I'm LOVING this.

"We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of voters to define marriage in the California Constitution," said Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind the initiative. "The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected."

-State Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Mm-hmm.

I wonder if Mr. Pugno and his ilk will feel the same way in a few years when voters reject the next version of Prop 8.

For real, people, read the articles. The 9th Circuit Court conservatives consistently decry as "activist" except for when the court rules in their favor did not rule against same-sex marriage.

I repeat: It did not rule against same-sex marriage. It didn't rule for it, either, but it didn't rule against it.

It ruled that Proposition 8 was an amendment to the state constitution and as an amendment and not a revision, it does not require a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

That's it.

So I hope lawyers like Andrew P. Pugno are ready to celebrate the wonderment that is our system when a sufficient number of voters (not many, by the way) eventually see through the fear mongering and repeal Prop 8.

And when that happens, will they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court? When the Court stays the course and says "Nope, it stands" will those who oppose gay marriage then cry "liberal activist judges!"

...or will they accept the will of the people?

I think I know the answer.

Prop 8 Upheld

(warning: if you've sensitive eyes to naughty words, move on)

As of about eighteen minutes ago Prop 8 was upheld.

BUT, the 18,000 marriages performed while it was still legal are also upheld. So at least there's that. Better than nothing (I can't imagine).

I still don't understand the logic of "sex is only okay within the bonds of marriage [not "civil unions"], so because we cannot make 'sodomy' illegal anymore, we'll just make sure the gays can't get married."

Am I wrong there? At all?

The debate right now is when to time the next battle: 2010 or 2012 when they'll have the presidential election on their side (= greater turnout)

So.

Nobody is truly surprised, but many are disappointed, especially given the events of the past few months with Iowa and Connecticut and other states which have legalized gay marriage. As my husband points out, however, this decision was not about legalizing gay marriage so much as it was deeming Prop 8 constitutional as a ballot measure, if this was a matter of amending the constitution or a constitutional revision.

And the judges by a 6-1 vote said it was constitutional.

But time is only on the side of the Prop 8 opposition.

Here's a bit of a news interview I just saw:

Reporter: "We're going to turn to someone who is in support of Prop 8. George Riley. Good morning. You know we've seen you out here since six a.m., how do you feel now knowing that the judges have supported Prop 8?"

Riley: "Well I feel like justice was finally served. This is the third time that we've had the people vote and the people for the third time have said yes. We believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and whether or not people like that or not, that's what the people want. So if there was anything else besides that, I'd have to say that the judges were trying to play lawmakers from the bench."

He went on to say that he feels Prop 8 opponents have a vendetta against Christianity.

Everything is about the Christians. If Christianity isn't being persecuted, someone will ensure Christians at least feel persecuted. Newsflash: this is only about the Christian religion inasmuch as they make it about the Christian religion.

As for "activist judges": People need to read their history books more often. I'm no historian, but I learned enough in the past semester of U.S. History to know that Supreme Court judges tend to do one of two things on occasion:

(a) Judge very poorly (see the Dred Scott decision)
(b) Judge against the majority (see Interracial Marriage. Loving v. Virginia)

One of the purposes of the Constitution of the United States is to protect the minority from the majority's whims. For so long (even into the '60s I believe) the majority felt interracial marriage was wrong. The majority isn't always right.

The Supreme Court justices are not there to represent the majority. They are there to act neutral, unbiased, to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land, and sometimes it doesn't turn out as we'd like.

And that's why we have a system. There's always next time.

Again: this is not about legalizing or de-legalizing gay marriage. This is about the constitutionality of Prop 8--revision v. amendment. The Court found it was a perfectly legal amendment in need of no more than a simple 50% + 1 majority.

I respectfully disagree.

As other states have found, the right to marry is a civil right. It's in the books. Go look it up.

People don't have to agree with it. It's none of their business. But people do things all the time we don't "agree" with, but we pop our shoulders and we get over it. We understand nobody is forcing us to run out and have gay sex.

The opponents don't seem to have the same zeal regarding serial divorces. There’s no rallying against "no-fault marriages." They say (and by "they" I mean LDS leadership and membership) it's because straight marriages have the potential for celestial glory. By the way, this is also the LDS response to the point that the government once used similar rationale against polygamy--at least polygamy was between a man and, uhm, women.

That's fucked up.

The world will never be 100% LDS. And the LDS are not in charge, nor should they be. No religion should be.

Honestly I wish people would open a few books and consider different perspectives for a change. It doesn't hurt. I promise.

Marriage is a civil right. Not a basic human right like water and food and *cough* health care, but a civil right. A civil right is a right bestowed upon its people by its government (see 13th and 14th amendments)

I'll allow a minute for that to sink in.

And this is a government decision, not a religious decision. Nobody is going to force any church to marry a couple guys or a couple of girls. They don't force churches, especially the LDS church, to marry anyone--civilly or in the temple.

But apparently we can be coerced—a kind way to put it—into votes we weren’t sure we wanted to make in the first place (I know of a few people who would’ve voted differently)

Why more people don't understand this is completely beyond my comprehension.

Sunstone West Review

I'm so, so glad I went. For a few reasons.

The only problem is that I wasn't used to these people, this segment of LDS society. I didn't know I'd ever find them in one room. I'm really unsure where to begin.

The sessions my husband and I attended:

Teen Marriage Age in Mormon Polygamy and in American Culture: What was the norm?
(pssst! it wasn't 14. or 15. or even 17.)

"I would confine them to their own species," LDS Historical Rhetoric and Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks
(interesting indeed)

The Plenary Lunch Session:
Where Big Love Began: The Inception of Mormon Celestial Marriage at Nauvoo, Illinois.

Having a very full plate in my lap, a coke in my hand, and sitting next to a great friend...well, I didn't hear nearly as much of this lecture as I would've liked. What I did grasp wasn't far different from what I've already learned, but suffice it to say I really, really want to get the speaker, George Smith's book entitled "Nauvoo Polygamy...but they called it celestial marriage."

A Marginal Moses: A Case Study in Canonicity, Historicity, and Revelation by Ben Clarke.

This session discussed how Joseph Smith's "restoration" of the Bible includes some errors - logistic, syntactical and otherwise - which the Bible itself still contains as translators continue to learn how to best read the original Hebrew.

As these same mistakes or mistranslations exist in both the JST and in the quoted verses within the Book of Moses, Joseph's "restoration" raises some questions. If this is truly a restoration, a correction inspired by God, one would think these wouldn't remain.

Mr. Clarke argues these issues marginalize the Book of Moses and further suggests we shouldn't take scripture as a whole so literally. He also predicted these changes would be included in the next edition of the LDS canon.

The Myth of the Missing Book of Abraham Papryus by Christopher Smith.

Chris' paper was more difficult for me to comprehend, but I believe I have the jist of it. His thesis was that, after extensive and logisical research, the only realistic explanation LDS have regarding the Book of Abraham (remember how we thought it was lost in the Chicago fire, but it wasn't?) is the so-called "Catalyst theory" - the new explanation which states that the papryus, which had nothing to do with Abraham, instead inspired Joseph Smith to write the Book of Abraham. The evidence suggesting Joseph Smith translated anything from any papyrus is slim to none.

