT students (and others-though that’s not really emphasized in the pledge) and literally recruiting allies to support gay rights. How am I exagerating…please tell me how I’m exagerating to say that? How is it strange for me to say that the stated goal of ally week is the stated goal of allied week and that they water it down for schools, but they hope one leads to the other….how is that overstating things…it’s on the website.
djinn terrified? you really keep overstating things…
there was only about 2 months of school time while SSM was legal in CA… you think it wouldn’t happen if it were voted on as legal? You think this is an anomoly…as if massachusetts doesn’t teach gay marriage?
Comment by britt — November 20, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Massachusetts schools do not ignore the fact that both gay and straight people can be married. Horrors. It’s actually true. What do you wish your kid to be taught, exactly?
Comment by djinn — November 20, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
britt #497.
Okay, so being gay is not a sin…but it is a sin…but it’s not, You don’t see me as a gay sinner because you work hard to convince yourself that I don’t have sex. But you love me, the “sinner” but hate “the sin.” I think you are heavily conflicted, britt.
As to hand-holding, then, students who are gay and who hold hands with a girlfriend/boyfriend in school shouldn’t be protected from harassment because they are sinning, then?
“Recruiting” (not the best choice of words, perhaps?) allies to support their gay peers against bullies. Why is that terrible, again?
As to your other paragraph, Massachusetts does not, to my knowledge, “teach gay marriage.” They teach students to be tolerant of people who are gay. They teach kids not to bully gays and gay-parented kids.
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Ha ha ha! I get #500! (with nothing relevant to say)
Comment by Stephanie — November 20, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Really, britt, I’ve looked at that website, and I just cannot see what you are objecting to. There is no “larger sinister goal.” They want to stop discrimination and harassment against glbt students in schools. From their FAQ:
I just can’t see the horror in it, no matter how hard I try. Unless you think that this is somehow going to “turn kids gay,” I can’t see why you’d have such a problem with it.
Do you? Do you think it will turn kids gay?
Comment by Lorian — November 20, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Poor Stephanie! Your poor son deserves a cookie.
There are drawbacks to full-exposure and honest answers too. When my teen was 8 he thought drag queens were the Real Women. He was always looking askance at my jeans and t-shirts, wondering why I couldn’t dress nice like Ms Foxxy, our drag queen friend… Ms Foxxy at least explained to A that it took 4 hours to look that fancy.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 20, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
britt
You wrote, “there was only about 2 months of school time while SSM was legal in CA… you think it wouldn’t happen if it were voted on as legal?”
Gay people could briefly marry each other in California in 2008.
The Californian Safe School and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (aka AB537 authored by Sheila Kuehl) was as you see several years before gay marriage became legal in California.
And now that prop 8 has removed that civil right for some of its citizens, guess what, bullying is still illegal in California schools.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — November 20, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
oh, winifred. we don’t play by those rules. i’m sending you to the sin bin for a major penalty.
lorian has the power play.
Comment by mfranti — November 20, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Wow. Run to the snack shack for a veggie burger and I miss a foul entirely. That’ll teach me. Keep your head in the game, girl!
Comment by Lorian — November 21, 2009 @ 2:18 am
britt, Suzanne makes a good point. All the teaching that is likely to be done in California schools is being done already, regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legal, because it is anti-bullying programs, not “teach kids how to be gay and get married to someone of their own gender” programs. In fact, this coming year, our public schools will now be honoring Harvey Milk Day (I couldn’t be more proud). And again, without gay people being allowed to legally marry in this state.
It was never about teaching kids to be gay or teaching them “about homosexuality.” It’s about teaching them to treat gay people with respect — the same respect they owe to straight people.
Comment by Lorian — November 21, 2009 @ 2:25 am
Lorian, now I KNOW that you don’t sleep!!!
Comment by numi — November 21, 2009 @ 10:11 am
numi!
You caught me. I was up late last night working on an orchestration project, and when I do that, I take breaks… I actually did get a good night’s sleep, though.
Comment by Lorian — November 21, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
What! No one else want cups? (Swishes away in a huff.)
Comment by djinn — November 21, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
The tea was delish, djinny. :hug:
Comment by Lorian — November 21, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Lorian
To correct the record, I did not “back away from the discussion,” Lorian. It took me a while to figure out that W-r dpr-ss wasn’t posting my comments, and Lisa said she could not retrieve them
I’m posting from another IP now.
That’s because the kids are being forced to embrace your point of view. You have already made clear that you consider my views on children being better off with a mom and a dad, and marriage being a word that refers to the union of man and woman, as bias and hate against gays. PFLAG is even more vociferous, militant, and unpleasant in stamping out such ideas, and branding the adherents as bigots. Some of us don’t want our kids brainwashed that way. As we see it, there’s nothing biased or invidious about letting the word marriage mean what it’s always meant, so long as the applicable substantive rights are available to gay couples. And programs such as the one described will function like Stalinism, turning children to view their parents as evil bigots.
Lorian, on the other thread, you made it hurtfully clear that you thought I could never be of use, let alone an “ally,” to my gay clients whose legal rights I secure, simply because of my views on the word marriage. (Those clients happen to disagree with you, incindentally). I cannot believe that PFLAG and its ilk would not, like you, take an expansive definition of bias that excludes everyone whose views on are politically incorrect.
Of course you don’t see it as a threat, because it’s your views that are being inculcated. If it were my views being inculcated, you’d probably see it as a threat.
Comment by Xtian — January 7, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
brainwashed? Stalinism?
You are ever so eloquent in your choice of words.
I thought that you thought we were crazy Maoists enforcing our evil ways on you poor poor straight people. Now I find we are Stalinists.
Now I find I’m going to have to learn a whole new ideology.Dang.
How will I ever keep up with what I’m suppose to brainwash innocent school children with when the manual keeps changing?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — January 7, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Where did I say that anyone on this blog was a stalin*st? I have no idea what your ideology is. Lorian asked why anyone would find a certain program for children offensive, and implied (I have no idea where she got it from; it’s not reasonably inferred from anything that anyone said before) that it was out of fear that kids would be turned gay. I replied that in the context of this discussion, that teaching kids to be “allies” in a war against “bias and discrimintation” would probably end up teaching kids to loathe and fear their parents who support the idea of marriage as a union of man and woman. Pitting children against their parents is something that anyone familiar with history attributes to Joseph Stal*n. That’s a political strategy, not an ideology. As far as I know, you and Lorian are not involved in teaching children to loathe their parents, so I cannot understand how you construe that I said that you or anyone else here is a stal*nist. Lorian asked how anyone could be offended by that program, and I answered. If you or Lorian are members of pflag, i was not aware of it. if my inferences are erroneous, please correct me with actual facts rather than melodramatic chest-beating.
Since Lorian says that I, as a man, am not allowed to be a feminist while opposing the neutering of marriage, here’s an interesting article:
http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerMarriage.html
Comment by Xtian — January 27, 2010 @ 1:57 am
? Where do you get this from? I don’t recall accusing you or Lorian or anyone else of almost persuading me to be a Lesb*an. Are you sure you haven’t confused me with someone else?
(BTW I’m using *s to avoid getting caught in the sp*mf*lter, not because I think that certain words are n*aughty.)
Comment by Xtian — January 27, 2010 @ 2:15 am