First of all, I know it's no huge number, but to all those who have decided to "follow" my blog: THANK YOU. It really means a lot. :D
Secondly, I'm bringing out the horse again. I know he looks rather bruised, bloodied, and just beat up (and frankly I'm surprised PETA isn't knocking down my door), but...
There's something that's bothered me, and I'm curious for other thoughts.
An online friend of mine mentioned there's no date for this particular interview between PR and Elders Oaks and Wickham, but the fact that it remains still on the official Church site implies that its held as doctrine. Because the interview is familiar, I wonder if it came out around 2000 when Proposition 22 came on the ballots. That feels slightly narcissistic of me to say, of course California isn't the end-all-be-all of the subject, but even 2004's Proposition 3 in Utah didn't garner this much coverage (Prop 3 called for civil unions in Utah - apparently the Church strongly fought against its passing. Needless to say, it didn't pass).
There have been signs of a "softening" if you will to the subject of same-sex partnerships being legally recognized and solemnized by the government.
First, there's this tidbit here. You can find the entire interview here:
"ELDER OAKS: Another point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years? What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage? If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination, which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness of what we’ve already heard."
Why do they want that - because marriage is a much more powerful word with a much more powerful meaning than is "domestic partnership" or "civil union" - and, if things get escalated to a federal level, than they want marriage because then they can have all the benefits allocated to anyone else who is married.
"There are certain indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.
As opposed to the likes of Britney Spears or "open" marriages (which, if I'm correct, is legal in some states), etc?
"In addition, if people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia. Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about themselves. That argument proves a little too much. Suppose a person is making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons brought forward to make a change in the current situation."
I don't know that the relationship has been disapproved so much as...well, lets be honest. Straight people find gay sex icky. A gay couple tends to look odd to our eyes, and this is probably due more to our not seeing it so often. It's also disapproved because various churches find it abominable (some more than others) and we tend to hate that which is different.
I really don't like how so many tend to compare homosexuality with criminal acts or diseases. I do believe there are some people out there partaking in homosexual acts when they are not, necessarily, homosexual; there are some experimenting, some who can choose (like one commenter said: these are the bisexual members of our society). And forget that, there's no universal consensus that homosexuality is a sin or "immoral." Stealing, murder, rape, etc. It's pretty well recognized those aren't okay - mostly because they infringe upon the rights of others. I know we like to think this will infringe upon our rights, but they thought the same thing about legalizing interracial marriage, too.
But, lets not forget that there are the people who the thought of a heterosexual relationship causes them to wince, the idea to them is icky, it's just not even a smidgen of who they are or what they can imagine. Being heterosexual to them is like most of us imaginging being homosexual. This is 100% who they are sexually. If we are going to demand so much sacrifice of them, we need to give them the respect they deserve in their sacrifice. We aren't.
They can't even hold hands with someone, kiss, that sort of thing. None of that. This isn't a matter of marriage to our church as it is a demand of complete celibacy.
"PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?
"ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”
And here, folks, is the kicker for me. We could do as so many have offered to make all unions "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" and leave it to the churches to bless or deny as they will as "marriages" but this statement implies the Church would fight that just as hard. This states that Proposition 8 wasn't merely a matter of definition of marriage, but the rights and all involved in marriage.
I like to think my marriage would be a marriage without those rights. I would have married Eric if we would have lost rights. It's just not a huge deal to me. But our government gives rights to married couples because marriage brings stability and security to our most fundamental unit: the family.
And, as we know, families come in various packages. A lot of children live with their grandparents. A lot live with just their mom or dad. Some live with aunts, some live with their friends' parents.
Oh noes! Are we going to have to introduce legislation to ensure the definition of "family" now, too?
This bothers me. I wish it didn't, and I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong on this, that this is just some outdated thing and we've gone beyond this, but it's still on the official site. It's packaged with all the other stuff Proposition 8 related.
Rebel Girls in a Boys Club Church
5 days ago