I never heard about Prop. 8 until a week or two before the election. I didn't think much of it at the time. I was reading CNN.com and saw my church (the Mormon Church) and the Catholic Church were backing the initiative. This wasn't too surprising, considering the churches' views on homosexuality.
Like I said, I didn't think much of it until after the election. Then all hell broke loose.
I was initially surprised by the reaction. How come so many people are protesting the Church directly, I thought, when Yes on 8 was a political coalition? Then I heard that the Church had helped raise a large percentage of the $37 million for Yes on 8, and Mormon volunteers had manned phone banks, etc. Considering the fact that Prop. 8 just barely squeaked by (52 to 48)...I began to see why we were being singled out.
If you've read my blog long enough, you know that I'm torn when it comes to gay marriage. But I'm not torn in my views about Prop. 8.
Prop. 8 passed, fair and square. A majority of Californians voted in favor of it. The opponents of 8 can try again next election. That's their right. Putting up signs that say "F**k Mormons," (allegedly) sending envelopes of white powder to Mormon temples, and making a site blacklisting Prop. 8 doners is not the way to go. This is an attempt to terrorize the population. I would hope that the majority of LGBT supporters are also against such tactics.
If I were in California I would have voted for Prop. 8--despite my mixed views on homosexuality. If it were just a case of letting our homosexual friends and neighbors get married, I'm all for it. Sign me up.
The problem, as I see it, is not whether or not consenting adults should be allowed to marry. The problem is that--if homosexual marriage is legalized--its legalization will be used as a weapon to strip churches of their tax-protected status. Churches that don't believe homosexuality is kosher (forgive the expression) will be sued.
I think the backlash we're seeing now against the Mormon Church is only the beginning.
7 years ago
5 comments:
Hey, welcome back! I actually wrote a blog about this subject last week and then deleted it. After going to Bryn Mawr and making some very good friends who are gay it was too difficult for me to discuss it coherently. (I have frequent problems with that... coherency, I mean.) I have been following some interesting discussions on the topic though. You should check out http://tylerpaul.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/on-prop-8/#more-103 and the Becca and Tyler link on my blog. Interesting stuff.
Are you and Chrissa heading to see TWILIGHT next weekend?
OK, J, this one will not go by without comment. I have a few things to mention here...
Prop 8 passed because a large portion of the money that the LDS church and its members supplied went directly into funding campaign ads that were full of misinformation and outright lies. They played on people's fears to get this Proposition to pass. Many people (I will include you in this group!) do NOT completely understand the issues at hand with this proposition, and so they voted from a place of fear rather than a place of information.
People are upset because this proposition does take away rights that had been granted to a minority group by the state supreme court. Now, due to a simple majority vote, those rights are being stripped away. There are two things that make me very nervous about that. One is that a state constitution can be amended by a simple majority of voters. Two is that rights of a minority may be taken away by a simple majority of voters.
Minorities are simply that... minorities. They do not represent a majority. Their civil rights need to be protected from an abusive majority intent on removing those rights, as evidenced by what has happened in California. If this was not the case, we would still have black slaves (counted as only 2/3 of a person) and inter-racial couples would not be allowed to marry either. Bye-bye Jared and Chrissa! Thank goodness we have a system set up to protect people in the minority from "major" discrimination and disrespect.
Would you argue that anybody had the right to tell you that you could not marry Chrissa? Well, just a few decades ago, several states would not have allowed your marriage to happen.
As far as tax-protected status goes, the church opened its own can of worms by financially supporting in such a large measure a political cause like Prop 8. The LDS church (or any other church, for that matter) would be in NO danger of losing its tax-exempt status, or being successfully sued due to its not performing same-sex marriages. The idea is ridiculous.
When did the church lose its tax-exempt status over not marrying blacks in its temples? Never. When did the Catholic church lose its tax-exempt status over not performing marriages for divorced people? Never. The federal government allows for a separation of church and state. If you and your church don't believe in gay marriage, DON'T HAVE ONE. It really is that simple.
