I found this article on The New York Times website. There have been numerous protests by gay rights activists outside Mormon churches, including one in NYC last night. According to the data, Mormons were big funders of the Yes on Prop 8 vote.
I think, however, that protests outside a church, any church, will do little more than to get media attention at this stage. First, although the Mormon church actively sought to pass this piece of legislation, it's not the New Yorkers that voted in favor of Prop 8. I even wonder how much funding came from NYC?
Second, although I am disgusted by the vote, I don't think protesting outside a church is going to change anyone's mind inside the church. The Yes on Prop 8 campaign was not entirely truthful, but that's how political campaigns are run. They raised more money than our side and obviously ran a better campaign.
And, finally, I think a big reason this piece of legislation passed was due to the silence and lack of commitment by the Obama-Biden campaign. Towards the end of the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and Joe Biden both mentioned in almost a whisper that they opposed Prop 8. But, they did nothing to campaign against it. In a sad way, they probably felt they couldn't. The major presidential candidate who is already being labeled as too liberal would have difficulty shaking off that label if they actively campaigned against Prop 8. 59% of Catholics voted for Obama in California. But 64% of Catholics voted FOR Prop 8. Weekly church-goers who voted for Obama, supported Prop 8 with an 84% of the vote. 70% of African-Americans who voted for Barack Obama, voted Yes on 8. Read more here and here.
So, I don't think protesting the churches will actually get us anywhere except on TV and it may help to build the anti-gay marriage coffers in the long run. Instead we should focus on building a campaign for the next proposition, for the next court battle, try and get the President-elect's support, and raising more money now.
Gay Activists Rally Outside Mormon Temple in NYC
NEW YORK (AP) -- Carrying signs reading ''Love not H8'' and ''Did you cast a ballot or a stone?'', a large crowd of gay-marriage supporters gathered outside a Mormon temple to protest the church's endorsement of a same-sex marriage ban in California.
The rally Wednesday night outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple came hours after gay couples exchanged vows for the first time in Connecticut amid cheers and tears of joy.
The milestone did not ease the sting of a major loss for gay-marriage supporters last week. Gay activists planned protests across the country over the vote that took away their right to wed in California.
In the Upper West Side of Manhattan, demonstrators chanted ''Shame on you!'' outside the temple. Leaders of the Mormon church had encouraged members to support passage of California's Proposition 8, a referendum banning same-sex marriage.
''I'm fed up and disgusted with religious institutions taking political stances and calling them moral when it's nothing but politics,'' said Dennis Williams, 36. ''Meanwhile they enjoy tax-free status while trying to deny me rights that should be mine at the state and federal level.''
Church spokesman Michael Otterson said that while citizens have the right to protest, he was ''puzzled'' and ''disturbed'' by the gathering since the majority of California's voters had approved the amendment.
''This was a very broad-based coalition that defended traditional marriage in a free and democratic election,'' Otterson said, referring to the numerous religious and social conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8.
Organizers of the rally estimated at least 10,000 people participated. Police said they could not give a crowd estimate.
Gay-marriage advocates said they were planning nationwide demonstrations this weekend in more than 175 cities and outside the U.S. Capitol. A Seattle blogger was trying to organize simultaneous protests outside statehouses and city halls in every state Saturday.
Earlier in Connecticut, Jody Mock and Elizabeth Kerrigan emerged from Town Hall in West Hartford to the cheers of about 150 people and waved their marriage license high. The couple led the lawsuit that overturned the state law.
''We feel very fortunate to live in the state of Connecticut, where marriage equality is valued, and hopefully other states will also do what is fair,'' Kerrigan said.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a 2005 civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples. A lower-court judge entered a final order permitting same-sex marriage Wednesday morning. Massachusetts is the only other state that allows gay marriages.
Connecticut officials had no information Wednesday on how many marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples. According to the state public health department, 2,032 civil union licenses were issued between October 2005 and July 2008.
Like the highest courts in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court ruled this spring that same-sex marriage is legal. After about 18,000 such unions were conducted in California, however, its voters last week approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment.
Gay rights groups said Wednesday they may ask California voters to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage if legal challenges to Proposition 8 are unsuccessful.
The California vote has sparked protests in several states, many targeting Mormon churches. Some have been vandalized.
Activists also are aiming boycotts and protests at businesses and individuals who contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8.