Developing Personal Spirituality
(This session was far too short - we were just getting into it as time ran out. Among the three panelists was Maxine Hanks of the infamous heretical September Six. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so excited to learn this, but I was. I wish she would've spoken more.)

Interesting! Imagine a place where a Mormon felt free and comfortable to say they considered themselves a "Catholic Mormon" a "Buddhist Mormon" or a "Unitarian Mormon" - or even a gnostic, as Maxine identified. People who feel free to take truth where they find it. The idea is still so foreign to me and I know it would be shot down here in two seconds flat. I'd see the bishop faster than I could blink.

Find truth somewhere else, as if it needs supplementing? Nononono, we have all the truth here. They're the ones who could use of our truth. All truth is ours, after all. /sarcasm

That was the last full session I was able to attend. I came down with a buddng migraine and I could hardly keep my eyes open. Thankfully we were able to return for the last 45 minutes or so of the closing plenary session entitled Proposition in all Things: Post Election Perspectives on 8.

I sat by George during this session and listened to the speakers. Among them was Laura Compton, spokeswoman for Mormons for Marriage and Clark Pingree, an openly gay LDS man - the only two I had the pleasure of hearing.

Laura's speech basically reiterated the spread of where most "no" and "yes" votes came from, comparing and contrasting 2000's Prop 22 and last year's Prop 8. She called for greater organization this time around - in 2010 there may be two initiatives on the ballot regarding marriage: one calling for the term "marriage" to be absolved and for all partnerships to be called "domestic partnerships" (so romantic) and the other is simply to overturn Prop 8.

The idea that my marriage could be referred to so coldly as a domestic partnership didn't sit right with me. This surprised me. If it doesn't sit right with anyone else, they should then consider what a gay couple feels when they're told they cannot have the term "marriage" either.

But anyway.

Clark Pingree's speech, though nothing I hadn't heard before, moved me. He spoke of the struggle so many gay LDS go through, the ridiculous notion that he might hurt anyone. He wondered quite reluctantly how many young LDS committed suicide last summer when the Church pulled it's "we love you but hate who you are" rhetoric and closed with the horrific rollercoaster of emotions on November 4 and 5: the elation of President Obama's election and then the sickening feeling when one realized Prop 8 won.

I leaned over and whispered to George that we all felt it, but suddenly realized as sick as I felt, he must have felt a hundred times worse. After all, this doesn't affect my marriage or potential for one. His domestic partnership from Oregon didn't even transfer to California when he and his boyfriend moved back. Ridiculous!

After this, I have a greater resolve next year to stand up and be not afraid. To write letters. Discuss with family. The new young women's value is "virtue" and I consider standing up for what one believes in to be a virtue, even if the Church doesn't think what I stand for is virtuous. The Church has no monopoly on the definition of virtue. What constitutes virtue, like anything else in this world, is subjective. There can be a common foundation, but in the end "what is right/what one believes in" is subjective. And "subjective" is hardly a bad word.

It was so good to see George. I also met Alan of Scrum Central, which was a lot of fun. I'm only sorry I didn't get to speak with him more.

It was so exciting to meet and see all of these people I've read about and discussed, to know there's a place where my ideas aren't shut down as antagonistic. I do get angry, but in the end there's a source, a reason. My anger is my own to deal with - but the substance behind that anger, which drives it is viable. It's real. And really, in the end, I'm more angry with myself and how others I love are conditioned to treat me when I don't parrot what is socially acceptable.

And it gave me so much to talk about over the next few weeks.

One last thing struck me: The prayers. The hymns. Exactly the same and yet so different. No rameumptoms (yes, I do think we've a tendency in our invocations/benedictions) and the openness of all the people there: it didn't matter who was a "nevermo" (never mormon), "exmo" or just plain "mo" - the material was what mattered. Truth was what mattered. Discussion without censorship is what mattered.

Imagine that.

Meet my friend, George

George and I, I believe, have attended the same schools (not hard in my small hometown) since middle school, but we've known each other since high school. My clearest memories of him take place our senior year when we shared a creative writing class. For the longest time I felt like I was such a horrible example to him.

Reasons:

I cursed like a sailor and knew my very sweet, unassuming teacher probably didn't appreciate it. Though a godless girl, I wanted to be nice knowing we were about to share our stories with the entire class.

"I don't know if I should keep this one line like this," I said.

"Which one?"

"It scared the shit out of me. I think I should change it to It scared me to death."

George floored me with his response. "No, keep 'shit.' It sounds better."

Another time my boyfriend, my brother, and I took him off campus during a rally. He didn't have a pass. We pretended his pass was in his backpack in the back of the car, and with the line forming behind us, the security guard let us go.

Honestly that was about as bad as I was. But for George, each of these things were uncharacteristic.

See, George was a member of the church. Born and raised. One of the nicest guys I knew. Voted "most likely to stay in town." He rarely brought up the church with my boyfriend and I. He kept to his standards but didn't preach.

George and I kept in touch after graduation. In time, I was more willing to hear about the church. He told me about the Article of Faith stating that we are not punished for Adam's transgression. I ate that up. Loooooved it. It went along with everything I'd always believed but wasn't taught.

I wasn't ready for more, though.

A few months later, I met the girl who would later introduce me to Institute and the Church. It took me about eight or nine months to decide to get baptized. I contacted George and invited him down the hill to witness it and be a part of my confirmation circle.

And of course he came. Told me afterward, "The Spirit was so strong it was almost tangible."

I still agree.

Regarding my confirmation, George had to get special permission from his bishop to be part of the circle. At the time I thought it was mere formality since he was part of a different stake. I don't know now if that's true. Maybe it was my bishop's preference. But perhaps it was something more. I'll have to ask.

While I remember most of the men who participated in my confirmation circle, George and the guy who gave me the gift of the Holy Ghost stand out the most. He (George) even gave me my very first LDS version of the Bible (for any non-member readers, it's simply a KJV Bible with LDS footnotes). I still have that Bible. It's worn and still the one I refer to in my readings and writings.

Sometime after my baptism, George began attending my Institute classes. He enjoyed telling everyone he was a Mormon boy working at a cafe. Then the day came when he showed up to class sporting blue hair and a shirt stating "You know you want me." Everyone laughed, but more out of shock. You don't see that very often, and for me this was certainly not the George I knew.

He also had a habit of trying to tell people that he couldn't go on a mission. I'm proud to say I had good friends who didn't judge him (at least to my knowledge) and didn't care to know whatever indiscretion kept him from his mission. We always stopped him before he could confess.

For reasons which could be due to anything, we lost track of one another. I emailed him to let him know of my upcoming wedding and invited him to my reception (I wasn't inviting many to my wedding b/c my family couldn't be there and it seemed callous to invite too many).

I don't know when the email finally came, but I was at Eric's mom's house checking my email when I received one from George. I'm gay, he said, and I can't believe that God doesn't want me to love and be loved. He was leaving, moving to Oregon for a new life.

In my stupidity I emailed him back and said that I regretted his decision, sympathized perhaps a little more than he realized, and that I would never ever let anything get in the way of my membership in the church and hoped he'd change his mind.

I know.

