The Geek Blog

No vs. Yes on California Proposition 8

Where does one draw the line between religion and state?

Mormon Church steps into the Prop. 8 battle

Everyone’s got an opinion about Proposition 8, the proposed amendment to the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. Plenty of people and organizations are voting with their pocketbooks, both from within and from outside California.

Now comes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which grabbed some TV time in Utah to urge the 770,000 Mormon church members in California to weigh in on the matter. Here’s the story from the Associated Press:

Two members of the church’s second-highest governing body, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, quoted from Mormon scripture on the sanctity of marriage as they laid out a week-by-week strategy for boosting Mormon involvement before the Nov. 4 election in voter registration efforts, phone banks and distributing campaign materials.

“What we’re about is the work of the Lord, and He will bless you for your involvement,” apostle M. Russell Ballard said during the hour-long meeting, which was broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho.

So far, Proposition 8 supporters have poured $19,778,208 to outlaw same-sex marriage, about $1.6 million more than opponents of the measure. Add the two sides together and that’s about $38 million. Imagine the good it could be doing elsewhere…

Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8

… the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are increasingly under fire for their support of Proposition 8, which would take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry. In addition to increased protests, online campaigns seek to identify and embarrass Mormons who support the ballot measure.

The church largely stays out of politics. But in this case, the Salt Lake City-based church has sent letters, held video conferences and in church meetings asked for volunteers to support the campaign. In response, some church members have poured in their savings and undertaken what may be an unprecedented grassroots mobilization for the effort…

It’s my personal belief that this seems to be a difficult choice for many, due to a belief system that appears to be at odds - at least on the surface. On one hand, many religions (Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, etc.) on the whole dictate that marriage is between one man and one woman. At the same time, they preach love and compassion for each other, and the concept of free will.

No wonder so many people are at odds when trying to make their own decision on whether to vote for or against a legal proposition that would make marriage of other then a male and female to be illegal - constitutionally illegal (at least at the state level, for now). Would that not be a at odds with love and compassion, and therefore forcing a particular belief system on others?

That’s how I personally view this - as forcing a religious belief system on those who don’t belief in it. I myself am not gay and Lisa is not a lesbian, but we both have close friends that are and we can each easily empathize with their choice or nature (however you might believe it to be). It’s hard to fathom that simply because a person loves someone of the same sex they should not be able to consummate that love in a legal, binding manner - one that allows them the same rights and privileges to a legal relationship as any other married couple.

Now some states, California among them, already have legislation on the books that allow “domestic partners”, regardless of same sex or not, to have some of the same rights and privileges as married couples. One argument is that this is “good enough.” I disagree. It becomes problematic under many situations to understand the legal stance of such a situation. Take insurance for instance. I used to work for an insurance firm long, long ago, where I started out processing dental claims for railroad workers. It was a pain in the butt figuring out even simple dental coverage for “domestic partner” relationships - simply because there wasn’t any legal, binding arrangement or contract that one could simply send in or point to for verification of this relationship. It was quite easy to deny claims based on lack of information, which in turn forced the couple in question to go round and round trying to meet whatever criteria was set to prove otherwise.

Then there’s also the religions that like to argue that God has established marriage to be only between a man and a woman. Ok, that’s their right as a religious view. They certainly have the right to deny to marry anyone of the same sex within their various religious institutions. However, to go further and state that by allowing ANYONE to marry a person of the same sex will destroy the sanctity of marriage as ordained by God is simply ludicrous! How does one’s personal & private choice, a choice that effects no one other then themselves, their loved one, and by some extension their families, destroy the sanctity of marriage as defined by the various religions?

Huh…isn’t this the same type of argument that various zealots of other religions hold to? At the extreme end, since their view must be right in their eyes, that must in turn make it OK for them to perform the horrendous acts they do, such as maim and kill those who disagree. We’re just doing in a political sense here in the good old United States.

What happened to love and compassion? What happened to free will, free choice? What happened to tolerance? Simply because one person believes one thing another person should not be forced to act against their own beliefs.

Now of course, society must have some base level of morals, a sense of right and wrong, or else chaos would reign. But when we start legislating and even constitutionalizing things at this level, something’s gone very wrong. If you don’t want to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex, then don’t. If you want to marry the person you love, and they you, then go for it. Society should not be condemning those that they perceive to be different, or odd.

Heck, I wonder how many people realize that not that long ago, 1967 I believe, we had these very same types of arguments and beliefs when it came to allowing inter-racial marriages? How many people today even realize that inter-racial marriages were once strictly forbidden by federal law? Doesn’t that seem just a bit crazy today?

Love one another, accept one another for who we all are, and let’s live in some reasonable sense of harmony. Legislating religious beliefs is a very, very slippery slope.

Here’s one side of the argument, which actually seems to make some sense - at least at first. Until you give it some rationale thought and see through the FUD tactics:

Yes, there is a political and legislative issue in Massachusetts regarding the adoption laws. Simply put, any adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination - which includes a 15 year old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples was then effectively outlawed, too. That all seems to be a good thing.

But then a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching. Yet another clash of religion and state occurred, as Cardinal O’Malley (who had authority over the Catholic Charities of Boston) asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. The governor and archbishop then turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching.

Did anyone catch the irony in a highly-respected Mormon political leader taking the opposite side of today’s “official” Mormon argument?

To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption.

Now that’s the real problem - that the state political leaders will not allow religious institutions to perform their duties as their own doctrine dictates (within extremes, of course - no drinking the kool-aid en masse - haha).

Therefore, the Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts felt compelled to close their adoption agencies because now the state was forcing them to do something they did not belief in. This would be the opposite of what the Mormon and other churches are now trying to do in California, where religious beliefs would be forced into the state’s constitution.

Pretty hard to cry foul on either side at this point.

Here’s the opposite view-point, Mac v. PC style:

And for you 80’s fans (like us), here’s a little Molly Ringwald. :-)