Showing posts with label Proposition 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proposition 8. Show all posts
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A Priest who disagrees with the Bishops on Prop 8
Lots of Point/Counterpoint today. From the LA Times, a story on Father Geoffrey Farrow who recently came out as a gay man and spoke against Prop 8:
Gay priest is true to his faith, at odds with his church
Steve Lopez
October 26, 2008
So who is this Catholic priest from Fresno who stood up and spoke out against Proposition 8, putting his career on the line? As a gay man who finds the church's views on homosexuality so objectionable, why has he been a priest for more than 20 years and subjected himself to such moral conflict?
After reading my colleague Duke Helfand's story about Father Geoffrey Farrow and his recent career-suicide from the pulpit, I was curious.
Farrow agreed to meet me for lunch in the middle of a schedule that's gotten very busy since he became persona non grata to his employer. He's been asked to appear all over the state for rallies against Prop. 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Father Farrow, who was suspended by his bishop two weeks ago, strolled into the lobby of the Kyoto Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles wearing the collar.
"I'm still a priest," he said over lunch, though he fully expected to be disciplined for speaking to his congregation about Prop. 8 and wouldn't be surprised if he's ultimately fired.
For the moment, he's staying with friends in Los Angeles. Farrow, 50, doesn't know what he'll do after the election. He was suspended without pay and said his medical benefits run out at the end of the month.
Farrow, who lived in Cuba until the age of 4, grew up Catholic in Florida and knew as a teenager that he was gay. He dated girls "to keep up appearances" but was miserable about it, and he began questioning his faith.
"If God is omnipotent, why is there evil in the world?" he asked himself as body bags returned to the U.S. from Vietnam.
He looked into agnosticism and atheism, neither of which offered the answers he wanted. In his first year of college in Florida, he studied philosophy, read Cicero and mused on the meaning of history, civilization and the nature of God.
"I have a hunger for the transcendent," Farrow said. "This is too precise," he said of man and the universe, "to be a coincidence." And so he became a believer, once more, in the church he had been "carried to in diapers."
When I told Farrow that as an agnostic, I don't understand that leap, he described God as love and faith as trust.
"Trust is fundamental of all human relationships," he said. "Part of the attraction of the relationship with that person is that you're always familiar with them and yet always discovering them."
I love and trust my wife, I said, but she's real and doesn't need to prove that she exists.
"Precisely," Farrow said with a smile, as if I'd described his relationship with God.
When his family moved from Florida to Redondo Beach in the 1970s, Farrow, still closeted as a gay man, joined St. John's Seminary in Camarillo.
Is it possible, I asked, that becoming a priest was a way of avoiding coming to terms with his sexuality? Farrow had, after all, once prayed to God to "please make me normal, please make me normal."
"That's a valid question," he said, but he believes he was addressing his spiritual rather than sexual identity in becoming a priest.
Wasn't it a suffocating compromise? I asked. He had given himself over to a church that has, despite moderating its views in recent decades, condemned homosexuality and marginalized gays, even though in Farrow's opinion a sizable percentage of priests are gay. Farrow conceded that he has considered church teachings "monstrous," especially given the history of violence and suicide victimizing gays. But he said he has always believed in the church, if not in the men who led it. It's like loving a family member despite a falling out, or loving your country even as you doubt its leaders.
"I'm not happy with the current administration," Farrow said, "but I haven't shredded my passport."
I asked if he'd had any relationships while serving as a priest.
Yes, he confessed. He seemed near tears and stopped short of sharing the details. But he said it had ended.
I wondered again how anyone could go through such an ordeal and remain committed to a church that considers it a sin for a gay person to act on biological urges. Whom do you even talk to for help? I asked.
"There are a lot of clergy who deal with this," Farrow said, telling me many priests in the Fresno diocese are gay. "You speak to each other."
But that's a form of silence as well as hypocrisy, and Farrow was increasingly troubled by his double life. Not long ago, he saw a woman crying in a church hallway and asked what was wrong.
"My son just came out to me," she said. "I was having a dinner party and I told him he couldn't bring his boyfriend."
"Do you know what you just did?" Farrow asked her. "You just told your son he was not as important to you as your dinner guests."
Farrow then had his epiphany when he was asked by a Prop. 8 supporter in Fresno to speak up in favor of the measure. He knew he couldn't and that in fact he had to do just the opposite.
