I have never really cared for politics. I don't care for them right now. I am just going to give my one time rant about all that is going on right now. I don't know all that much, some of my facts may be wrong.. most is just an opinion on what I do know though.
Huge deal about the new president. I really don't care. People like him, people don't. It goes that way with them all right? Majority wins, hes the president lets just deal.
The thing that I really wanted to talk about was how Proposition 8 didn't pass in California. It didn't pass before, but the government made it legal for a bit. Then the votes came in again and it still didn't pass. There is enough diversity and enough people in California that if they really wanted it passed, it would have. Some people are protesting the fact that the church had a lot to do with that tonight at the LDS Temple. If you want to see the KSL coverage on that click here.
Its interesting because the organizer, Jacob Whipple says "We're tired of the church injecting its politics and its morals into the lives of those that don't belong to their church,"
Okay, Jacob can think how he wants, but Churches are there to teach about morals. No one is forcing it on anyone. Members of EVERY church have the right to vote, protest and express their views and thoughts the same way he is. The LDS Church does not believe in same sex marriage but they (as well as everyone) have the right to express their views, encourage it's members and vote against it if they choose to do so. Just like those who want it can vote for it.
There are so many blogs, MySpace and Facebook pages of people telling their friends to Vote Yes on Proposition 8. No one is protesting against them saying, "They are injecting its politics and morals" into the lives of those who read those words.
It didn't pass and so people are making a fuss. Maybe the chance will come again.
Another thing I wanted to touch on is this EQUALITY FOR ALL. I totally agree. That's what this Country is for. Equality and freedom FOR ALL. However, lets sit and think about what "ALL" means. Heterosexuals? Yes. Gays? We'll yes. That's what people are fighting so hard about. Bi-Sexual's: Why not! Polygamists? They should be included in the "ALL" shouldn't they?
So if we are going to let two men or two women marry, why can't we let a man have two wives? If they all consent to it, whats the problem? They are American citizens and should be included in this Equality for ALL, right? Gays were born gay. Polygamists were raised that way and its part of their religion (Remember the Freedom of Religion?). Seems fair right?
Well, what about the people out there who like children? That's what they are attracted to. They love children and that's what they want. EQUALITY FOR ALL right?
You love who you love and you can't help it. But if a man falls in love with his little sister, are we going to let them marry? He loves her, she loves him, freedom of everything, Equality for All! Besides, incest is best....right?
So I am not trying to form an opinion either way. It may come out a bit, but that is not my intention. I can debate both sides till the end, you ask Orrin. However, I am a member of the LDS church but I also know Gay people and care about them deeply. So I am trying to not state an opinion, just facts and ideas about what Equality for All really means.
A little touch on the Church and State separation. From what I can remember from History class, this country was founded so people could express the religious beliefs that they wanted. It WAS founded under GOD. As much as we want to separate church and state, church is the whole reason it's here! If you don't believe in God, just be glad there are people that do or else you wouldn't be here.
11/07/2008
Poliltical Rant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I've got a friend who is gay. Does that mean I'm gay? No but think about it friends are people we hang out with right? Sure but what about people we don't hang out with? Are they suppose to enter our houses and make sandwhiches for their pets? hell no. So why would we want to? I don't pretend like I'm some wizard or Johnny Apple Seed but I'm pretty sure pets aren't suppose to eat human food unless they've been really good. So, same thing goes for people who want to sit there and promote something like its their favorite new shirt and yet I don't care what shirt they have I'm just saying when it comes to people wearing their clothes lets let them have room to keep their clothes on their bodies cause really I don't like seeing naked people break into my house feeding their pets my food because thats just gay. Good night.
I hear what your saying Karlee, although I must say I was rather surprised to hear you say it. I'm going to be a bit more bold and add to your comments by saying, not only is gay marriage a slippery slope (freekin people marrying their dogs next), but its also just wrong. God is real, he made a women for men and men for women, AND he made it that way so that children can have a mother and a father. Destroy the family unit and we've got problems. So, I guess I'm a little opinionated about this one too and as far as your friend "I am Booya" um...check your meds brother.
so, you probably dont know who I am, but I was "blog stalking" and came across this post. I think this is a very well thought out, well written opinion. I have read a lot of posts where people just say gay marriage is wrong because its "gross" or other igonorant comments like that. I have nothing against gays lesbians, bisexuals or anything of the like, but I dont think that was the way God intended them to be.Just like I dont think child molesters, or people who have sex with animals were the way God inteded them to be. I loved the part where you talk about being attracted to children. As a mother this is especially horrifying for me. I read a quote that I believe was from Ellen Degeneres where she said at some point the thought of gay marriage not being allowed would be bizarre to us, well I dont want to live in the time when that is true because once that happens - what is left to be wrong? What else will be normal? i shudder at the thought.