Fast forward about six or seven years and I find him on Facebook, cautious but willing to befriend me once more. He lives with his boyfriend Miles in San Francisco and is a gay rights activist. In time he learned I was more friend than foe, compassionate if nothing else. I get to see him again for the first time since our wedding reception in 2002 at the Sunstone West Symposium at the end of this month, and I very much look forward to it.

George is today a leader in Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons and has been a very active part of the push to have Prop 8 fail and now overturned. He's one of the good guys protesting at the temple. I invite you all to visit his Affirmation page. If you saw the clip above, he is the good looking guy in a suit getting yelled at by the lady. His calmness astounds many. I know I probably would've lost it, but we all know how impressive those people look like. There's power and authority in those who can keep their cool, and they all have my respect.

I'm very proud to know him, hope he knows how much I respect him and that I now don't fear and will fight harder next time for him and those like him. I also wanted to share this with you all in an effort to lighten things up a bit around here. Hope you like.


Other links: Facebook Affirmation page

USA Today: Meeting of gay Mormons delayed indefinitely

SeaQua.com LDS Church blasts Affirmation for taking its message public

The Problem With Silence

First, I want to state my love and admiration for President Hinckley. Please take this in the spirit it is mentioned and intended. This is not a personal attack on him but the ideals he speaks of. It is through an interview he had with Larry King from which I base today’s post.

“Larry King: Are people ever thrown out of your church?

“Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

“Larry King: For?

“Gordon B. Hinckley: Doing what they shouldn’t do, preaching false doctrine, speaking out publicly. They can carry all the opinion they wish within their heads, so to speak, but if they begin to try to persuade others, then they may be called in to a disciplinary council. We don’t excommunicate many, but we do some. ” (emphasis added)

I’ve struggled with my faith for about four or five years now. It wasn’t until Prop 8 and this idea of keeping silent came to my attention when I felt compelled to express myself publicly. For the first time I found I did not agree with the church’s stance.

I remained quiet at first, keeping my opinions between my husband and myself, but to help me make the right decision I needed to talk about it. Under the weight of my dissenting opinion, I finally conversed with some online friends and later the few who read my new blog. Then I dared let some family know through either my writing or during conversation. While my husband warned me of the reactions likely to come, I was never prepared.

People online told me to rip up my recommend. One friend, someone who introduced me to the church and whom I’ve known for nearly a decade told me she no longer wished to read about what I thought, that she hoped I’d come to terms with my issues – but I wasn’t to talk about them. She’d have no part of that.

To say her response shocked me would be inadequate. It broke my heart: You feel I’m having issues and the best you can do is ignore it and tell me we can keep our conversation to husbands and children? (yes she said that)

Seriously?

My ex-roommate told me when the prophet speaks we don’t need to pray. Not if we sustain him as Prophet.

Another close friend of mine looked at me like I’d suddenly grown another head or perhaps a few horns atop the one I already have. My husband said his father regarded him in the same manner. They couldn’t or didn’t want to believe that we could have received a different answer than the prophets.

My friends and family who know avoid the topic now. It’s as if they hope my doubts will somehow magically disappear. Pretend they don’t exist. Ignore them and they will go away. She’s sneezing, you might catch cold.

These reactions only made my questions harder to ignore, all the more determined to be answered. I never looked to “go against the church.” I didn’t want to disagree with the prophet, I never had, but how do I deny that peace in my heart, even when it does go against the church? I know from experience you can ignore it, but it always comes back. Always.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it’s never okay to criticize our leaders - even when the criticism is justified. I get the reasoning behind this. It’s not good to spend all your time criticizing anyone. You need to focus on the good, count your blessings, that sort of thing. But where do people go when they have doubts and questions, when they can’t reconcile certain things? Bishops and stake presidents, General Conference talks and Ensign articles would have us pour ourselves into the scriptures, in prayer, to get a blessing. To “have faith.” A former bishop responded to my tearful admission of a crumbling testimony by telling me to watch BYU-TV.

It seems to me that we as a church do not enjoy speaking of such things. In my experience we don’t talk about it and I have to ask: does this kind of willful ignorance help? Hardly.

Doubts and questions do not silence themselves. Scriptures and prayer don’t always give me peace I need, no matter how long or hard I try with the best of intentions. This is deeper than that. People seem to think it’s easy to question. I assure you it is petrifying.

We like to find rational explanations for our commandments. “We are told to tithe because it is a matter of sacrifice to the Lord, to help us pay for our temples and buildings. Look how it kept our church out of debt!” While a matter of faith, we are also driven by reason. Fair enough?

So what of times when I can find no rationale? You might say this is a time for blind faith – and I might agree, except I received answer contrary the First Presidency’s letter. Would you say I must heed the answers to my prayers, or would you insinuate the prophet had said my prayers for me too? Some may suggest pride, a hard heart, etc. no matter what I say. I think these reactions are made from fear as we’ve been told it cannot happen, that our answers will always reflect that of the Church and if they don’t, then we’re wrong.

I understand this sort of reaction if a person went out and told people the church was fundamentally and wholly false – but this isn’t about that. I don’t think a genuine search for truth, even unseemly truth, is a good basis from which to ex someone or even six someones such as with the September Six.

The idea that one could inadvertently learn things that don’t add up, discuss them, and then be told to stop, just stop or I’ll call you to the disciplinary council raises about a million red flags in my heart. It’s potentially faith shattering, worse than any embarrassing fact I could ever discover. And I wish it wasn’t.

We talk about the power in strong, unyielding testimonies, but I ask what is a testimony if it isn’t challenged? Will silencing otherwise faithful dissenters really do the church good? I know we fear modern day Korihors, but I don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with good, well-intentioned people who disagree in some instances, and discussion should not only be allowed but encouraged. If our souls find strength in opposition, then so should our testimonies. If the Church is true it will withstand the storms. Truth always prevails.

I would like to be able to discuss my doubts without fear of excommunication. Yes we get enough negative advertising, but for us to pretend the problems don’t exist or are all unfounded is foolish at best. It will come back to bite us, either on an individual or general level. I’m confident about that.



Also posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Wading Through Cultural Waters

What is the difference between culture, tradition and doctrine? A simple enough question with a seemingly simple enough answer - seemingly.

For me, it's to a point where I can't even be certain where one ends and the other begins.

I've found comfort in the past in the thought that with our general authorities, the line is rather clear. I prefer to think and hope it's the members who make it a game of sorts to interpret as they will, to create boundaries where there were none before, to make requirements of things and complicate ideas to the point of no return.

Perhaps this is why we're so stuck on the basics so much. Prayer, scriptures: we all know the Primary answers. It's a way of keeping to the simplicity of the Gospel, right?

I'll tell you what, though: if allowed, I'd totally ban those answers from anything outside Primary. They've become empty and meaningless. Dare I say they hold the same power as the oft repeated "I know this Church is true." Where's the meat behind that? I can pray and have it mean nothing. Nothing. I can be a robot and say and do all the things I'm supposed to - but I won't. Not anymore.

*cough*

We need to get back to the real basics. Love the Lord thy God. Love thy neighbor as thyself. The Sermon on the Mount.

Seriously.

I love context and digging deep just as much as the next person, but c'mon.

