Prop 8 passed. Hooray! But we haven't heard the last of it. In fact, it appears the persecution of Mormons for their support of Prop 8 is just beginning. There was a riot at the LA temple, and there will be another one tomorrow (Sunday) at the Oakland temple. The day before the election, an ad was released depicting two missionaries ransacking the home of a lesbian couple and stealing their marriage certificate.
I want to ask: who is the intolerant one? Consider:
Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of CA. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church donated whatever they felt like donating, in the interest of their doctrine regarding traditional marriage and family.
The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country. Should I remind you of the substantial donations of PG&E and the California Teachers Association to No on 8? (If Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools, as the No campaign claimed, then what business did the CTA have in donating a million dollars to oppose Prop 8?) The No campaign had the support of hot shot celebrities, government leaders, and politicians. They even got the attorney general to word the prop on the ballot in their favor, stating that Prop 8 would "eliminate the right" of same-sex couples to marry. And yet, they didn't win.
Aside: When was marriage declared a civil right anyway? The law is already discriminating when it comes to marriage. Minors can't marry. Siblings can't marry. Cousins can't marry. Pets and their owners can't marry. Those who are married can't marry additional spouses. These are limits society has agreed on. How is Prop 8 different?
Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported. In contrast, consider the aforementioned ad from the No campaign. This ad is completely dishonest and discriminatory. Had it attacked Jews or Muslims, it never would have aired.
The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious and non-religious organizations and individuals, including Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims...
Not all Mormons voted in favor of Prop 8. Our faith maintains that each person be allowed to choose for him or herself. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with civility, respect, and love, despite their differing views.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution itself. Even so, U.S. election law is clear that while churches may not endorse candidates, they may support issues. In the case of same-sex marriage, the real threat to individual rights (that are actually given by law in our Constitution) is the threat to those who preach traditional marriage in a religious setting. Those who supported Prop 8 only did what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they brought the issue to the ballot for the public to decide on, exercised their freedom of speech to defend their position on the issue, and then vote in the electoral process. To my knowledge, there was only honesty, respect, and forthrightness on the Yes side. In contrast, No supporters stole election signs out of yards (which are private property), vandalized church buildings, and personally labeled and attacked Yes supporters as being bigots, homophobes, and more.
The ironic thing is this: the hidden agenda of those who support same-sex marriage is not to support marriage at all. They want to water down the meaning, removing the desire for anyone to marry and make a family. This will break down the institution of the family and pave the way for the state to take its place as the basic unit of society. Contrary to contemporary views, the primary purpose of the divine institution of marriage is not to express adult desires, but to provide a home to which children will be born to and reared by parents who will care for, nurture, and love them. I don't care if you believe the human race was created by God or evolution--either way, this definition of marriage is what ensures not only the continuation of but also the flourishing of the human race. For now, at least, the majority of citizens consider the definition of marriage to be the same as it was since the beginning: one man and one woman.
15 comments:
Below is information about today's peaceful protest at the Mormon Temple:
"Sunday, 9 November 2008, 12:00 Noon
Bring your signs, your flags, and wear your Sunday best. Be respectful. Leave your anger at home. Win hearts, minds, and votes. Overcome hate with love.
And don't forget: Not all Mormons voted against us. Some Mormons are gay or lesbian.
Support those who supported us. And change the minds of those who didn't.
"It was time to turn the other cheek," said organizer Tim DeBenedictis. "Many in of our community were deeply hurt by the passage of proposition 8, and are disappointed that the Mormon church supported it - especially since the church was once persecuted for its own beliefs on marriage."
"We are meeting at the Temple on a day that it is closed. Our intent is not to disturb church-goers. Our goal is to mend fences and build bridges, so that all Californians can achieve marriage equality under the law," said DeBenedictis."