Gay marriage would be a slippery slope to people marrying their dogs? You people are absurd. Your debates full of ill founded logic and holes.
A dog cannot consent to a marriage. Nor to a sexual relationship for that matter. A child cannot consent to a marriage. nor to a sexual relationship. Laws against bestiality and pedophilia are put in place to protect innocent victims.
WHO IS THE VICTIM WHEN GAYS MARRY?
If you cannot give me a victim, than you cannot name a crime.
If you would like to debate me on this matter, I BEG you to. I would LOVE to hear an actual intelligent debate on this subject. So far all I hear is ignorant statements and unintelligent junk.
Separation of church and state is one of the foremost basis of our country. The founding fathers came here to escape religious persecution, to ensure that all citizens were free to practice their faiths in peace. It was indeed a nation founded with God in mind, UNDER GOD, but it was NEVER intended to be ruled BY GOD. The exact opposite in fact. If you do not believe that religion and government should be kept separate than i suggest you convert and move to Iran where they agree with you on such ideals.
Also, prop 8 was designed to ban gay marriage and it passed. you have everything backwards my dear.
Amanda - You are right.. I did have the pass and not passing of Prop 8 backwards.. but you knew what I meant. Thanks for pointing it out.
I said at the beginning of my post that I don't know or care that much for politics so some of my facts could be wrong. I gave you the heads up. But, again, thank you again for pointing it out.
I didn't mention a single thing about animals in this post. You must still be chewing on the facebook conversation.
Either way.. your debate is valid. And so is mine no matter what you think. Equality for all can not just be limited to straights and Gays. If one things passes, more and more things are going to want to be put on the table. That is all I am suggesting. If you don't agree with me..fine.
mandalyn, youre logic of leaving the country could be used against you. If you don't like the democratic process then please leave the country. majority ruled in favor of banning gay marraige, you lose, let it go. This is a moral issue and no matter what you do there is NEVER going to be a complete separation of church and state. Peoples votes will be influenced by religious beliefs. Also, please let me know where it mentions separation of church and state in the constitution.
It's funny to me that these people preeching equality and openmindedness are the most closed minded on the issue, there is only one side... their side.
You people please get over the fact that you lost.
another comment to Mandalynn... speaking of an absurd debate "full of ill logic and holes", are you telling me that there has to be a victim in order for a crime to be committed? Who is the victim in prostitution? gambling? drugs? What about minor things like traffic violations? Are you telling me you want all those legalized as well? Just because there is no victim doesn't mean there is no crime. Side note: I dont think anyone ever said homosexual marriage is a crime, your argument is void from the start. They simply should not qualify for marriage as it should be between a man and woman. Now I realize that's my opinion, Who is to say who is wrong and who is right on a moral issue? Well I am with the majority so I am right.
I also noticed you made no comment on polygamist marriage, or incest. Is it because you support polygamist marriage and incest as well? I think there are some very good points brought up in this article. You allow gay marriage, what is going to be next? You can't tell me you dont believe people will be coming forward sooner or later wanting marriage redefined to include more and more groups of people. If you dont agree then you need to get out into to world and see what kind of pervert sicko's there are out there. Where do we draw the line?
karlee, the people above me mentioned animals. that's why i brought that up. so no, i am not chewing on the facebook conversation. the phrase "to each his own" is always my motto. you brought up a debate. i'm debating. i'm trying my DAMNDEST to not be angry about this vote. which is why i BEGGED people to explain it to me in an intelligent matter. i did not mean to be cruel in pointing out that things were backwards, i just meant to be factual.
to the person who remains nameless: you named holes, let's fill 'em up.
the victim of prostitution: the countless prositutes who were murdered, and beat. also, the people who ended up with stds and spread them further.
the victim of gammbling: there is none, which is why it is not illegal in all states but utah.
the victim of drugs: ummm, the people who die of overdoses maybe? as though that isn't obvious, the innocent children who are born with addictions. also, as a sidenote, i fully support the legalization of marijuana.
incest: the innocent children born with horrible genetic defects.
minor trafic incidents can lead to extremely dangerous car accidents with numerous victims.
anything else you'd like covered?
i also fully support the legalization of polygamy, as long as everyone is of age, marry as many people as you'd like.
you know nothing about me or how open/closed my mind is. i'm arguing my opinion just like you are. i'm trying my hardest to love/accept the people that voted for prop 8. i'm trying to understand that their opinion is influenced by their world. their upbringing. their personal story.
but no matter where i turn i find it to be wrong. i think we can have a complete separation of church and state. i believe in it.
i stopped today outside of an lds church to talk with some homosexual protesters that had signs saying "mormons bread h8te" and other horrible things. i was deeply hurt by their words as i have many loved ones that belong to this faith. the scene made me cry all morning.
i just want everyone to love and to get along. i can't "just let it go" when i have friends who will never know the rights i know.
