Dear Readers,
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog. I appreciate your comments; I love hearing your opinions on the issues of my most recent posts regarding the upcoming presidential election, the “Bailout“ or “Rescue Bill“, and Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Protection Amendment.)
I recently received a comment from a reader, Frank, who made a very interesting point on the post, “Why Vote Yes on Proposition 8?”
Frank writes: “The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. Courts have the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws. The precedent for this right predates the establishment of the state of California and, even, the founding of your hateful little cult.”
I would like to take a moment to address Frank’s interesting comment.
First, Frank is absolutely correct on his first point; the California Supreme Court did rule, in a narrow 4 to 3 vote, that Proposition 22 (a statutory measure designed to protect traditional marriage) was unconstitutional.
As we all know, the Supreme Courts of the United States have the right to judicial review, as decided in the early history of the United States in the case of Marbury vs. Madison.
The California Supreme Court reviewed the legislation of Proposition 22 on Thursday, May 15 of this year, and ruled it unconstitutional.
As Frank pointed out, the courts do have, “the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws.” Furthermore, “the precedent for this right predates the establishment of the state of California” (Marbury vs. Madison was decided in 1803; California was admitted to the United States on September 9, 1850.)
However, the fact that this right to Judicial Review was established before the admission of California into the United States is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of California does have the right to rule Proposition 22 unconstitutional, but the people of California have the right to add an amendment to the constitution and over rule the Court‘s decision. The California Marriage Protection Amendment, if passed, will overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling and "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Twenty-seven states in the US have already added constitutional amendments which are very similar to Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 is not a measure created to discriminate against homosexuals. It is an amendment to protect traditional marriages, families, and society. Gay marriage activists have called those who support Proposition 8 discriminatory. They have used bullying tactics to promote their agenda. They have even changed the wording of the amendment (from "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry“) in order to make Proposition 8 less appealing to voters. However, I believe the people of California will use their good judgment, protecting traditional marriages and families by voting yes on Proposition 8.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is involved in this issue simply to support traditional marriage, family, and freedom of religion. We are not a “hateful” religion. The LDS church does not support or condone discriminatory actions against homosexuals. In fact, in a recent statement by the church, they reinforced, “the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long history of kindness, charity, and service in communities worldwide. Every year, over 70,000 members of our church volunteer at their own expense to serve for 18 to 24 months in humanitarian efforts, Church service assignments, and full-time missionary service throughout the world. Our “little cult” of over 13 million members in 176 countries and territories (one of the fastest growing Christian faiths in America) is dedicated to serving God, preserving the traditional family, and serving our fellow men.
Hopefully, Frank, your opinion of the LDS church will change as you come in contact with our members. As a church we are fighting to pass this measure in order to protect our marriages, families, and religion; however, I hope you understand that we respect and love all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.
7 comments:
Leah -
What a kind and thoughtful response. I'm sorry the Frank chose to respond to you in such a snippy way (the "little cult" comment).
However, I must disagree with you about the nature of Proposition 8. As much as the church may claim this amendment is not directed against gay people, but aimed only at "protecting" marriage, it is important that you know that that will not be its effect.
The passage of this amendment will affect every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person in this country. Glad as I am that we have domestic partnership to protect many of our rights, domestic partnerships are simply not marriage. When your spouse is injured or sick, there is no question about your relationship -- you just get in the ambulance or have access to the hospital room.
What's more, even if domestic partnerships were fully equivalent (and there are still SOME differences, mostly in terms of inheritance and taxation), "separate but equal" simply isn't the American way. You can understand that, can't you? Why does there have to be a separate civil institution for gay relationships when there already exists a perfectly good civil institution to which we currently have access?
And even though civil benefits are nearly equal in California, they are nowhere NEAR equal on the federal level. In fact, there are over 1000 rights and benefits of marriage (including Social Security survivor benefits) that you have access to that I don't. Here's another example -- I have friends in New York, a couple that have been together 11 years. One of the partners is from Greece. Until recently, their relationship hung by a thread controlled by the US Immigration department. If this man could not obtain permanent residency, their relationship would have to end, or his American partner would have to relocate to Greece. If they had been a straight couple, the solution would be easy: get married.
I fully honor your right to believe as you wish, but please remember, the passage of proposition 8 will bring tremendous pain and hardship to hundreds of thousands of Californians -- for no logical or rational reason! Simply because a large group of people believe an invisible superbeing disapproves of us. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot, and I claimed that MY invisible superbeing didn't think you and your husband deserved equal treatment under the law and I was able to convince enough Californians to vote away your rights?
Please, consider the true impact on Californians before you vote. Proposition 8 is about equality. For ALL Californians. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Thanks for reading and for allowing comments on your blog.
Very well put, Leah. It's frustrating that people try to tell us that we're taking away their rights, when really we're just trying to protect our right to uphold a long standing religious institution.
-Ben
Leah, thanks for being willing to take on such a controversial subject! I think I would cry if someone responded to me as Frank did. :)
You are very well spoken and I am amazed at the thought that goes into your writing.
Thank you for writing. Keep it up!
Tom,
Thank you for your comment. I understand that the gay and lesbian community feels they are being shortchanged and discriminated against.
This is such a complicated issue, with strong feelings on both sides. Thank you for expressing your opinion in a respectful manner.
I believe that an intact traditional marriage, with a husband and wife who love each other and their children, is how marriage should be defined in our country. Sociologists and social historians agree that men, women, and children report the greatest happiness in this type of relationship.
I understand that you feel this is an issue of "separate but equal." I understand that you see unfairness in the inequality of domestic partnerships. Perhaps we should have more provisions in our government for domestic partnerships.