"I am morally compelled to vote no on Proposition 8," he told his congregation, saying he had to break "a numbing silence" about church prejudice against homosexuals.
Among the critics in his own parish and beyond, there are those who quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality and gay marriage.
"The Bible is not a book, it's a library written over 15 centuries," Farrow told me, suggesting that Christianity has and should continue to evolve. "People who approach scripture in a literal fashion are attempting to manipulate God himself."
To Farrow, condemning gay and lesbian marriage is as offensive as the condemnations of interracial marriage not too many decades ago.
" 'Think about the children,' they said, and they're doing the same with this," Farrow said indignantly. "If a child is raised in a home where he's loved, that's a good home."
So why not just quit his job rather than wait to get fired?
Farrow said he still sees the church as home, and believes his new mission is to force this issue whether he's wearing a collar or not.
"They said I've caused scandal to the church," he said. "I think the real scandal is the thousands of gay and lesbian children who feel abandoned by the church of their baptism."
When he was in seminary, Farrow interned as deacon at St. Vincent's Medical Center and worked with terminally ill patients. As the end nears, Farrow told me, people say the things they never could utter. They are "more alive than ever . . . because they realize the futility of fear." He found them all contemplating the same questions.
"Were you true to your conscience? Did you do what you felt was right?"
And one more.
"What do you have in the end but the love you gave away?"
Gay priest is true to his faith, at odds with his church
Steve Lopez
October 26, 2008
So who is this Catholic priest from Fresno who stood up and spoke out against Proposition 8, putting his career on the line? As a gay man who finds the church's views on homosexuality so objectionable, why has he been a priest for more than 20 years and subjected himself to such moral conflict?
After reading my colleague Duke Helfand's story about Father Geoffrey Farrow and his recent career-suicide from the pulpit, I was curious.
Farrow agreed to meet me for lunch in the middle of a schedule that's gotten very busy since he became persona non grata to his employer. He's been asked to appear all over the state for rallies against Prop. 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Father Farrow, who was suspended by his bishop two weeks ago, strolled into the lobby of the Kyoto Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles wearing the collar.
"I'm still a priest," he said over lunch, though he fully expected to be disciplined for speaking to his congregation about Prop. 8 and wouldn't be surprised if he's ultimately fired.
For the moment, he's staying with friends in Los Angeles. Farrow, 50, doesn't know what he'll do after the election. He was suspended without pay and said his medical benefits run out at the end of the month.
Farrow, who lived in Cuba until the age of 4, grew up Catholic in Florida and knew as a teenager that he was gay. He dated girls "to keep up appearances" but was miserable about it, and he began questioning his faith.
"If God is omnipotent, why is there evil in the world?" he asked himself as body bags returned to the U.S. from Vietnam.
He looked into agnosticism and atheism, neither of which offered the answers he wanted. In his first year of college in Florida, he studied philosophy, read Cicero and mused on the meaning of history, civilization and the nature of God.
"I have a hunger for the transcendent," Farrow said. "This is too precise," he said of man and the universe, "to be a coincidence." And so he became a believer, once more, in the church he had been "carried to in diapers."
When I told Farrow that as an agnostic, I don't understand that leap, he described God as love and faith as trust.
"Trust is fundamental of all human relationships," he said. "Part of the attraction of the relationship with that person is that you're always familiar with them and yet always discovering them."
I love and trust my wife, I said, but she's real and doesn't need to prove that she exists.
"Precisely," Farrow said with a smile, as if I'd described his relationship with God.
When his family moved from Florida to Redondo Beach in the 1970s, Farrow, still closeted as a gay man, joined St. John's Seminary in Camarillo.
Is it possible, I asked, that becoming a priest was a way of avoiding coming to terms with his sexuality? Farrow had, after all, once prayed to God to "please make me normal, please make me normal."
"That's a valid question," he said, but he believes he was addressing his spiritual rather than sexual identity in becoming a priest.
Wasn't it a suffocating compromise? I asked. He had given himself over to a church that has, despite moderating its views in recent decades, condemned homosexuality and marginalized gays, even though in Farrow's opinion a sizable percentage of priests are gay. Farrow conceded that he has considered church teachings "monstrous," especially given the history of violence and suicide victimizing gays. But he said he has always believed in the church, if not in the men who led it. It's like loving a family member despite a falling out, or loving your country even as you doubt its leaders.
"I'm not happy with the current administration," Farrow said, "but I haven't shredded my passport."