i've tried. i can't. so sorry i care.
also, you have to understand that democracy is about majority rules but that our constitution protects us by handing us certain freedoms regardless of majority rule. civil marriage is a civil right.
if majority TRULY ruled on all issues, well then, the people that disagree with the mormon church on a moral basis (and trust me, there are tons of them outside utah) could put forth a proposition to ban you from practicing.
hypothetically, if a ban such as that were to take place...would you say "well, the majority voted so let's move on."
i highly doubt it.
ok amanda- since you felt it nessesary to call me an idiot in another post, I feel the need to defend myself. I am sorry Karlee that I must use your blog to do so. I know it may seem irrational and silly to say that allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals. obviously that doesn't seem like anything that we will ever have to see, but if you had asked people 50 years a go if they thought that gay marriage would ever be an issue they would have thought it absurd. The point here is if we allow this to be legal what is next? you never know what else people will find acceptable later on down the road. you say you are ok with polygamy if they are of age and it is their choice - so then what if someone who is of age wants to marry his sister who is also of age? they know the possibilities of deformities so they plan to adopt children, or dont plan to have children at all. who is to say this wrong?
you mention you want total and complete seperation of church and state. but then you mention that if majority rules then people could force mormons to stop practicing - well that doesn't sound like seperation of church and state.
everyone is entitled to their opinion but i would appreciate if you would keep my name out of your mouth. you don't know me at all and to say that I am an idiot based on my a post about my moral beliefs and feeling is wrong. i am an intelligent woman and i am entitled to my opinion the same as you.
Mandalynn, you are wrong on the victims. A prostitute that is murdered is a victim of murder, not prostitution. One that is beaten is a victim of brutality, not prostitution. I don't believe the passing of STD's is a crime (it can be linked to minor forms of murder i.e. negligent homicide depending on which STD it is, but for the purpose of this argument let's talk about the less severe STD's) or there would need to be lot's more law suits to prosecute those at fault.
As far as gambling being legalized in some states but not all, sounds to me like it is a very good parallel between gay marriage. It is a moral issue, there is no victim, yet it is still illegal in some states because many people still consider it wrong.
Your victim of drugs is a possible victim, not everyone that takes drugs is going to overdose and die. You could also name situations where there could be a possible victim in homosexual marriage (let's say domestic abuse for an example). That doesn't mean that all cases in either homosexual marriage or drugs has a victim, so therefore according to your logic of no victim no crime, drugs are only sometimes bad. sidenote of my own, I agree with you the legalization of marijuana, I think way to much time and money are spent on trying to enforce a minor drug. Still there is no victim and it is a crime.
You have a good point on incest, there is a victim there, but I still think if gay marriage is legalized there will soon be cousins coming forward wanting the same marriage rights. Therefore I think we should draw the line now.
I have had many traffic violations and never gotten in a wreck, there has never been a victim of my speeding.
My point is, just because there is no victim does not mean it is not wrong. Once again, I am not saying that being a homosexual is a crime, I just believe that it is against the natural order of God. To me there is an underlying issue here with gay marriage. for many of them (not all of course) just having rights wont do (I'm happy to give them the same rights accorded to a heterosexual couple). They want their lifestyle to be accepted and not considered a sin, as the majority of the christian (and jew and muslim for that matter)world views it. In allowing gay marriage it is essentially saying that it is accepted as a moral practice. Let me clarify that I have nothing against homosexuals, I think most people including myself have either a gay friend or relative. I am ok with them having the same rights as a heterosexual couple. I just dont want it to become accepted as a moral practice.
As for the majority voting against the church practices, it has already happened. As I'm sure you are aware they used to practice polygamy. The government banned it, he church believes in "honoring the laws of the land" so they stopped the practice of polygamy.
As far as the majority putting forth a proposition to ban the church from practicing, I believe religious rights are something that are afforded to us in the constitution. A lot of people have misinterpretation of the whole separation of church and state statement. A little background... In the times of the founding of our nation, England's church and state was essentially the same. There was only one religion allowed in the country. Separation of church and state was meant to give everyone freedom of religious practice, to keep any church from running the government. Interesting fact: the phrase separation of church and state never appears in the constitution. It is taken from the first amendment which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . As much as people would like to think the mormon church is in violation of separation of church and state, it is not, it has never tried to oppress anyones rights to to worship. Your little scenario however would be as it would be "prohibiting the free exercize thereof"
wow people. who knew my irrelevant, backwards, political rant would bring this much action. Don't stop. I enjoy it. Gives me something interesting to read at work.
rickellespinoza, I also brought up the animal thing in a conversation on facebook. It was hit hard there too. A far fetched idea, but we never know whats going to come.
I respect your opinions on the matter. (Did we go to high school together?)