Is it really all or nothing? There is an understandable perception that that's how the Church works. It says jump, you say how high. It says donate as much of your means and time as you are able in support of an issue you cannot stand, and you shove everything aside - everything, no matter what - and do what your leaders ask. No prayer needed when the Prophet speaks.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way!

Well, he hasn't necessarily had the clearest of eyes and deepest of perceptions in the past with some issues. The prophet is still a man with his own prejudices, traditions, and ideas that could influence revelation.

It influences ours sometimes, doesn't it? Isn't it sometimes difficult to know the difference between our enthusiasm and the Spirit? Or our own stubbornness for stupor of thought?

One person told me I shouldn't pray for my own answer because the Prophet gave it for me. Those weren't her words verbatim, but that was the message. The Prophet said, so we do. We can trust him.

"The Prophet will never lead us astray."

I'm sorry, but I can't help but think those are some of the most dangerous words uttered in recent times.

Even the Prophet would tell us, I would hope, that we can receive different answers than he'll get. The more cynical say the Church allowed in-house dissenting opinions regarding Prop 8 because they had to in order to diffuse any assertion that our votes were being effectively forced.

I hope that's not the case.

When the Saints followed Brigham Young West, Emma Smith chose to stay behind. Brigham and Emma didn't get along, to say the least - and many Saints criticize her for staying.

Do you?

I don't. I don't know her or her heart nearly well enough.

But is this idea of being one with the church so much that it trumps any personal revelation you may get doctrine or culture?

Million dollar question of the day.

Give 'em Donuts

I've considered, like many other blogs have, of self-imposing a Prop 8 moratorium on my blog, but I know myself better than that. I was hoping it would all "fly away" once November 5th hit, but we've seen how that worked. I imagine even if it failed, I'd still be ranting about stupidities within my own culture.

Like this one: The Church didn't donate 40% of the funds toward Proposition 8. Its members did.

Oh if this weren't as stupid as it initially doesn't sound.

I love this. We're quick most other times to refer to the general membership as "The Church" but the minute we start getting backlashes from our own actions, we break it down until it's no longer The Church, but just its members acting innocently of their own accord - as if The Church had nothing to do with it.

I ask you: How many members do you think would have donated without the call for donations? Not nearly as many.

It was a loophole. The Church, The Church could not have donated more than the $2,000 and change it did without explicitly threatening its tax-exemption. So they asked the members to. And it wasn't enough to pass out donation papers in Priesthood or Relief Society, no. They left papers out in the foyer too. Sometimes people were called into Bishop's or Stake President's offices to donate.

So shut up about that. I'm so sick of us trying to toss the blame off The Church. The Church asked us to donate not just our time, but our "means" (read: money). The Church called on our consciences about following the Prophet. Sometimes every Sunday.

And that, everyone, is what "they" are pissed off about. That is why they are outside our temples and our stake centers and ward buildings. We have an influence unmatched when called by our Prophet, and people know that.

I think it might be nice to offer protesters some donuts or something - and no, I'm not being facetious. If I lived in an area where protesters abounded (and hell, I'm tempted to take a trip to Oakland just to do this), I'd give 'em coffee too.

A show of respect. Let's show some effing respect. It might just go a long way. All this bickering is beyond childish, and it shames me.

Enough with the "well, we only make up 2% of the vote. It's the Hispanics and the African-Americans who did this to you."

SHUT UP.

Suddenly we're so quick to shift blame, to point fingers. Are you insinuating the protesters (uncivil with their civil) should go bug the crap out of other people? I assure you they are. We're just so intent on being persecuted for our beliefs - I do think part of us longs for the persecution of the earlier Saints - that we're going to cry if the wind shifts. I think we like the PR; really, the PR department must be beside themselves with all the attention. We like having other Churches see that we stand up for "family" (I still don't get this). We like being in the spotlight. As much as it sucks, we know that in the Christian world, persecution is like God patting us on the head. In the Christian world, those who are most persecuted are believed to be the most right (and righteous). And we've been whining an awful lot lately about our persecutions, making sure everyone knows. Poor us.

Get over it. Wave to these people. Give 'em a donut. The more angry of them might throw it away, but most of them, I promise you, just want us to respect them. Treat them the same way you'd like to be treated. They're not that scary.

If you truly believe in what you did, this should not be a problem.

Kevin Hamilton's Post Prop-8 Letter

Many of you undoubtedly have seen this letter from Kevin Hamilton in light of Proposition 8 passing. Our church has sent out a statement basically saying "Hey, we were just exercising our right to vote and voice our opinions. What's your problem?"

Well.

Here's the letter and my responses to each point:

In the aftermath of the recent election, we may find ourselves oddly on the defensive regarding our support for the Yes on Proposition 8 cause. Our young people have been especially subject to mean spirited comments by high school friends and teachers. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We did nothing wrong. In fact, we did everything that a civic minded American can and should do. I have put together a few facts that help me to appreciate our position better. For example:

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

And yet the members of our church donated nearly half the money to the cause.

People aren’t angry at us because we make up the majority of the people in California who voted yes – they’re angry because we bankrolled it. Money talks in politics, as we all know. You could say that without the LDS so greatly invested, this proposition would have lost.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

Actually the Church did, well within their legal limits (something like a little over $2000), but they did donate.

Encouraged? When the Prophet says jump, we ask how high. That's how it is. We follow the prophet or risk being unworthy of many, many blessings like going to the temple. Yes, some people understand the principle of praying to know for yourself, but most consider this a matter of belief vs. non belief.

Encouraged? Some people were called into their leader's offices and were asked specifically if they would be willing to give more.

Flyers were placed in the foyers of ward buildings. Sign up sheets were passed around. Announcements and discussions took up the majority of some class times. Donations were “encouraged” over the pulpit. Some people were strongly encouraged – bishops and leaders alike. I’m glad I wasn’t a leader. Makes me wonder if I would’ve been released from my calling.

That makes some wonder about the tax-exemption thing. I don't think it'll happen. I think the Church flirted with the line, but nothing will happen.

4. 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.

And?

5. 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.

And yet…not. I’ve got all sorts of evidence to the contrary. If they weren’t outright lies, they were half-truths meant to deceive and scare people. If you know law, you know loopholes, and that nothing is cut and dry. Context is everything. Look it up.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

Not as many of our "friends and neighbors" voted as they did back in 2000. About nine percent less. That's a lot of people.

And uh, LA County was 50/50. 16,000 votes separated Yes from No. In a county of millions, that doesn’t hold much clout.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

What does this mean? “It’s not our fault it passed! Go after the blacks! Go after the Hispanics! The Catholics! Just not us, we don’t deserve it!”

You voted for it. You called people, knocked on doors, gave up your life savings in some instances for it. So stand up for it. Be not ashamed. You expressed your right to an opinion, to a vote, to get others to vote - these people are expressing their right to be pissed off. As long as they're peaceful, who cares. And they do want to be peaceful about it - you just always have your idiots on either side.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

See response to 7

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

See response to 7.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

And yet I’ve been chastised for going against the prophet, testimonies have been called into question, various idiots on some discussion boards have declared we should rip up our temple recommends, family and friends can’t really look me in the eye anymore, etc.

I don’t want to be told how to vote, what to think, what to do or I’ll be ex’d, lose my calling, etc. I don’t appreciate those regarding the proponents of 8 as the “moral majority.” I don’t like the Church calling those gay couples who want to marry “selfish.”