But, please, don't deny that chance of being married to those who want it. Consenting adults should have the right of equal treatment from their government across the board, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation.
And, no, very few of us LGBT supporters are supporting anger or violence. In fact, last Friday at the first protest around the LDS Church Office Building, each speaker spoke on the need for peace, love, tolerance, and understanding. The anger you are seeing is coming from a few people (there are always a few in any group) who are angry and frustrated with the situation, and the situation their lives have been in, and are finding that now seems like a good time to let some of that out. Those kinds of actions are not being supported by our movement.
However, boycotting businesses who do not support you seems like a very practical, non-violent way to get your message across. Gandhi organized the Swadeshi boycott, urging his Indian compatriots to boycott British jobs and titles. There was also a boycott of the Montgomery Bus System, lasting a year, protesting the racial seating standards black people were subjected to.
Peace and love to all!
I wasn't in California and didn't see the campaign ads. But I did watch some on Youtube.
The pro-Prop 8 ones I saw were testimonials, "Op-Ed"-type opinions, or protests against the backlash. Most of them came across to me as opinionated, certainly, but rhetorically fair. They weren't what I would call fear-mongering. If you look up "proposition 8 yes" on Youtube and look at the highest-rated hits I think you'd have to agree.
What bothered me is that Prop. 8 proponents had every right to vote according to their ethics and to donate money and campaign and they were villified as bigots and hate-mongers. Tell me, because someone would like maintain traditional marriage in the wording of the constitution--is it fair to call that person a bigot?
Because a person feels that a marriage between a man and a woman should be the only legal marriage...does that mean they hate homosexuals? Honestly?
Next point. Homosexuals did not have the right to marry according to the California or U.S. Constitution. If it said that, we would already have homosexual marriage.
When our constitutions were written the idea of homosexual marriage would have been absolutely preposterous. So the issue would never have come up until now. So Californians were deciding if they wanted to define heterosexual marriage as marriage in California. The majority did. Without that specified in the California Constitution, it would have been left up to the interpretation of a handful of Supreme Court judges. That's why Prop. 8 was put forward in the first place: some churches and special interest groups were afraid that-without a clear-cut definition-the views of the (apparent) majority would be dismissed.
So I wouldn't say that their rights were taken away. They didn't have that right to marry except where the mayor of San Francisco overstepped his bounds and began authorizing marriage certificates...the court found he was in the wrong to do so.
Finally, the rights of the minority do need to be protected. But what rights are personal and what rights are civic?
A few years ago it was illegal to be a homosexual.
I think we can all agree that it would be wrong, now, to arrest a consenting adult who has sex with another consenting adult of the same gender (or harass or attack, etc.)
But do they have the right to marry just because they want to?
Do polygamists have the right to marry?
Does an adult have the right to marry a child?
The law decides. The law decides that it will continue to deny polygamy. The law decides it will continue to stop children from marrying/having sex with adults (except in certain cases). And, in this case, the California law is continuing to outlaw same-sex marriage.
So who determines the law? The legislative branch. The judicial branch upholds the constitution. The executive branch carries out the law. That's the way it's supposed to work. And who tells the legislative branch how to vote? Their constituents, allegedly.
There are 2-3 ways in California to ammend their constitution. Getting enough signatures on a petition and then voting on a referendum is one way to do that. What they did was legal. It may have been the simple majority, but it was legal.
Obviously, a 2/3 majority would have been better. Twenty years ago, I'm sure you would have had it. But things are different now and close to 1/2 the people were against the proposition. So you have 52% who said yes and 48% who said no. Should the 48% win?
That's what you're saying.
I think we all know that same-sex marriage will be passed next election (if not earlier, by the supreme court). The backlash against pro-Prop. 8ers--demonizing them and putting their names on blacklists--probably intimidated a lot of voters.
It may be a good thing: it will give all the other states the ability to see for themselves how same-sex marriage affects California. I'll be interested to see if my fears are legitimate.
Post a Comment