Amanda, I respect what you did outside the church with the protesters. Thats one thing I have always liked about you. You stand up for things and people.
We are all trying hard not to get mad about the whole situation. You, for the rights that people did not get. Me, for the blame that is being put on my religion and temples being shut down because its too dangerous to go to them due to the protesters and threats.
Please continue with your thoughts on the subject. It really is intersting to see others views on the matter (or matters).
Karlee - Yes, we did go to school together. I was a few years older than you. I occasionally blog stalk while at work to pass the time. I found you through Kaity (Baker) Lambert. You and your hubby are cute!
I was not saying that a vote to stop the church from practicing would be constitutional, the exact opposite in fact. I was using that example as a hypothetical to show that we cannot always follow the majority. That the constitution allows us certain rights regardless of majority opinion. It seems that we agree on this matter in entirety. No, the phrase separation of church and state is never said verbatim. However, it is the gist and the general term used to define the first amendment.
No, someone is not always harmed from drugs. someone is not always harmed from speeding. children from incestuous relationships are not always born defective. but science and fact have shown that the chances of innocent people being harmed from these infractions is great. Therefore, the government intervened to prevent death, disease etc.
I suppose in this little debate, if anything we have proved that gambling should always be legal as well as polygamy and marijuana use. Seriously. Doesn’t bother me any. I’m not going to go spend my money on the slots or try and find some sister wives (that hairstyle would look so horrible on me) but as long as you are not victimizing anyone, go live your life and I’ll live mine. I will stick with my morals. I will teach them to my children. Share them with my friends. But once again, as long as you are not victimizing innocent beings, I will not force you to live by them. (I would probably smoke weed but whatever, I do that already.)
you say, where do we draw the line with marriage? the same place we draw all lines (or rather SHOULD draw the lines). the government should not interfere or breach on civil liberties unless it is to prevent the harming of innocent victims. ie, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.
if there is no victim, than government has no business messing with our civil liberties. we are entitled to life, love and the pursuit of happiness are we not? We do need to draw a line, a line to protect our citizens from danger; it’s just that you drew yours a little too soon to be constitutionally correct.
someone being religiously offended by another person's marriage is not a legitimate reason for the government to intervene. regardless of how many people agree with the issue. how long ago was it that the majority of people thought that the color of someone's skin was enough reason to keep them out of the voting booth? That white people should never be able to marry black people? did that make it right? it's as though the civil rights movement never occurred.
So stop with the “what is next” argument. The only legitimate way to argue on the side of the proposition is to prove, without religion, that homosexual marriages harm innocent people. Come on, I wanna hear it. Give me what you got, who does it harm? And if it does victimize someone, well than shouldn’t we ban the whole practice and not just the marriage?
Allowing gays to marry does not say that you morally agree with their lifestyle. You have the right and the entitlement to express your views on the issue all you want. Make a commercial. Rent a billboard. Shout it on every hill top you want. You can go up to every gay couple you see and let them know what you think if you so choose. But you cannot force them to live by your religious code. At the risk of redundancy I will say it once more: it is unconstitutional.
If you want to protect your values and your ideas of marriage do so within your own home. Your church. Your family. Protect your children from the practice by instilling them with the morals you believe to be true. Lead by example. But do not put your church in our government. Am I hitting home in the slightest?
Twice now you have said that homosexuality is not a crime. Prop 8 defined marriage as between a man and a woman, making it impossible and illegal for anyone to give a marriage license to a same sex couple. Making gay marriage a criminal act, making it a crime.
So I suppose if you agree with me that homosexual marriage is not a crime…well than what are we debating? Seems as though you are on my side about prop 8, try and bring your friends will you? The weathers nice over here.
Rickell, I apologize for my language. I’m very sorry I got so heated and insulted you. It’s just that you say you have nothing against gays and yet you compared them to pedophiles. I thought automatically of one of my good friends. Him and his boyfriend have been together for 6 years. They adopted a daughter from an extremely impoverished area of China. He works a second job and puts every penny of it into Sadie’s college fund. His boyfriend is an environmental lawyer. They are avid protectors of the environment and amazing scrabble players. Their relationship is every bit about love and not the least bit perverted and you compared them with men who have sex with animals. I suppose maybe you just don’t know that many healthy, happy, good gay people? Because if you did you would realize how hurtful that is. You don’t have to agree with the way they live but you have to admit that people such as that are not comparable to pedophiles.
amanda - I lived in Montclair California for around 8 months before I got married. While there I became good friends with several gay men who I worked with. They were all extremely nice, fun and hilarious guys to be around. I played softball for 10 years and have several lesbian softball coaches. They were some of the nicest, hard working, fun to be around coaches I have had. One of my best friends as a child recently came out to his parents in the past few years. I have known many healthy happy homosexuals. I am not saying that they are on the same level as a pedophile. I am just saying I don't think that God made man and woman intending that they would fall in love with the same sex. Just as I dont think he made man and woman intending that they be attracted to children or animals. Obviously children and animals being the worst possible scenario. Your friends sound like wonderful people. Like I said, I have nothing against homosexuals. I just don't agree with it. I think the comment you made about teaching your own morals in your own home. Many of the arguments you made really make sense, however, the world today is scary. It is hard to think about how much worse it will be when my children are grown. I would like to think I could do something to make it easier on them.