11. The Church did not violate the principal [sic] of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

Like Prohibition?

What about other causes of a moral nature?

You know what else grates me? A story on The View yesterday recounted about a boy with some problems who nobody wanted to adopt. Finally, a couple who specialized in working with kids like him stepped forward and put in papers to adopt him. His reaction? "Somebody wants me!"

It was a gay couple. You're going to tell me this is immoral and wrong? Tell that little boy that.

And can we quit implying that separation of church and state doesn't exist? No, the phrase verbatim doesn't exist in the Constitution, but the idea is absolutely there. We don't live in a theocracy, and I'd prefer to not live in one right now thankyouverymuch.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

They spoke out on an issue that concerned them? I know of a handful of people who wouldn’t have voted yes, donated, made phone calls, etc. if the Church hadn’t made an official plea for its members to do all it could to allow it to pass. Pretty sure there are many more.

And we’ve been just as awful to the No on 8 people, calling them selfish and abhorrent to God and that giving them the ability to marry would bring down society and the world as we know it. Yeah. They really should just have thicker skin than that.

Neither side was right in calling names. Don’t for a second think it was just the No side. We got in the mud, we got dirty, deal with it.

Hold your heads up high – you did a great job on this most important cause. We will have more opportunities in the future to participate in our democratic process. Let's remember the lessons learned and do an even better job next time.

These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in no way reflect official Church policy or doctrine.

Thanks,
Kevin Hamilton

Thanks, Kev.

Share on Facebook

Titles...don't matter?

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.

Just interesting.

Well, as long as *we* think so

I went to Church yesterday. Let's just say my tongue really hurts.

To review: to many of my fellow church members, by voting no (or even considering voting no), I am defying the Prophet and, by extension, God Himself. This is me being prideful and thinking I know more than God.

I've felt the barbs and guilt of those insinuations if not downright accusations.

There was much talk yesterday about the moral majority and hoping it comes out to vote (Heaven help us if they do! We'll have a President McCain - which I still don't understand the connection between moral and conservative, but I do intend to blog on that). They talk about how we'll be blessed for our obedience (even if the Prop fails), how sometimes we're asked to do hard things and endure persecution for Christ.

One woman brought up the online database of contributors (which points out who is LDS among them) to the Yes on 8 campaign and went on to describe how she felt this issue would be our Missouri. She seemed to believe we were on the threshold of modern day mobbings and tarring and feathering. She believed the people are again fearing a political Mormon uprising and are thus readying to drive us all from the state. Mitt certainly isn't on the ballot this year, after all.

I think we flatter ourselves.

Yes, there are protesters standing in front of temples - Oakland, CA specifically, but from what I can tell, it hasn't been violent. We act like this is new, but members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be used to this by now. If you've been to General Conference in Salt Lake City you'll know the signs well. If you've been to a new temple during open house or in its first weeks of operation, you'll know these signs well.

Yes, some of the signs are unnecessary and offensive, but let's suck it up and try to understand where the Prop 8 protesters are coming from. I'd be really, really, really hurt and angry, too. You would. You'd feel like next to nothing, like you didn't matter. You'd feel like no one cared about your feelings, just about keeping you and those like you from screwing up society.

But lest we forget, too many heterosexual marriages are hardly sacred. Let's strengthen those marriages and families and leave good people alone.

Let's promote good things. Marriage is good. Marriage, even heretical gay marriage, strengthens families.

But...isn't a domestic partnership enough? They're not, by present definition, getting "married," after all. And really, we have no problem with homosexual couples having rights. Isn't that a good enough compromise?

I used to say that, too - until I realized how condescending it is. Is it really up to us to say "yeah, you can have rights"?

How nice of us to think so!

If you think you wouldn't be irritated and hurt by all of this too, you're kidding yourself.

You Call Yourselves What?!

Disclaimer: This is directed at only a select group of people. I am not speaking to all who are for this proposition.

Those attacking those of my faith (and other faiths) for standing up for their beliefs shocks me - not because it is surprising, but because it's uncalled for. It's un-American. I would never condone such things.

But it's happening within our church as well.

Too many times I've read of homosexual or Anti-8 LDS people who are afraid or just don't want to attend church anymore. Many are considering their membership.

Some, knowing how this proposition has divided many of our wards and stakes, have concluded that this call from the Prophet also serves to separate the wheat from the tares, to prune the tree, so to speak.

How dare you!

There are many within our branches, stakes, and wards who suffer silently as they listen each week to entire lessons devoted entirely to promoting this proposition. Others, frankly, are afraid to openly express their opposition with the Church's involvement, that they're against Prop 8. For them, silence is the extent of their support as a member.

We say we aren't against gay people, just them getting married.

Forgive the explitive, but that's bullshit.

It's easy for you to deadpan the expression, that you "love the sinner but hate the sin," because you're probably straight. You've no idea how personally this effort hits home for some. There are far too many LDS members (and Christians in general) who seem to have selective hearing when it comes to the First Presidency's call for us to be loving to these members we are indirectly or directly attacking. Their call did not end at "do what you can to support this measure." We are to be loving, too.

I haven't heard much love, though. Some of what I've heard is atrocious.

If we can't reign in our own members and local leaders, those who pride themselves in their obedience to following the Prophet, then I say we shouldn't even be involved. Shame on those of you who speak insensitively and yet call yourself humble sheep. You're nothing but wolves.

You're not following the Prophet. You're hiding behind his call, foaming at the mouth for spiritual justification to your homophobia. There is no reason for some of the things occuring within our membership - the seemingly benign chats in the foyer between meetings, at friends' houses, at home, etc. There have been reports of ward leaders calling for a public display of support within church meetings. Are you kidding me?

We fool ourselves into thinking that every LDS member must be Pro-8, but they are not.

These are the same who call themselves martyrs for the Prophet's call. Maybe some of you are, but you had to know such involvement in a heated political battle was entering the lion's den. I think many of you find some sort of glory in the persecution you feel.

I don't care about your persecution.

In a related note, on October 21, 2008, Yes on 8 parents instituted a state wide "sick out" after discovering the California Teacher's Association donated $1 million to the No on 8 cause.

A sick out? Seriously?

I wonder how the conversations went at home. I can hope most of these conversations were done in love, but it sickens me because I'm not sure even that works.

"We're keeping you home because the schools want gay marriage, and that's against God's will. We have to make sure they don't go against God and destroy marriage as He has instituted it."

You have no idea how that easily that can translate into "God hates gay people."

I'll venture to say most children won't understand. They just hear how gay people are going against God, how selfish they are (seriously), how a same-sex marriage would somehow destroy traditional marriage, etc.

What would you gather from that?

Gay people are not antithetical to God. They are God's sons and daughters. He made them. He loves them. You ought to respect them and tip toe around them when speaking of something of such a sensitive nature. You have no idea what they are dealing with, especially those within the coalition of churches speaking out so strongly against gay marriage.

You have no place. None.

I only hope no one is creating or feeding any homophobic monsters and we don't have more Matthew Shepard's in our future.

These are your brothers' and sisters'. They deserve your respect. They deserve more love and deference than they are given.

