my letter to my senators
I was planning on writing up a criticism of Dan Vogel's Joseph Smith: Making of a Prophet, but in light of the letter from the LDS First Presidency read to LDS wards today, I decided to 'express myself on this urgent matter to my elected representatives in the Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senator (Bennett and Hatch):
A little over a century ago my (and your) church sent delegates to
I am embarrassed to say that my and your church that once fought for the right for its members to practice their non-traditional marriages is now fighting along with the supposed moral and Christian-right to ban the non-traditional marriages of others. For a church that prides themselves in their work in family history, it is odd that they would forget their own history of their families.
I believe that families are important and that the state should support and promote them. Homosexuality, however, is not the threat that the Christian-right dresses it up to be. Families have been threatened and destroyed long before the issue of same-sex marriages came on the scene. These threats arise from the economic and social structures that our families are subject to. Our economic society breaks apart families by not only destructively taxing our families monetarily, but also by taxing the time that families can share together. Threats to the family are further fueled by fears and misunderstandings, fanned by the very propositions and amendments that some of you are proposing and that your and my church is asking me to sustain.
Senator, I fully support protecting the family. Without my family, I would not be where I am today. As a heterosexual Mormon who wishes to see families strengthened, I urge you to no support the amendment seeking to define marriage (and implicitly the family) as a union between a man and a woman. Such a narrow (and narrow-minded) definition not only strips away the rights of others, rights that our ancestors once fought for, but it also mocks and belittles the families currently built on a foundation of love and caring, but lacking the traditional father and mother. Such an amendment goes against the fundamental principles of God’s love taught by your and my church. It is contrary to the ideals of love and tolerance expressed and lived by Jesus Christ, and is indicative of a society that “is without affection, and . . . hating their own blood;” a society that causes God to weep.
Instead of pushing this amendment of fear, intolerance, and self-righteousness, I urge you Senator to divert this energy, time, and funding to seeking out and rectifying the ills of our society that are truly affecting and destroying our families.
Orem, Utah.
I, too, wish the gov't could find more worthy uses of its time. But a few activist judges declaring gay marriage bans unconstitutional have left the people of the United States with no other choice than to pursue a federal amendment.
ReplyDeleteYou rule.
ReplyDeleteA very loud "Amen" from the Mothership. If only our (I actually don't consider him mine) president and the GOP (which is not synonymous with GOD) would follow Laura Bush's advice and leave this issue out of this year's campaign politics. And, in response to the silent observer, the American people have many more choices before them than codified bigotry. I fear the Christian activism of our nation far more than the alleged activism of a few judges.
ReplyDeletethe American people have many more choices before them than codified bigotry.
ReplyDeleteEnlighten me. Because the only way I can think of to prevent judges from declaring gay marriage bans unconstitutional is to put it in the constitution.
Why would we want to prevent judges from declaring gay marriage bans unconstitutional? It is unconstitional, and it's against our religion to force other people to live by your credos. Even if it's right for Christians to disagree with gay marriage, that does not make it right to force it out of existence.
ReplyDelete"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."
There would be no problem, except that gay rights have a tendency to infringe on religious rights. So while gay marriage in and of itself is innocuous, it starts us down a road that will ultimately be bad for our people, and more importantly, society. Hence the prophetic call to action.
ReplyDeleteIn what way do gay rights infringe on religious rights?
ReplyDeleteIn the short time that gay marriage has been legalized, there are a couple of incidents that I know of. The largest orphanage in Boston was shut down by the state because its Catholic operators didn't want to adopt children to gay couples. Nevermind that there were at least four other orphanages that did adopt to gay couples. After gay marriage became settled law in Massachusettes, anti-discrimmination laws prevented the Catholics from operating the orphanage in accordance with their religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteA Christian group at Tufts University is fighting for the right to limit its leaders that practice their particular brand of Christianity (i.e., no practicing gays). Apparently in Mass. it's bad to force Christian ideals onto gays, but not vice versa.
There are others, too, I'm sure. The argument against gay marriage is that it sets you on a course down a slippery slope. While at one time you may have gotten away with calling this argument paranoid or fear-mongering, there are some very real confrontations between gay rights and religious rights now and in the near future.