Please explain to me how I am being unconstitutional, or being constitutionally incorrect? Which part of the constitution am I violating in opposing gay marriage? Just curious, is prostitution included in those things you think should always be legal? I believe we have determined that there is no victim.
Good job on twisting my words, The point we have come to is that there are plenty of crimes where there is no victim. Just because there is no victim does not mean it is not wrong. I would not call gay marriage a crime because there is no criminal activity involved that would necessitate retribution. That does not mean it is not wrong. Let's call it deviant behavior, which although it is not a crime, is still not right. They simply do not qualify for marriage.
I realize that this is based mostly on my opinions, but when it comes to issues of an ethical nature that is all there is to go off of. There is nothing to say who is wrong or right. As much as you would like to debate without using personal and religious opinions, it cannot exist, neither on my side nor your side. Issues like abortion, gambling, prostitution, you could include drugs...they all come down to personal ethics and since there is nothing to say who is wrong or right, majority rule is the next best thing we have to set up rules and regulations on moral and ethical situations. I think it comes down to #1-whether or not the government should intervene on moral issues. #2 whether those moral issues are acceptable in our society or not.
I forgot to mention that I respect your comment about the protesters outside of the church. although I don't understand that point they are trying to make "mormons bread h8te"? what do we have to do with bread...? They are listing things that are bad? do they really hate bread that much? Just Kidding. I do respect your views and hope we can all come up with a way to make both sides happy.
side note- (and this is not directed at Mandalynn). I think it's ridiculous the church has to shut down it's temples and churches for fear of the safety of it's members for standing up for what it believes is right. There are people getting beaten because they are mormon, churches are being vandalized. Where did freedom of religion go? They should learn from Martin Luther King Jr. If they want rights there are much better ways of getting your point across than violence. If there is anyway for them to assure that they wont get these rights they are fighting for, I believe it's by continuing with violence.
Damn Mormons and their anit-bread slurs.
That was the main point i was trying to get across to the protestor; that their hateful language and acts of vandalism were not going to serve them in the end. That, in fact, they will be harmful to their cause. I was basically told to leave. I suppose it's what's been most frustrating to me, I'm trying to take the middle ground and am therefore getting heat from both sides. I believe churches have rights to their opinions on a religous level and I believe all human beings are entitled to their inalienable rights on a governmental level.
So that's how we get on the constitutional thing. You asked how you were going against the constitution in opposing gay marriage. You, personally, are not. Your opinion is your opinion. But in passing a law refusing American citizens their rights based soley on a religous basis...that's another story.
I suppose I might get a little into legal mumbo jumbo here but oh well.
Right from the get-go the constitution begins by saying that it is formed to "secure the blessings of liberty." Later, in two seperate amendments (the 5th and 14th) the constitution states a)on a federal level and b)on a state level that:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Now, the term "due process" is one that has been debated greatly. Specifically in the Supreme Court. But generally is taken to consist of two parts:
1. Procedural due process which declares that an individual has a right to be notified of proceedings and the opportunity to speak their opinion at said hearings. It ensures that no one is denied "life, liberty or property" without the ability to affect the judgement or result.
2. Substanive due process in which the court determines if there is a fundamental right being violated. Even if a law is passed through procedual due process it can still be deemed unconstitutional through substantive and overturned (Roe V. Wade for ex.) Substantive determines if the law is fair for all or a violation of liberties.
Over the course of our country's history the supreme court has used due process as is laid out in the constitution to define many freedoms that were not plainly laid out in the constitution as fundamental freedoms protected by the 'general concept' of our constitution.
The right to life, love and the pursuit of happiness (as stated in the declaration of independence) included among these.
LOVE.
According to our constitution, it would be unconstitutional to deny a human being such a liberty as their right to love freely and express that love freely without due process,a process established to ensure fairness and the security of fundamental human liberties.
Eventually I am sure this will all go to the supreme court and due process according to the 5th and 14th ammendments will take place. It's just going to take time.
So there, i went deeply into the basics of the constitution and our government and defined how this proposition was unconstitutional and i didn't once use my morals, religious views, or personal opinions.
Furthermore, I am confused by your mixed signals. One moment you state: I'm happy to give them the same rights accorded to a heterosexual couple.
The next: They simply do not qualify for marriage.
Is marriage not a right given to heterosexual couples?
Please clarify.