We are probably more ignorant to the gay LDS population than we know - you know why? They're scared to death, especially now, of your judgments and ill-placed zeal.

Even if a homosexual Mormon agrees that acting upon their desires is sinful, they feel this proposition more acutely than we know.

I beg of all my readers to read this blog entry from Soy Made Me Gay. Clint is an active, celibate, gay LDS man. Please read The Last Thing You'll See Me Write About Prop 8 for his views.

I ask you to then please read the following article, Prop 8 Divides the Mormon Faithful before you comment. Here's an excerpt:

The thought of going to church in her southern California LDS ward makes Carol Oldham cry. She can't face one more sermon against same-sex marriage. She can't tolerate the glares at the rainbow pin on her lapel. Oldham, a lifelong Mormon, is troubled by her church's zeal in supporting a California ballot initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. She feels the church is bringing politics into her sanctuary. "It has tainted everything for me," Oldham said, choking up during a telephone interview. "I am afraid to go here and hear people say mean things about gay people. I am in mourning. I don't know how long I can last."

For Mormons, California's Prop 8 battle turns personal describes the underhandedness of some within of No on 8, none of which I condone - but it also determines that even the Yes side isn't without fault.

I challenge any straight person reading to seriously consider a celibate life. That means no dating, no kissing, no holding hands. Nothing.

After you really consider that, come tell me and our gay brothers and sisters they're too sensitive and/or overreacting, that they should just suck it up and "have faith."

I am not asking for your blessing of a "gay lifestyle," just some freaking compassion.

Please.

Just going to say it:

Even though I really don't need to and no one is asking me to, and I flatter myself in thinking anyone cares, I'm going to say it. For far too long I've hidden behind some self-censored curtain of anonymity on this issue for fear of those I love and respect reprimanding me, and I don't care to anymore. I am grateful for this blog and for the Internet - the wealth of information is absolutely priceless. I cannot begin to express the much needed spiritual strength I've found here.

The Church, as far as I know, has not raised their hand to the square on this issue. From my own research, meditation, and introspection, I can only say that the Church is simply using its influence to state their uncategorical stance on traditional marriage - that to not say anything on an issue so central to its teachings would be, in essence, a sanction of gay marriage.

This is not President Monson telling us that the Lord has told us to vote yes. This is President Monson and the other leaders reminding us of the importance of the traditional family not just in this world, but more especially in the world to come.

The Church wants its message to go forth and be known. Fine. I can totally respect that.

But for me, while I do not know where I stand on a religious standpoint with this issue, I do know where I stand on a political standpoint.

And before anyone says anything, yes I do understand the spiritual and even celestial logistics behind a heterosexual coupling. I don't want to get into this now.

I'm a member of some discussions on Facebook regarding this issue, and it's only helped. While some have expressed very calmly and respectfully their reasonings behind their voting intentions, those who have expressed their staunch, unyielding, and at times perhaps unrighteous judgements upon those of us who struggle to agree with the church on this political issue have only steered me further into the "no" category. They are not my sole reason for voting no, but I kid you not: the hate and otherwise un Christlike feelings exist on both sides of this fence.

One person said "Well then let's start discussion groups such as Mormons For Premarital sex, Mormons for Drinking, Mormons for Smoking, etc"

It's a load! We cannot legislate only Christian values here, and we certainly would not even dare to narrow the field to legislate Mormon principles into national law. It just would not happen. I wouldn't want it to. We cannot force our beliefs onto people. That's not very American, and it goes against the Eleventh Article of Faith. Let people worship how, where or what they may.

And how can we even fathom to argue for "preserving marriage" when, even in the Celestial sense, the Church still teaches polygamy? Top leaders once practiced it to a large scale. There are countless people who would argue that is antithetical to preserving marriage and the family. We cannot claim divine inspiration here and leave it at that as if it ends all conversation. There is reason for everyone to believe that polygamy is hardly traditional and would negatively impact the children (not to mention the women) involved.

To this I'd also like to add that I believe it's inherently wrong to make something deemed unconstitutional, constitutional. That is more frightening to me than ensuring homosexual couples can marry.

We have nothing - repeat: nothing - to stand upon here politically. The Church and the State are and should be separate entities. While I respect and understand others dissenting opinions and votes, I couldn't in good conscience vote yes, so I'm voting no on 8.

Poor horse.

Page 117-118 of the official text in regards to the May 15, 2008 California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage (emphasis added):

“Further, permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not alter the substantive nature of the legal institution of marriage; same-sex couples who choose to enter into the relationship with that designation will be subject to the same duties and obligations to each other, to their children, and to third parties that the law currently imposes upon opposite-sex couples who marry. Finally, affording 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 (Cal. Const., art I, sec. 4)

“While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples – while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples – likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term “marriage” is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship…”

Agree with that last part or not – I am positive some of you will not – the fact is that the Court found that it was unconstitutional to restrict the definition of “marriage” to a man and a woman.

Consider that a moment. There have been other times in the past where the people “spoke” and the Courts found the people’s voice unconstitutional.

Interracial marriage.

Slavery.

Among others, I’m sure.

You may say, as one reader has, that non-members may look at this blog and wonder “what the hell is she doing in that church if she doesn’t agree with them, anyway?” But I don’t think that will happen so much.

You see, those in other churches don’t always agree with their church’s stance on political issues. And it’s okay. Really, it’s generally okay in our church as well. Right now it is not, though, and that bothers me. I think I am allowed to disagree, but I am still expected to do as told.

But it's not as if the Prophet is suddenly saying "Gay marriage is good! God wants us to solemnize gay marriage. He wants us all to become gay!"

Nooooooo. I tend to think, right now, that's it's more the Church taking a strong stand on the issue, saying "We refuse to go the way of the world, the way of so many other churches. Our doctrine is consistent and will not waver on this issue - gay marriage goes against God's central plan and the family." Just like so many other things the Church stands against.

I worry that so many members aren't considering what exactly it is they’re saying in defense of their beliefs and/or actions.

For some of us, we’re being asked to do something we’ve never been asked to do before. Up until now, I’ve been told to vote according to my conscience and my personal prayers. Now those two things don’t matter? My prayers have been said for me? What?

I joined the church in the year 2000. I was 19 years old by the time November came around. It was my first year voting, and I remember most of the flurry surrounding Prop 22 (the proposition that has brought us to 8). I don’t remember quite this much activity surrounding the church other than it supported a “yes” vote. It didn't matter, though. I felt gay marriage was wrong and voted yes.

When Proposition 8 began hitting the airwaves, I was just as angry as the rest of you were. “The liberal California Courts are at it again, overruling the voice of 61% of the people! How dare they!”

Then I was told that wasn’t exactly what was going on.

That’s when I realized the argument “Those in ‘Domestic Partnerships’ are afforded the same rights as those in marriages” was wrong. They are not afforded all of the same rights. Some aren’t even able to get health insurance if one of them works for the feds.

That’s when I began to sit in Sunday School listening to my teachers and leaders read off of a list of reasons why same-sex marriage was just plain wrong…and my instincts kicked in for the first time in years and I realized every single one of those arguments was wrong in some way.

I went home and did my research, and sure enough I was right. I didn’t take that debate and those critical thinking classes for nothing, apparently.