Honestly, I think the slippery slope argument is the worst one I've ever heard. Regardless, however, gay marriage does not infringe on my "religious rights." I am still free to marry a woman and believe as I choose. The Mormon church will never be forced to perform gay marriages either. My suspicion is, furthermore, that there is a lot more than meets the eye to the examples that the Silent Observer has mentioned.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you want to look at it that way, then religious rights cannot infringe on gay rights. If a man wants to let his dong go hard into another man's bottom --he's still free to do that. There is no compelling legal argument for gay marriage, which is why the movement has tried to couch gay marriage rights in terms of the civil rights movement.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to read the adoption story, go here.
But Tufts is apparently now a dead issue, though. The school decided to let the Christian group choose their own leaders. How generous.
Silent, The Catholic Charity was NOT shut down by the state. It chose to stop performing adoptions so that it could discriminate against gay people. Its decision had nothing to do with gay marriage, but everything to do with gay rights. Should anyone expect gay taxpayer money to subsidize or even license an adoption agency that discriminates against them?
ReplyDeleteWell, Silent Observer, your crass language just lost the little shred of respect I actually had for your argument. There may be no legal argument to support gay marriage. If that is true, however, then there is no legal argument to deny it either. Let's face it though, this is not really a legal issue. The issue is that people like you would like to legislate away homosexuality, which will never happen. Face it, they're here, they're queer, get used to it. And if some guys who love each other want to form a civil union to fit into a better tax bracket that is fine with me. Marriages performed by the United States government have never been holy or sanctified anyway. To loosely quote Barry Goldwater, let free people do as they choose.
ReplyDeleteSilent, The Catholic Charity was NOT shut down by the state.
ReplyDeleteWhatever --bad word choice on my part. The charity closed their doors before it became an issue, but the state would have shut them down unless they complied with the state's anti-discrimmination laws.
Should anyone expect gay taxpayer money to subsidize or even license an adoption agency that discriminates against them?
Even if the charity declined tax subsidies, it wouldn't have exempted them from the state's anti-discimmination laws, and they would've been forced to close their doors anyways.
If that is true, however, then there is no legal argument to deny it either.
I bet the children who were waiting to be adopted to permanent homes through Catholic Charities of Boston would beg to differ.
The issue is that people like you would like to legislate away homosexuality
Don't be ridiculous. If anything, gays are using this issue as a way to legitimize their lifestyle. Like I said, there's no compelling legal argument for gay marriage. Gay couples already have legal avenues for getting lower taxes, property rights, adopting children, etc.
. . . but the state would have shut them down unless they complied with the state's anti-discrimmination laws.
ReplyDeleteThat is right, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage, but decade-old non-discrimination laws. Don't conflate the two.
Don't conflate the two.
ReplyDeleteThat's kind of the point, though. I brought it up to demonstrate that the slippery slope argument has merit. Otherwise, how do you explain the 10 year "lapse" after the anti-discrimmination laws were passed that the charity was allowed to operate in accordance with its religious beliefs? Are you calling the gay marriage legalization and the closing of the charity an uncanny coincidence?
One of the ways the charity managed to stay open was to specialize in adopting children to married couples only. Since gay couples weren't technically married, the charity could operate according to their religious beliefs. But after gay marriage became law, they no longer had this legal recourse.
how do you explain the 10 year "lapse" after the anti-discrimmination laws were passed that the charity was allowed to operate in accordance with its religious beliefs?
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Charities of Boston placed 5 children with same-sex couples after the nondiscrimination statue came into effect in 1989, and 8 others during the decade previously.
One of the ways the charity managed to stay open was to specialize in adopting children to married couples only.
Wrong again. See above, and here.
Are you calling the gay marriage legalization and the closing of the charity an uncanny coincidence?
Not at all. In 2003, when gay marriage began to be debated in Massachusetts and Europe, Pope Benedict issued a doctrinal statement opposing same-sex unions and declaring that it would be "gravely immoral" to let same-sex couples adopt children. ''Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children. . ."
Catholic Charities of Boston essentially ignored the council from the Vatican until February 2006, when four Bishops demanded that the agency discriminate against same-sex couples, and on March 10 announced that Catholic Charities would cease adoptions altogether.
Similar measures were discussed at Catholic Charities in San Francisco, where gay marriage is NOT legal. Slipery Slope? I don't think so.
Wrong again.
ReplyDeleteOh, sorry. Apparently that was what they were going to do to try to stay open.
Second to last section of this article.