However, I think you and I both know that there is more to this issue that just the issue of equality. If the California government declares gay marriage a civil right, government will inevitably begin to enforce other policies to ensure gays who wish to be married are not discriminated against. Government could force churches (such as the LDS church) to perform same sex marriages. This is a step away from the separation of church and state defined in the first amendment.
There are so many legal issues involved in this decision that are not being discussed, from adoption to taxes. I don't think Americans fully understand just how much this new definition of marriage will affect their lives.
I can empathize with you feeling like government is trying to take away your rights! I feel the same way!
Thank you again for your opinion. I do appreciate hearing another perspectives on this issue.
Leah -
Thanks to you, too, for your polite and friendly nature. I'm glad we can discuss this important issue in a civil way.
I'm also glad you are open-minded. I try to be, too. Since you are, I'd like to continue our discussion.
"If the California government declares gay marriage a civil right, government will inevitably begin to enforce other policies to ensure gays who wish to be married are not discriminated against. Government could force churches (such as the LDS church) to perform same sex marriages."
Except it's not true. If you read the May 15 Supreme Court decision, the justices say the EXACT OPPOSITE: "[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
It simply won't happen.
"I don't think Americans fully understand just how much this new definition of marriage will affect their lives."
I don't think Americans fully understand just how LITTLE this new definition of CIVIL marriage will affect their lives. What changes about your life if a couple next door that had merely been living together suddenly has a marriage license in a drawer somewhere?
"I believe that an intact traditional marriage, with a husband and wife who love each other and their children, is how marriage should be defined in our country. Sociologists and social historians agree that men, women, and children report the greatest happiness in this type of relationship."
My question is -- how does denying marriage equality do ANYTHING to further that goal?
Gay people aren't going away. We're not going to stop being gay just because we can't get married. Goodness, if we didn't stop being gay when we were teased or abused on the playground because of it, or when our parents disowned us because of it, or when we're being fired because of it, or being KILLED because of it, or when we kill OURSELVES because the world around us (especially churches, with their threats of damnation) lets it be known that an aspect of our character is so repulsive that we begin to feel we must die because we are so awful and sinful and yet we can't give it up, no -- matter HOW hard we try...if we don't give up being queer after suffering all that -- do people imagine we will give it up because you refuse to recognize our civil, legal arrangements with each other are equal to yours? You can't seriously believe that if Proposition 8 passes that we are suddenly going to start looking for opposite sex partners and start having children, do you? So how does my marriage (to a delightful, loving man who is as interested in my well-being and happiness as I am in his) somehow translate into harm for more traditional families?
For me, there is no logical reason to deny marriage equality. There is only the words many people believe to be the inerrant judgment of an invisible superbeing.
But many voters feel as you do. So we may not get there this time. The LDS church has a very large and effective "army" in place. You are allying yourselves with other well-organized churches. I tremble at the thought of you all. But I stand my ground. Because I stand on truth. I stand on the Constitution. All men ARE created equal. All are to receive equal treatment under the law. I may not get to the mountaintop myself, as Dr. King said, but we WILL get to that promised land.
My best to you and your family.
People are concerned (with good reason) about preserving our earth and its resources for the generations to come. I'm surprised that they are not equally concerned about preserving the building block of society, the traditional family. Whether or not circumstances provide a good mother AND father for every child, that should be the goal.
Once the two "marriages" are pronounced equal, gay rights' activists will insist that the schools teach this concept beginning in elementary school--you might marry a man, or you might marry a woman. Imagine if you were given this option as a child...how confusing!
And you better believe there will be all kinds of activists out there waging war (through litigation) against all the "hateful little cults" that still believe in the Bible (or Torah, or Koran). I'm sorry, but Frank pretty much showed his true colors with that remark. If 27 states already have similar amendments, how does the passage of this amendment "affect every gay person in this country"? On the contrary, if this does not pass, it will affect every school and church in California. And our children's children will live in a very different world.
It's not about taking something away from gay couples--the domestic partnerships are not altered in the least; it's about taking something very precious away from our children.
Tom,
You are right, the Supreme Court of California stated, "...no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
However, here are a few examples of how the legalization of same-sex marriage is affecting Americans:
"The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services."
"Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership."
"Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished."
See the full article at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
Tom, we could argue this issue until election day but I'm certain neither of us would persuade the other to vote differently on Proposition 8.
I do think those who choose a gay lifestyle are often mistreated. I believe that there should be more done in churches and communities to foster love for all people, no matter their lifestyle. Thank you for reminding me of the pressing need to promote kindness and charity toward those who choose a gay lifestyle.
On the issue of Proposition 8, it comes down to this:
I believe we have Heavenly Parents. I believe in God, our Eternal Father, and I believe we have an Eternal Mother too. I believe our Heavenly Parents love us more than we can imagine. They want us to be happy in life.
I believe that God ordained marriage from before the foundation of the world as a solemn covenant between one man and one woman. God wants us to be happy and so, in his infinite wisdom, he created the sacred institution of marriage where husbands and wives can find joy as they honor marital vows and rear children in love and righteousness.
I believe God loves all of his children, including you and I, and he expects us to do what we feel is right.
You say you do not believe in God but I do. I feel a solemn obligation to support laws which protect traditional marriage, the type of marriage that God has ordained for the well-being and happiness of his children.
I appreciate your comments on this issue. I'm sorry I will not have time to continue our conversation as there are other issues in my personal life which demand my attention.
Tom, it has been so interesting meeting you. Thank you and I wish you the best.
Post a Comment