I started wondering why those in the Church would perpetuate deceptive statements in order to further a cause, why it was allowed to happen.

I wanted to scream every Sunday.

It’s one thing to tell the congregants “I know some of you may not understand why, but the Prophet feels strongly, has received direction from God, that it is within our best interests to vote ‘yes’ on Proposition 8” and then leave it at that.

But that’s not what’s been happening. “Vote yes on 8 not just because the Prophet said so, but because gay couples are selfish and can’t procreate and the family unit as we know it will crumble around us. There are also these other reasons (that hold no merit).”

That bothers me and brings me pause.

We’re being told to make something deemed unconstitutional, constitutional.

I’m not saying the Courts are always right and we’re always wrong, but we need to listen when they speak and stop learning to brush them off because they’re known to be a – gasp – liberal court. Liberal views do not always equate sinful views. As a general people, we’ve been wrong before and the Courts have been right. Just because we’re uncomfortable with something doesn’t mean it’s wrong and we’re right.

That said: I may be wrong on this.

I’m just tired of people using irrationality to back up their feelings on the matter. It really doesn’t cast a good hue on us.

I know personally some people who are not comfortable with a “yes” vote, but they’re voting yes because the Prophet asked them to.

Cool.

I just know too many other people who are allowing this to mask their homophobia, and that’s wrong.

I know too many people who think this will be the beginning of a slew of reverse-hate-crimes against those who are against gay marriage. This is not the gateway to that, though. It could happen now. It would be happening now. It’s not.

If the Church is true, it is true. It will always be true, gay marriage or not. Nobody is forcing us to condone it, and by taking an official “yes” stance, the Church is in fact saying they will not condone it – and I’m okay with that.

As much as I like a good debate, I’m beginning to see the impracticality of this particular one. No matter who we are or where we stand, we can always find someone to agree with us. I appreciate support immensely and find great comfort in it, but in the end I have to be confident in my decisions alone.

I will not vote or believe something because of peer pressure. I will do because I feel it is right, not because other people are questioning my membership or my testimony. That really isn’t within my fellow members’ realm of authority anyway.

I’ve been called upon a few times to “say something good about the Church,” but I didn’t start this blog to cater to other people. I started this blog to express views I haven’t been able to, and the less I am able to speak and write about something, the weaker and more frustrated I become.

I have to be careful to not do things simply because others want me to. I respect my friends and those with good intentions very much, but I’ve spent my whole life working to please the masses. I want to be true to myself here and say what I hope others are thinking but are afraid to say.

Questioning should be okay. I would like to think even the Church leaders would agree with that. Ten years ago that’s exactly what I was told. I was told to study the matter out and then pray. Why is that suddenly not the thing to do?

Ideally, if I’m going to vote yes on this, it will be because the Prophet asked me to. It will also be because I’ve done the research myself and have not allowed myself to believe deceptive arguments. It will be because I feel it is right. Because I've studied the matter out.

But honestly, it will also be because I'm at least a little afraid to "go against the Church."

Explain the merit in that.


On a final unrelated note: General Colin Powell has endorsed Obama! Yay!

To all the lovely sign snatchers

You're idiots.

You know, this is one thing I don't get. It's childish and lame. It only says that you've no other recourse, that you're so desperate, that you'll trespass and steal signs.

It also says, in the case of Proposition 8, you're just as prejudiced as you claim the "yes" crowd is. It says you're scared. It says you have the same lack of respect as you claim you or your friends are victim of.

Just like you have your right to freedom of speech, so do those who don't agree with you. It's one of the lovely things about living where we do.

I have every faith that what is supposed to happen, will happen. What you think should happen may not, but truth always prevails in the end. Sometimes it takes time, sometimes it doesn't, but truth always prevails.

Trust in that. Be the bigger person. Let's not resort to name calling, sign snatching, etc. It says more about us than it does about them.

As for the question as to how I think this will affect churches should Proposition 8 fail, I imagine graffiti and other hate crimes would be happening now. It's no secret that many Christian churches are very much against this proposition. What's stopping the backlash now?

It's just sign stealing, and I don't mean to say that as if to brush it aside. What I am saying is that the law is on the side of the anti-8 crowd, and if they wanted to do something worse they would now.

As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened yet. We're allowed to believe as we will. We're allowed to disagree. If someone feels the need to violently attack anyone who is against gay marriage, the law will undoubtedly be on the side of the attacked.

There will always be those who feel they have to resort to baser methods to prove a point.

On an ironic note, I just noticed two of our pumpkins were stolen overnight. Mmph.

Anyway, listen: the Church's stance on gay marriage is no secret. It's only expected that they would feel the need to take an official stance on this proposition. Everyone wants to think they'll be a victim of their beliefs. Let's not forget, though, that signs are stolen in every election.

Did anything happen after Proposition 22 passed back in 2000? For those unfamiliar with California politics, Proposition 22 called for the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and overturned it this past May 15th. Proposition 8 calls for an amendment to make Proposition 22 constitutional.

Seriously though - did anything happen? I don't remember anything earth shattering happening. This kind of thing, the sign snatching, happens every election year.

I mean, somebody felt it necessary to remove half of our Obama '08 sticker on one of our cars in the last few months. Classy, right?

I actually laughed. We live in one of, if not the, most conservative county in the state. As far as I can tell, we're the only ones with an Obama anything.

It's no more personal than it has been in the past. I'd be rather surprised - and dismayed, don't get me wrong - if these kinds of actions continued and escalated after November 4th.

I really think we're all better than that.

Debunking Gay Marriage Myths

The amount of false claims and fear mongering absolutely astounds me. People continue to buy into it. Organizations continue to perpetuate myths and half truths. Smart people continue to eat it all up without stopping to see what it is, and it’s driving me to the crazy house.

Aren't we smarter than this?

Something doesn’t smell right when proponents of anything, anything, have to qualify purported truth with fragile arguments.

I know I've brought out the horse again, but I said I probably would up to November 4th. This topic deserves serious, intelligent conversation. In fact, I'm starving to death for it. Proponents of this proposition are making points that are misleading and are half-truths at best. While I discussed some of them in my article, California's Proposition 8, I want to discuss more here, arguments I continue to see people push.

I hate to see smart people allow others to pull the wool over their eyes. It happens to us all. I know it happens to me. This is on such a massive scale, though, I have to say something.

I hope at least one person who is Pro-8 listens. I'm not asking for a "no" vote, just serious thought and perhaps a commitment to stop regurgitating crap arguments. Trust me, I've heard them all.

If you think I'm wrong, I only ask you to read this entry in its entirety, then prove me wrong. Please.

And I mean that not as a challenge, but as a plea. I want to understand. Give me something of substance to chew on.

Argument 1:

If Proposition 8 fails, it will threaten our (the LDS or other churches) faith.

False!

One of the assertions that fall under this category is that all church buildings will be forced to allow same-sex marriage to occur within their buildings.

First of all: That doesn't happen now. A church, a pastor, a bishop, priest, etc, can and have turned down couples before. The Catholic Church does it all the time (they won't recognize some marriages - and some divorces, for that matter). Other mainstream churches are the same way. Some pastors won't marry a couple if they don't agree to marriage counseling beforehand.