I'm not sure about prostitution. I know that the laws were created because science/history/fact showed that prostitution lead to the spread of disease, murder and brutality. However, the prostitutes themselves being adults who entered into the situation on their own accord, they are not exactly "innocent victims." Don't really know how to get a hold of that one, I've never claimed to know everything.
Just close ;)
Goodness, if this is full of mis spelled words and grammatical errors it is because i think my brain is pretty fried on the subject. I think I'll just see you in 2012 when it is OVERTURNED.
Also, another subject for a moment when I am not intellectually exhausted: the argument that the LDS church broke the law by claiming tax exempt status while using tax free funds to promote a political agenda w/ prop 8.
But I have actual homework to work on now and never has blogspoting felt so much like writing a paper!
Very good argument. I am not trying to interfere with their right to love. They can love each other all they want, I'm not going to try to stop them. Love is not dependant on the fact of whether or not they are allowed to marry. Not allowing them to marry would not be oppressing their right of being able to love freely or express their love.
Just another point I would like to make on the Mormon church supporting prop 8, not to bring up a debate but to show a view point... I dont know how much you know about our religion, but our temples are VERY sacred to us. Most people spiritually prepare for years before entering and making sacred covenants, or vows, before God. One thing that worries a lot of LDS people is if gay marriage is allowed, it will be unconstitutional to prevent them from entering our temple to be married. As I know it offends a lot of people, we do believe that homosexuality is a sin, as it is very clearly mentioned in various parts of the bible. In our minds this would be defiling the temple letting an unrepentant (someone who is still practicing a particular sin) person into our temple
I should have specified a little more when I mentioned the rights that I think gays should have (Although it is debateable whether marriage is a right or not, that is in fact the basis of the issue with at hand). Although I dont think they should be able to be married, I think they should be able to have the same rights that a married heterosexual couple has. Let them make an oath, parallel to marriage. Let's just call it something different so we aren't forced to say homosexuality is an acceptable practice and put our religious beliefs, morality, and temples in jeopardy.
Now that you have brought up the tax exempt argument, I have to address it and make this a very long comment. First of all NUMEROUS attorneys have reviewed the case, including the head attorney for the ACLU. So far everyone of them that I have heard of has thrown it out, saying that the church was within it's bounds of a tax exempt organization. First of all, contrary to what people think, the church did not donate any money to the cause. Church MEMBERS donated but they are well within their rights to do so. There was $2000 spent on travel expenses for church leaders to attend a meeting of the religious coalition in support of Prop 8, but then again leaders of the other organizations did so as well. I think it's ironic that the Mormon church is being attacked for supposedly donating money to the cause when the organization that donated the most to support prop 8 was the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization who donated 1,400,000. The only valid argument comes from the statement..."In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation" So the question is whether or not the church spent "a substantial part of it's activities" trying to influence proposition 8. It's outrageous for people to say that the church as a whole spent a substantial part of it's activities influencing proposition 8. I have read that a "substantial part of it's activities" is generally considered by the IRS to be 5% or more of it's time. There were some meetings attended by church leaders, a statement that was passed out and read in churches in California, other than that the church has spent it's time as it always has, teaching about God. As if that weren't enough, the IRS actually states that a church or religious orginization can involve themselves in issues of public policy without jeopardizing their tax exempt status. Here is a link to what the IRS has to say:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Wow, Karlee... I am glad it was you that posted this and not me. I don't think my blog would know what to do if it got so many hits. I think your post was really well written. What a topic!
I can't believe i'm doing this again but i have no "shut your mouth" function. Karlee can testify to that.
Thank you for the info on the tax exempt issue as it has been popping up quite a bit lately.
I quite obviously do not agree with the church or their stance but as long as they aren't breaking the tax exempt laws I digress...
I suppose the current issue at hand is whether or not civil marriage is considered a fundamental human liberty that should be protected via the government. Right?
What you are proposing is a sort of, separate but equal position on the matter. Gays are allowed to love and to express that love in a governmental contract, just not the same kind of contract that you have. Let's just call that contract mawiage (like princess bride, mawiage is what bwings us togewa here) instead of marriage and you are copasetic? Semantics semantics semantics.
If you do not consider marriage to be a civil right, you must rather consider marriage to be a religious privilege? Is that what you mean?