It HARDLY appears to be a "riot".....also, just to clarify, INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS donated to the NO ON 8 campaign through their union funds. Those teachers who did not wish to contribute could refuse. According your blog, it is similar to INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, not the Mormon Church itself, donating to the YES ON 8 initiative. The individual teachers who donated to the NO ON 8 Campaign did so to combat the erroneous information put out by the YES ON 8 folks about marriage being taught in schools. As any credentialed teacher will tell you, between the state standards and No Child Left Behind mandates, teachers do not address marriage and family life in public school classrooms.
I completely agree with your post and wish I could just copy it and post it on my blog.
It just shows how ignorant people are when they target a group of people (lds church) who made up less than 5% of those who voted in favor of 8. If they were smart, the protestors would target the majority of those who voted "yes", not just 5%. What about the catholics, muslims, and other church groups that voted "yes" on 8? Why not target them if they want to "blame" someone for a completely fair democratic process where OBVIOUSLY the majority won?
Protest all you want, but what is the point of a democracy if the "people" made their decision but that doesn't matter? You don't see me "protesting" because Obama won the election, do you? The people voted, and that is that!
I agree with trent, kristi, and kami...I completely agree with your post and wish I could just copy it and post it on my blog.
This is just so frustrating to me. I would never turn from my beliefs regardless of what either side had to say.
Thanks for pointing out that not only Mormons voted Yes on Prop. 8.
Jen thanks for your post. I think you have expressed what so many feel but are unable to put into words. Good luck moving forward living in CA.
Common Sense Crusader - Thank you for posting the details on the rally, I hope those that participated shared this same attitude. The church and most of its members are very supportive of ensuring rights for all.
The teacher donations were done through the union and thus they carry the name of the union, the church members who contributed had to do so directly with no help from the church, there is a difference.
As a MA resident I can assure you that while state standards do not mandate discussions on marriage until later in school, many teachers out here have used the ruling as justification to informally begin discussing it in an attempt to normalize it, and have stated that they feel no need to notify parents or get permission.
Making it law effects how individual teachers approach many subjects, and while formally they do not "teach" marriage until later on, we all know that topics, including marriage are taught everyday to young children, in the examples used and they conversations had about other issues. This is why Prop 8 was necessary.
Dear Mark:
Are you a credentialed teacher? Do you have classroom experience? If not, I would be careful not to assume that you know what happens in classrooms--especially across the country here in California. As a seasoned teacher who has taught at the elementary and high school level, I can assure you that the only conversations I have with my students involve those tied directly to the curriculum standards. I am unclear about the "informal discussions" you allude to in your post.
And, in response to your comment about the individual members..not the Mormon Church contributing to traditional marriage campaigns, how do you explain the following:
In 1998, the church contributed $500,000 to the Alaska Family Coalition and $600,000 to Save Traditional Marriage in Hawaii. In 2000, the church joined forces with other conservative groups to support a campaign to constitutionally ban marriage for same-sex couples in Nevada and supported a fight against marriage equality in California. The church expressed support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have written discrimination against same-sex couples into the U.S. Constitution.
In June of 2008, the President of the Church of Latter-Day Saints wrote to church members:
"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."
California teachers may have combated intolerance, hatred, and bigotry through their union funds--but they did so on their own accord. The Mormon Church on the other hand, utilized its members as "individual" supporters to spread intolerance and promote a gross violation of civil rights.
By the way - I forgot to mention my brother's experience of "tolerance" on both sides of the issue as a CA resident. How is egging houses and desecrating churches & temple grounds tolerant? My brother's house in CA got egged several times & signs taken down off his personal property many more times because of his "Yes on 8" signs that were in his yard before the vote. He never was intolerant of those who oppposed his view, yet others were intolerant of his view. It's sad that both sides of the fence can't be respectful of their differing opinions.
Thank you Kristi, Erika, and Mark for your supportive comments.
Crusader: I'm glad to learn that the rally was peaceful and somewhat respectful. I'm also glad to learn that as a teacher you recognize the importance of maintaining a neutral learning atmosphere in public schools; however, not all CA teachers do.
