A response to "Prop 8 in Plain English"
This is a response to the video Prop Eight in Plain English posted by a friend on Facebook.
Hi There,
I appreciate your desire to understand and to help others understand what prop 8 means.
There are some things that video misses though:
"They believed in and wanted to teach their children traditional values" does not in any way conflict with "They felt Dan & Michael should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their lifestyle choice." Unless of course, they don't really believe the second statement. If they did, that would be part of the values they are teaching their children.
"If this isn't about rights and equality, what is it about?"
It is precisely about rights and equality. It it about dignity and respect. It is about love. Given that many churches _already_ do marriages (not "blessings" or "unions" or whatever other synonyms you can come up with), if and when I get married in my church, I would like that marriage to be recognized by the state. It is ridiculous to claim that churches would be forced to act against their doctrine. Even if the state had the power to impose religious doctrine, a church so unwelcoming would likely have already alienated its gay and lesbian members. The trouble comes in when an organization is taking public funds for services rendered to the community. If those services are not offered to the whole community, those public funds are undeserved (the adoption agency in MA decided to close its doors rather than stop taking public money or broaden their scope). "Marriage" is a tricky word. It is both secular and religious. It is important to note here that it is the secular definition we are talking about with respect to the constitution. The religious definition need not change in any way. It's also worth noting that the Body of Christ grows and changes. While I'm not saying change is good in and of itself, there have been changes for the better. Women's rights, abolition of slavery, and many other basic human rights have seen shifts in the eyes of the Church.
"They can respect Dan and Michael's lifestyle choice without affirming and embracing their lifestyle."
This is only half true. They need not embrace the lifestyle. I would never ask you to marry a man. However, I would argue that you cannot claim respect for my choices if you do not allow me to make them.
The issue isn't nearly as simple as that video would present.
One of the most unfortunate things about this issue is that there is so much hurt and pain on both sides. I have sent this email to you in hopes that we can better understand eachother's views. What I hear from this video is "Please don't attack my religion" and what I'm trying to say is "Please don't say I'm less than you."
Respectfully,
John
I've attached the unanimous statement from the Episcopal Bishops in California, they are more eloquent than I am:
We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage. Rather, the Christian values of monogamy, commitment, love, mutual respect and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all by providing this right to gay and straight alike. Society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment.
I've also included a memo from a law professor from Brigham Young University who has pointed out the legal holes in the arguments put forth by the Prop 8 ads and spells them out.
"Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church." -- Morris A. Thurston, Mormons for Marriage
Hi There,
I appreciate your desire to understand and to help others understand what prop 8 means.
There are some things that video misses though:
"They believed in and wanted to teach their children traditional values" does not in any way conflict with "They felt Dan & Michael should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their lifestyle choice." Unless of course, they don't really believe the second statement. If they did, that would be part of the values they are teaching their children.
"If this isn't about rights and equality, what is it about?"
It is precisely about rights and equality. It it about dignity and respect. It is about love. Given that many churches _already_ do marriages (not "blessings" or "unions" or whatever other synonyms you can come up with), if and when I get married in my church, I would like that marriage to be recognized by the state. It is ridiculous to claim that churches would be forced to act against their doctrine. Even if the state had the power to impose religious doctrine, a church so unwelcoming would likely have already alienated its gay and lesbian members. The trouble comes in when an organization is taking public funds for services rendered to the community. If those services are not offered to the whole community, those public funds are undeserved (the adoption agency in MA decided to close its doors rather than stop taking public money or broaden their scope). "Marriage" is a tricky word. It is both secular and religious. It is important to note here that it is the secular definition we are talking about with respect to the constitution. The religious definition need not change in any way. It's also worth noting that the Body of Christ grows and changes. While I'm not saying change is good in and of itself, there have been changes for the better. Women's rights, abolition of slavery, and many other basic human rights have seen shifts in the eyes of the Church.
"They can respect Dan and Michael's lifestyle choice without affirming and embracing their lifestyle."
This is only half true. They need not embrace the lifestyle. I would never ask you to marry a man. However, I would argue that you cannot claim respect for my choices if you do not allow me to make them.
The issue isn't nearly as simple as that video would present.
One of the most unfortunate things about this issue is that there is so much hurt and pain on both sides. I have sent this email to you in hopes that we can better understand eachother's views. What I hear from this video is "Please don't attack my religion" and what I'm trying to say is "Please don't say I'm less than you."
Respectfully,
John
I've attached the unanimous statement from the Episcopal Bishops in California, they are more eloquent than I am:
We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage. Rather, the Christian values of monogamy, commitment, love, mutual respect and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all by providing this right to gay and straight alike. Society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment.
I've also included a memo from a law professor from Brigham Young University who has pointed out the legal holes in the arguments put forth by the Prop 8 ads and spells them out.
"Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church." -- Morris A. Thurston, Mormons for Marriage