I'm going to use this logic and your 'majority rules' logic from a previous post (you said: who is right? i'm with the majority so i am right.) to draw a compelling parallel:
since civil marriage is not a civil right and since the majority of americans in the 50's agreed that interracial marriage was not right, well then it was not right. am i right? but now that the majority of americans think it is right, well then it's right now. right? and what if americans decide now that interracial marriage is not right, well then it would be the government's right to intervene and stop blacks from marrying whites, asians from marrying latinos and etc. right?
something doesn't sound right here.
also, the argument that it would become illegal for churches to refuse to marry someone simply does not hold up. the government, per amend 1, does not have the ability to interfere with any religious institution's practices (except in the case of protecting potential victims ie sacrifice)
this would not be changed in the slightest should the government recognize gay marriage as a legal contract. any church still has the right to excommunicate who they choose, baptize who the choose, marry who they choose. or is it whom? whatever.
hell, churches have been refusing to marry couples for ages because the woman is pregnant and there is nothin’ illegal about pre-marital sex (but i suppose we could make it illegal if the majority so chooses, right?)
furthermore, if marriage is simply a religious right and not a governmental right, well then what business does the government have in defining what it means? shouldn't that simply be left up to your churches?
i will leave you with a quote from the wonderful ron paul, my presidential choice and a true conservative. He said:
“My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved… this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law.”
side note- (and this is not directed at Mandalynn). I think it's ridiculous the church has to shut down it's temples and churches for fear of the safety of it's members for standing up for what it believes is right. There are people getting beaten because they are mormon, churches are being vandalized. Where did freedom of religion go? They should learn from Martin Luther King Jr. If they want rights there are much better ways of getting your point across than violence. If there is anyway for them to assure that they wont get these rights they are fighting for, I believe it's by continuing with violence.
while i do not condone violence on either side of this issue, and think it is the wrong way to go about things....what about the gays who were beat up and killed for coming out? what about the gays being beat up and put in jail for protesting? the mormons more than anyone should understand what it is like to be persecuted for wanting to live the way they choose. THEY should be standing up for the gays. who cares if that's not what they believe. they had to escape and start all over because their members were being beaten and killed for wanting to practice their religion. gays are being beaten and killed because they want the same freedoms the mormons wanted. they want to live freely and not be the constant targets of persecution.
gays can't escape to a new place. they can't all move somewhere and start over. the world has changed. this is not the 1800's. they can't trek across the plains and start all over.
go ahead and practice your religion. go ahead and stand up for what you believe in. but what about that golden rule your churches so proudly teach you from day one?
'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
churches (it's not just the mormon one being targeted by protesters) brought this upon themselves. although those against prop 8 are not handling the situation as they should, they are finally taking a stand. THEY are standing up for what they believe in.
just like the mormon church did when they were seeking religious freedom.
step out of your boxes and you bubbles. close your religious books and stop listening to your prophets and your ministers.
listen to your heart.
do YOU really, really want to stop love from being spread around the world? it doesn't matter if you don't understand that love or if you think it's weird or unnatural. at least its love.
at least it is love and not hate.
isn't there enough hate in the world?
religion breads fear. and fear breads hate. over time we start to fear those who are not like us. we start to hate them. then we run back to our churches and dump our money in their pockets just so they can tell us something else to be afraid of. fear+hate=money.
that money your church happily donated to keep two people from marrying could have been given to their members who are struggling to get by. or to help those in darfur, or the orphanages in mexico. that 20$ million could have been used to give families a thanksgiving dinner, or christmas to families who can't afford it. that 20$ million could have been donated to cancer research or paid for all those mormon missionaires to go on those missions. that 20$ million should have been used to help the world, not instill hate in it.
you are really okay with living in fear because your religion preaches to you that something is wrong? you are really okay with the fact that your money and your parents money was donated to take away someone's rights?
i have family members who are mormon. i have friends who are and love the mormon church but who opposed prop 8 because they saw the hate in it. this isn't about you. this isn't about your religion. this is about love. this is about spreading love and allowing two people the right to feel that same love you feel with your husband.
we are not born bigots. we are not born hating or fearing others. we are not born to take away rights. we are born to change the world..and there are two ways we can change it. with love or hate, but you can only pick one.
i think what really needs to be addressed here is i am booya's comment. shall we?
look, i'm no mathematician but i know there are strangers who are. so i'm just wondering what happens when they show up in my kitchen and make my dog a peanut butter and honey sandwich that gets stuck on the roof of his mouth. and what about ham and cheese? how does that fit into the equation? and i'm not saying that only french people should be able to eat french toast, it's just that i don't see the difference between canadian bacon and american ham. i sure as hell know my dog doesn't. plus it's really offensive when people come around bragging about their salami sub as though it were a new pair of parachute pants. cuz i'm pretty sure that animals are only supposed to wear human clothes on very fancy occasions. like madonna concerts. but that's just gay. au revoir.
loveorhate - that was an interesting comment you made. Switched it from the Gays to how awful the LDS church seems to be. They were standing up for what they believe in, just like the Gays and just like you. The gays are MORE than welcome to come to our churches, participate in our activities.. We would never try to make them feel unaccepted or "h8ted". There are certain things they can not participate in (there are certain things I can not participate in) because, thats the way it is.. I am not going to get into that. They are welcome to come and would never be shunned away by the CHURCH. The MEMBERS are people who make mistakes just like you and I. Do not judge the LDS Church by actions of some members who make foolish choices. The church took their stance as a church of God and cast their vote on the matter. Some say thats not right, others do but that is what was done.