For example, a kindergarten teacher in Hayward had her students sign a card pledging not to use negative language when speaking about GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) choices. It follows that if children are not to use such language, they must first be taught what those words mean. (I couldn't figure out how to post the link--look it up on foxnews.com.)
Also, the California Association of Teachers of English are working to promote GLBT curriculum as well--it's stated right in their program agenda for the 2009 convention. It's posted on their website.
As I made phone calls to voters regarding Prop 8, I spoke to one woman who works for the CTA. She told me that she was leaning toward voting Yes on 8, but that she would never admit that to anyone she worked with, for fear it might have a negative affect on her pay increase. How unfortunate that individuals who might disagree with the union's agenda would feel intimidated and afraid.
While it's true the Church leaders did urge members to support Prop 8, there were no threats posed to those who didn't agree and, as always, members were free to choose. As I pointed out in my post, the Church rarely becomes involved in political issues, but because this is a moral issue that potentially affects the freedom to practice religion, it was appropriate to do so in the cases you cited.
Crusader - I am glad to hear that as a teacher you stick to the curriculum and never vary from it. I am not making assumptions I am basing it on experience and documented issues from MA schools over the past couple years. It is not my experience, as someone who grew up in California schools, has children in Massachusetts schools, and is involved in the local schools, that all teachers are so respectful and exact. You don't have to be a teacher to observe what is happening and sometimes you get a better view if you are an outsider than if you are a teacher who is used to how things are done.
I would be interested in viewing your facts as the church does not typically donate directly to such causes, but the memebers donate, as with Prop 8. The church does make statements and support moral causes and so of course it has expressed support for a Federal Marriage Amendment and President Monson asked members to do all they can to protect marriage. If you would take some time to research our beliefs you would understand why this is so important to us and you would also see that it has nothing to do with Hate, bigotry, or intollerance.
The teachers did not dontate to No on 8 "of their own accord." Anytime contributions run through a union there is ALWAYS pressure to contribute when the Union has already stated they are supporting the cause. It is the nature of unions.
I feel you final description of the donations of the teachers versus the church memebers is very biased and intolerant which is ironic becuase it is similar to many statement that I have been given by those who oppose Prop 8 on a basis of it being biased and intolerant. Both sides of this issue have a valid foundation in their own beliefs and it is ignorance and manipulation to throw out words like hate, bigotry and intolerance. You may not have respect for traditional Christian principles, but that does not give you a right to assume those who live by them are intolerant or bigots. If you want to gain respect for your cause from people who may feel differently than you, you have to be willing to understand and respect their views as well. Otherwise you will actually push people away from your cause.
Just for the record Prop 8 is in no way shape or form a violation of civil rights. They are not being denied anything. They are welcome to establish or take advantage of civil union laws to provide any rights that they are currently lacking and for the record the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has publicly offered support for civil unions. Prop 8 is not about Gay Rights, it is about protecting marriage which means a lot more to the majority of people than you realize. If you want to establish legislation to further gay rights that you feel are infringed upon, then do it, you will have the support of many who support prop 8 becuase we are supportive of equal rights. Marriage has already been defined and the people have upheld that definition. Create a type of union which offers equal rights and benefits under the law and get the legislation passed. You will not have the same opposition you had on Prop 8 becuase the opposition was not toward Gays but a defense of marriage and our freedom of religion (which I know you don't understand or care to understand, but unless you want to come learn of our beliefs then you need to accept this claim). Good luck.
Kristi and Trent: I definitely feel your brother's pain---our OBAMA and NO ON PROP 8 signs were taken from our yard too. It was incredibly discouraging.
