So even though I didn't get to vote on this, since I don't live in the Golden State, the impact of this is very broad. This was the most expensive ballot measure ever $73million dollars spent, and a voting count that went right down to the wire. I was really disappointed by an ad put up by the opponents of Prop 8 that shows LDS missionaries (they even announce themselves as such in the add) barging into the home of a lesbian couple, they proceed to take their wedding rings, tearing up their wedding license, and rummaging through their home. I am not sure what the message is other than the opponents of Prop 8 seem to hate members of the LDS faith so much that they find it necessary to degrade them. The hypocrisy of this add is astounding, the whole campaign is based on not discriminating, and that is the very essance of this add. I was really happy to read the LDS church's response to the whole deal.
click here to read the whole release, otherwise at least read my excerpts ;-)
Two of the most notable excerpts in my mind is this paragraph:
"The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches. "
and:
"Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society."
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
SO Blogger is giving me comment-posting issues. Hopefully it lets me post this.
Like I said in my response on my blog, I never saw that missionary commercial but I definitely agree that things hate-filled are inappropriate -- from both sides, of course. I definitely saw hate from both sides too, and to be honest I don't know the but I heard more about hate filled activities coming from the No on 8 campaign. Which is unfortunate especially since many were campaigning as "No on Hate." So I definitely agree with the hypocrisy that many were showing.
What I disagree with is the statement: "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
Like I said in my original post I don't believe it's fair to say there is such thing as a "traditional family" due to the fact that marriage and families have changed so much, even in just the last century. Furthermore, I find it bizarre to think that allowing gays to get married would somehow hinder the integrity of any couple. As far as the constitutional rights of churches here's an excerpt from the pre-election'08 CA constitution (not sure if this will be taken out with Prop 8):
California Constitution, Article I, Section 4
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, § 4.)
I love this post! Thank you Spencer! I wasn't quite sure what to say when I saw that ad... I was really disappointed by it and wasn't quite sure how to say what I felt about it, but you definitely stated it all very well... thanks!
I don't agree that the definition of "traditional marriage" has changed. I think there have been several variants of non-traditional marriage, including polygamy, but as far as I can tell traditional marriage has been between one man and one woman for centuries. It is really sort of irrelevant what they call it, since it is the definition, not the word, that they are concerned with.
I don't know if you looked at other ballot measures but a couple of states also voted on eliminating affirmative action. now if we can eliminate affirmative action then it provides a path for gays to get married. Affirmative action currently trumps the constitution, it also incites further segregation, bigotry, and racism (but that's another story). Because of this a gay couple could and in sue happy America most likely would sue a church for not performing a wedding and affirmative action would require that the church not discriminate, unless they are willing to forfeit their tax-exempt status.
So in short the elimination of affirmative action brings us much closer to equality among all Americans.
Thanks for posting, Spence. I couldn't agree more.
That suing issue has already happened. A gay couple within the past year or less tried to sue a synagogue or church because the rabbi/minister would not preform the marriage. They claimed it is supposed to be a public domain and therefore since the church would not preform the marriage, they wanted their tax exemption status taken away (tax exempt means public domain, I guess, in some areas). Incredible. As if they didn't know that they would be turned away when they asked.
I sometimes feel (only sometimes) that this marriage issue among gays is only being done to prove a point...
By the way, Spencer, you might find this Catholic article interesting: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
Check out the portion under the title: "What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?" about half way down. If those statistics are true, whoo, boy! Seem a little too harsh, since I have heard of a few homosexual couples who have committed to many years together, but, then again, maybe it wasn't exclusively committed...
Post a Comment