Secondly, for the LDS out there worried the government might force or people may sue to allow gay couples to marry in the temple - people can sue all they want. They will not win. As it is now, the Church discriminates in its own way who can enter and marry in the temple. It is not a public building. Have we forgotten that there are non-member couples who cannot marry in the church? Straight LDS couples who are not allowed to marry in the temple?

If anything, some courts may hold that, when money is exchanged, there should be no discrimination, so this may prove to be a problem for those churches who charge for wedding services. It won't be a problem for churches with a lay clergy and that do not rely on income from weddings.

It just will not happen.

There is no language in this amendment that states the Christian churches across California will be forced to change doctrine. We are a free nation, free to believe as we will. The Pilgrims came from England because they wanted to worship how they wanted to, and they wanted others to worship the way they wanted to. No one is going to challenge this.

This is not an anti-church proposition.

Argument 2:

In Boston, MA (where gay marriages are now legal) the Catholic Charities have closed their doors because the state has required them to allow adoptions to same sex couples, and they refused. They are a large and worthwhile charity with great power in the state and they were overruled.

Ahhh, this argument. It holds a lot of weight for the Pro-8 crowd - but it there is much more to the story here.We do not belong to a Theocracy, and the State is not the Church, or vice-versa. It is not the state's place to say what beliefs are right or wrong. The State is there to protect the people and their rights.

A Little Background

Massachusetts state law requires all adoption agencies to sign a contract with the Department of Social Services. This contract includes a anti-discrimination clause, a clause not present in every state law. Texas, for example, does not prohibit an adoption agency from referring same-sex couples to other agencies like Massachusetts and California might.

To avoid a lengthier entry than is necessary, I'll redirect you to the Boston Globe site and The Archdiocese of Boston website regarding the issue. I hope you'll read.

For proponents of the separation of church and state doctrine, the line seems blurred here - but as the church was running a state funded agency and had signed a contract with the state, they had to abide by state law.

So yes, this could happen - but it already is happening in California, even before the courts deemed gay marriage legal and constitutional. "Committed" gay couples are and have been adopting. Single parents adopt.

This is not a marriage issue.

Argument 3:

Failure to pass Proposition 8 will hurt children. If gay marriage remains legal, public schools will put it on equal footing with traditional marriage. Children will likely receive “age appropriate” information about sexual relations within heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

How did you find out how gay people "do it"? Friends? Family? Should we really not tell our children? Is ignorance truly bliss?

Sex education is not marriage education. It's sex education. If you don't want the schools teaching your kids about gay people doing it, then all you have to do is sign or not sign (whatever it may be) that paper that allows you, as the parent, to exempt your child. Period. If someone overrules you, then you can and should raise a fuss.

Listen, you are the parents. You are the church. The world teaches as it will, the Church and family teaches as it will. When the child comes home, you can say whatever you want to that child. I would hope you would be loving about it rather than hateful, but you can say something like "That is what some people believe, but this is why we don't."

That easy.

Argument 4, Part 1:

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children--

So adopt. Infertile couples do. Some fertile couples do because they believe its best to help the children who don't have a family to have a family rather than create their own.

And, beyond that, many gay couples want to raise children too. It's why they seek to adopt. These people are not anymore a selfish people than heterosexuals are, and they are more than willing to sacrifice their time and means for the nurturing and rearing of children.

Gay people are just people who happen to be attracted to those of the same sex. Other than that, they're just like you and me (if you're straight, that is, haha).

Part 2:

--Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment--

Marriage for a homosexual couple is not a completely selfish endeavor any more than it may be for a heterosexual couple.

Part 3:

--By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

This brings me back to a comment made in my first entry here on this blog. To this astonishingly weak point I say (again): should it be made illegal for a straight couple to marry if the couple is infertile?

There’s something wrong when something people are said to hold so close to their hearts -values, morals, freedom - that they have nothing to defend it with but with things like this.

It makes me think, perhaps, some may want to use religion to distract from and validate their own homophobia, hatred, or downright disgust at the gay community.

If that's not it, then I have to think it's because I'm missing something entirely. I've yet to discover what that may be.

But the more people use fear to engage and motivate people, the more pause I am brought to.

Church, State, (Polygamy), and Gay Marriage

Oftentimes the stupid, perhaps stupidest, argument against gay marriage is this: if we allow gays to marry, then where do we stop? Bestiality? Polygamy? Adults marrying children? A father marrying his daughter? Where does it stop?

First of all, this argument is easily shut down with this: gay marriage is between two consenting adults.

Animals cannot consent.

(I'm trying my best to refrain from some really good jokes on that)

Children cannot consent.

Adults? Yes. Now, in the case of incest, well - there are reasons...eh, I won't even get into that. I want to discuss the connections between today's gay marriage debate and polygamy.

First I want to ask this: Is it our responsibility to shove our beliefs down non-believers throats? I always thought it was our responsibility to live as we see fit and treat others the way we'd like to be treated - lead the horse to water, at the very least. For my LDS friends out there, I invite you to read the Eleventh Article of Faith which states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Would it be "looking/shooting past the mark" to say this could certainly extend to letting good, moral adults the ability to live in the manner in what they may, in accordance to dictates of their own conscience?

If gay people decide one day that living a gay lifestyle is immoral, they can stop. They may not be able to "straighten themselves out" (pun intended), but they can live a chaste life - if they decide it's immoral.

Now onto that damn P word - and just to clarify, I'm speaking as an LDS woman to LDS people. You might find it interesting anyway if you don't fall into that category.

California's Proposition 8, if passed, will amend the state constitution to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Hmmm. How does this tie into polygamy, you ask? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't practice that anymore, after all.

Just humor me a moment, please.

I'd like you to go back to the 1800s, when members of the church practiced polygamy. What do you think their argument would have been when the country rallied against the practice?

Religious freedom?
Consenting adults?

Hello? Is this thing on?

According to Utah History to Go: Struggle for Statehood, the Mormon push for Utah (then "Deseret") to become a state "occurred during the Republican party's first presidential campaign featuring a platform plank denouncing the 'twin relics of barbarism,' slavery and polygamy, the latter of which the Latter-day Saint leaders had recently acknowledged to be part of church doctrine and practice."

Interesting. Isn't the LDS church known for being largely Republican?

Polygamy was seen as a "relic of barbarism" - much, I'd assume, like the Republican party sees gay marriage today.

Just for fun right now I'd like us to consider something: What if the stupidest argument in the world is correct? What if allowing gay people to marry means that we'll open the immoral floodgates of sanctioned bestiality, incest, and - gasp - polygamy?

What if one day polygamy was legalized?

While the Church may not practice it today, the Church still believes in it, to such a degree that if you do not accept it, you are believed to be in danger of God denying you the Celestial Kingdom (the highest degree of heaven). This is a huge thing - bigger than I ever thought it was.

So what if it was legalized? I'm going to refrain from asking you if you would practice it if asked (and you'd better - if asked - or risk excommunication. I'm not kidding). It was only stopped because the government threatened the Church. That was really the backdrop to the Manifesto.

I thought this was something interesting to chew on, and what it comes down to is this:

Over a hundred years ago, the government stepped in and shoved their anti-polygamy beliefs down your ancestors' throats, much like what is happening today with gay marriage.

Would you have liked that?

Food for thought.