Says Who: If I understand you correctly, you are AGAINST teachers ensuring that their classrooms are free of hateful rhetoric? I have read quite a bit about the the teacher in Hayward, and conservative AND liberal publications alike have stated that the teacher's actions had nothing to do with Proposition 8; she was working within the framework of the anti-bullying program designed by the school district many, many years prior. As a teacher, I am VIGILANT in educating my students to the destructive nature of xenophobic, racist, sexist, or homophobic language. For example, when students say "That's so gay," we stop and discuss why using the word "gay" in a negative context is completely inappropriate and offensive. Likewise, my students know better than to call things "ghetto," or remark that they have been "gypped." When a student in my class made fun of the historical marrying practices and garment wearing custom of Mormons, we had a lengthy discussion about acceptance of all faiths and people. Perhaps home schooling might be an option for your family since you seem to be so concerned about what is happening in California's schools.
Mark: Again, please do not assume that I do not care to understand your beliefs. Growing up, I had many friends who were Mormon. I spent many hours at the local ward, attended countless church talent shows, was present at several blessings, and recently was a guest at a dear friend's wedding reception. I am also finishing my M.A. in American History with an emphasis on California and the West, and I have done an extensive amount of research about the Mormons and their adverse history. I am not on an anti-Mormon campaign, I am simply disheartened and horrified that fundamental civil rights were taken away from a group of American citizens.
Mark--please watch this. Mr. Olbermann is more articulate than I am, and I think he makes a very good point.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652443#27652443
Jen, I appreciate your post. It has been fascinating watching the anger and hatred brought out by this prop. I hope it holds. As far as I understand, in CA props are not binding, and can be overturned in the state legislature with a 2/3 vote!. . . . . so we'll see. I hadn't seen a lot of the statistics you had listed, and it is refreshing to see how strongly most people feel about the sanctity of marriage.
Crusader - Thanks for the video link. I have watched this several times and while he makes a very emotional and heart wrenching plea for gay marriage, the points and ideas he uses are those of someone who does not understand the reasoning behind our support of Prop 8 and the protection of marriage. Anyone that is going to ask christians "why does this matter?" and make a plea for us to "Honor our God" by redefining marriage, does not have any idea why those with a strong belief in God would oppose Gay Marriage. His arguments resonate with those who support Gay Marriage becuase they are based on the logic of those who support it, which is that we oppose it becuase he dislike gays and want to limit their rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.
He compares it to the racial limitations on marriage imposed by this nation in the past, something I agree is a terrible injustice. The difference is that ban on interracial marriages was created by the government and then repealed. Interracial marriage has been common in marriages from the beginning of time. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman was not created by a governement it is part of the very definition of marriage since its inception thousands of years ago. This comparison, while evoking the injustices of racial segregation and slavery, is not a legitimate comparision and is being used as propaganda to evoke the emotions of racism and make the issue about bigotry.
I can tell that you are sincere when you say you have spent a lot of time involved with mormons and church activities, and I am glad to hear it. Understanding the views of those you disagree with is essential to posative discussions that can change peoples views. With your history of interactions with the church, I am sure you are aware of the level of respect given to marriage and families in the church. We believe that families and marriage, when preformed by those holding the priesthood of God, is eternal. We believe that regardless of what the majority feel is correct, that God has given us laws which do not change and are not subject to public opinion and that in order to be together as a family for eternity we must follow, to the best of our abilities, his laws. We will still fall short, but the atonement of Jesus Christ will provide for our failures, if we have done our best. We believe that this life is only a small part of the plan our Heavenly Father has for us and that we are not here only to seek personal gain and happiness but to find peace and happiness in following the Lord, sacrificing what he requires, and serving others.
True civil rights are based on the inalienable rights given to us by God, becuase he is no respector of persons and created us all to be equal. If you take God out of the equation, I do not see justification for requiring equality. Without God life becomes the "survival of the fittest." It is only through the respect for human life that comes from a knowledge that God created all beings equally that true respect is found.