The church helps out anyone who is willing to ask for it. Don't say that $20 million (if thats what it was, I really don't know) could have been donated to other causes. Those causes are still being taken care of by the church and by the members of the church.
The church saw something of importance to them that they felt needed attention and took some action. Thats what they do. They are not wrong for that. It is in their right.
Please don't come onto my blog and tell me (and the members of my church) to stop listening to our Prophet. If we stopped listening to him where would our guidelines come from? I call them guidelines because that is what they are. Our church offers free agency! We do NOT have to do anything they ask us to.. we CHOOSE because its what we want and believe in. We are following our hearts.
I have not been offended or bothered by anything that has been written on this post. However, your comment struck (or offended) me and I needed to respond.
"religion breads fear. and fear breads hate. over time we start to fear those who are not like us. we start to hate them. then we run back to our churches and dump our money in their pockets just so they can tell us something else to be afraid of. fear+hate=money."
That was dumb for lack of a better word. I am sorry, religion does not bread fear (to me) It gives me a foundation, something to believe in. Don't mock our tithing, it goes to good causes like those missionaries, Christmas and children in Mexico you talked about. When you say "dump money in their pockets," if we didn't do that there wouldn't be money to use on those causes we find important.
Maybe you should head on over to one of those churches and see what they really have to teach before you assume that they are full of hate towards the gays.
i've been to plenty of different churches, including the mormon church, and i have opened my heart to plenty of religions. i have learned that, for myself, my peace is found in the simplicity of my home or when i'm surrounded by people i love and who love me. as long as my heart is truly happy, so is my soul and my spirit.
i wasn't saying stop listening to your prophets and preachers forever. just right now. this moment. i realize your church gives you hope and guidance and that is what works for you and makes you happy. i just hope when you make life changing decisions, whatever they may be, that you are making them because that's what YOU feel is right in your heart.
in all honesty religion is a good thing. it gives people something to believe in. it gives them purpose. but some people don't need religion to feel spiritual or to find purpose in this life. everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
and that is the beauty of this country. or was i suppose.
i apologize that you were offended by what i said, and i wasn't trying to offend anyone. i was simply trying to state my opinion like you stated yours. i wasn't targeting your religion. there were plenty of groups and religions who got involved with this issue..and they are being attacked just as the mormon church is. and i'm not mocking the church members or what you do. what goes on in any religion is between that church and its members. mocking is childish and immature. i'm stating my opinions. you should read and consider what people have to say before you lash out.
however (this may offend you but it needs to be said) you say the church has members that make mistakes just like you and i make mistakes. which is true. every religion does. the church as a whole supported yes on 8 and MANY of its members disagreed about that stance, saying that it is unfair to state that the entire lds church is in support of this.
one man, andrew callahan, spoke out much louder than other members, and was threatened with excommunication if he did not stop.
i'm not going to put blame in anyones lap, but is that fair? does he seriously deserve to be excommunicated from the church he has been apart of his entire life for speaking up?
what about the mormon mothers of gay and lesbian sons and daughters? many of them got together to show their support for their children. should they be excommunicated for loving their children and standing against prop 8 just so their children can have the privilege of getting married?
i KNOW the mormon church has some very good morals and guidelines for its members. but i also know that a person should not be reprimanded by the faith that they love for seeing things a little differently.
would it be fair for all of these people:
http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=267
to be punished by the church because they see their involvement with prop 8 wrong?
the teachings of your church may be good. and i've personally seen that they can be. but what kind of image are they projecting to the world and to their own members when they excommunicate a faithful member for standing up?
i hope you read through the petition just to see what it has to say because it's very eye opening.
i hope you don't feel attacked or mocked or whatever else. i don't expect you or others who support prop 8 to change their minds, but just to understand where those who oppose it are coming from. i respect and understand your views on this issue, i was simply trying to state mine so that you might do the same.
Manda, I'm sorry you are having to spend so much time writing factual comments defending the argument.
I am actually about to leave for a www.jointheimpact.com event, but I wanted to add my support for you.
People, please don't use the argument of "50 years ago we would have thought the debate about gay marriage was absurd".
Because 50 years ago people thought the idea of integrated schools was a ridiculous notion.
We are progressing. We owe it to our children, our children's children and the children of your unwed daughter that gay couples adopt and raise lovingly.
Equality for All in this country that was formed so its citizens would not have to face religious persecution.
As an agnostic AMERICAN, I do not feel the argument of "God intended men to be with women and women to be with men" to be valid or credible when discussing propositions. By all means.. that can be your religious opinion, don't bring it into the voting booth.
Post a Comment