With these beliefs in mind, I want to provide the following explanation of my reason for supporting the protection of marriage as between a man and a woman. God placed us on this earth for the purpose of learning to make our own decisions and to test us to see if we are willing to follow his commandments. He allows us to have weaknesses that require us to see our own helpless state and turn to him for help. Wether those weaknesses are related to anger, violence, lust, pride, slothfulness, or a predisposition for attraction to the same sex, they are weaknesses that we must deal with in life if we desire to spend eternity with God and with our family. I believe that all of us are born with predisposition to do many things that go against Gods laws, but that does not exempt us from doing our best to keep the commandments. It is our responsibility, if we desire to gain eternal life in his presence, to do all we can to overcome these weaknesses. Many will be able to overcome some of the weaknesses with the Lord's help, but no one will overcome all weaknesses and "qualify" for eternal life. In always striving to overcome we allow the Lord to provide his grace and mercy to lift us up becuase he paid for our sins.
I do not have any issues with the feelings of love that gays share, but to be sexually active in a gay relationship goes against the laws God has set forth and without repentance, they will be held accountable for their sins, like someone who has premarital or extramarital sex.
I feel it is crucial to protect the institution of marriage and traditional families, which include a mother and a father in the home. I believe I have a God given responsibility to teach this to my children and I want to live in an environment that allows for this to happen. It is in the best interest of my children becuase I want them to be with me for eternity and I will fight for an environment that allows for this.
I also believe that children that are raised on the incorrect beliefs of their parents are not held responsible for those sins, and I do not want to bear the responsibility for a generation that is rasied believing there is no difference between hetersexual and homosexual relationships.
This does not mean that I don't support the idea that each individual makes his own decision. I do not condemn anyone for making decision that go against God's Commandments. It is their decision and I respect them and their decisions. I do not want my children taught through schools and social programs that the gender of the parties of a marriage is unimportant. I believe gender is a God given characteristic and that not only is it important, it is essential.
Those who do not believe in God or believe in a different view of God will, of course, disagree with these feelings, but that does not change the fact that it is mine, and millions of others views on the issue and they are based on eternal laws and commandments, and on our existence being more than just about life on earth. You do not have to agree with my views, but my views should be respected just as much as anyone elses and should not be called "bigotry", "intolerance", "hateful", or any other term used to provoke an emotional response in support of Gay Marriage. The use of these terms is not only ignorant but it is intentionally manipulative and disrespectful.
I hope this can provide a better understanding of "Why this matters" to me and to millions of others who supported the proposition.
Wow, such long comments! This will be a short one -- well said. Your post was totally on the mark!
Spot on Jen, spot on.
I thought the Mormon church encouraged its members to donate money to the Yes on Prop 8 cause, and that caused a huge influx of money into that campaign. Mormons may have made up only 5% of voters,and some might have voted no, but they certainly put up a large percentage of the money in the Yes campaign.
Also, your argument about marriage being solely to provide a home into which children will be born has many holes in it. There are some people who desire no children, people who marry when they are too old to have children, people who cannot have children, and people who adopt children who are not their own. They are all legally married - why should gays and lesbians be any different?
The one thing I do agree with you on is that there has been a lot of mean-spirited discussion about Mormons, which isn't fair.
But then again, it's also not really fair to deny 2 adults (both humans and of legal age!) the right to marry.....
The arguement that an essential aspect of marraige is to bring children into the world is not about what has become normal over the past 30 years but about the core concepts of marriage since its inception thousands of years ago. I agree with you that marriage is also about love and that not all marriages bring children into the world and that is their choice, but I feel those are exceptions and not the standard.
Gays and lesbians are different from couples who choose not to have children becuase men and women, regardless of your preference in the sex of your mate are different and so choosing someone of the same sex is not the same as choosing someone of a different sex.
If it is not fair to deny 2 consenting human adults the right to marry then, under that arguement you must legalize polygamy if they all consent, as well as incest if they are adults and both consent. You can see that the aftermath of legalizing gay marraige would lead down the road to all other forms of "adult consenting" relationships and a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what marriage really is. From a religious perspective that line is clear.
Post a Comment