I asked if he'd had any relationships while serving as a priest.
Yes, he confessed. He seemed near tears and stopped short of sharing the details. But he said it had ended.
I wondered again how anyone could go through such an ordeal and remain committed to a church that considers it a sin for a gay person to act on biological urges. Whom do you even talk to for help? I asked.
"There are a lot of clergy who deal with this," Farrow said, telling me many priests in the Fresno diocese are gay. "You speak to each other."
But that's a form of silence as well as hypocrisy, and Farrow was increasingly troubled by his double life. Not long ago, he saw a woman crying in a church hallway and asked what was wrong.
"My son just came out to me," she said. "I was having a dinner party and I told him he couldn't bring his boyfriend."
"Do you know what you just did?" Farrow asked her. "You just told your son he was not as important to you as your dinner guests."
Farrow then had his epiphany when he was asked by a Prop. 8 supporter in Fresno to speak up in favor of the measure. He knew he couldn't and that in fact he had to do just the opposite.
"I am morally compelled to vote no on Proposition 8," he told his congregation, saying he had to break "a numbing silence" about church prejudice against homosexuals.
Among the critics in his own parish and beyond, there are those who quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality and gay marriage.
"The Bible is not a book, it's a library written over 15 centuries," Farrow told me, suggesting that Christianity has and should continue to evolve. "People who approach scripture in a literal fashion are attempting to manipulate God himself."
To Farrow, condemning gay and lesbian marriage is as offensive as the condemnations of interracial marriage not too many decades ago.
" 'Think about the children,' they said, and they're doing the same with this," Farrow said indignantly. "If a child is raised in a home where he's loved, that's a good home."
So why not just quit his job rather than wait to get fired?
Farrow said he still sees the church as home, and believes his new mission is to force this issue whether he's wearing a collar or not.
"They said I've caused scandal to the church," he said. "I think the real scandal is the thousands of gay and lesbian children who feel abandoned by the church of their baptism."
When he was in seminary, Farrow interned as deacon at St. Vincent's Medical Center and worked with terminally ill patients. As the end nears, Farrow told me, people say the things they never could utter. They are "more alive than ever . . . because they realize the futility of fear." He found them all contemplating the same questions.
"Were you true to your conscience? Did you do what you felt was right?"
And one more.
"What do you have in the end but the love you gave away?"
California Bishops on Prop 8
This is an excerpt of the statement the Bishops of California put out back in August:
A Constitutional Amendment to Restore the Definition of Marriage
"Only the rock of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of acting as a foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings."
—Pope Benedict XVI, addressing the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, May 11, 2006
The issue before us with Proposition 8 is "marriage"—an ancient, yet modern, human institution which pre-exists both Church and government. Marriage, history shows us, is intrinsic to stable, flourishing and hospitable societies. Although cultural differences have occurred, what has never changed is that marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race.
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the current law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. This radical change in public policy will have many profound effects on our society, because it
Discounts the biological and organic reality of marriage—and how deeply embedded it is in our culture, our language and our laws and ignores the common understanding of the word marriage; and because it diminishes the word "marriage" to mean only a "partnership"-a purely adult contractual arrangement for individuals over the age of 18. Children—if there are any—are no longer a primary societal rationale for the institution.
As teachers of the faith, we invite our faithful Catholics to carefully form their consciences. We do that by drawing on the revelation of Scripture, the wisdom of Tradition, the experience and insights of holy men and women as well as on what can be known by reason alone.
Crystallizing the teaching on marriage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1603, 1604) proclaims:
God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.
With all this in mind, we, as bishops, offer counsel to our Catholic people in California in their response to this radical change in California's public policy regarding marriage.
First, same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions. The marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father. We recognize that there are parents who are single and we laud them for the great sacrifices they make in raising their children.
Second, we need to recall that marriage mirrors God's relationship with us-and that marriage completes, enriches and perpetuates humanity. When men and women consummate their marriage they offer themselves to God as co-creators of a new human being. Any other pairing-while possibly offering security and companionship to the individuals involved—is not marriage. We must support traditional marriage as the source of our civilization, the foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings, and the reflection of our relationship with God.
Third, we need to remember that we are all children of God possessed of human dignity and that each of us is created in God's image. Protecting the traditional understanding of marriage should not in any way disparage our brothers and sisters—even if they disagree with us.
Fourth, we must pray and work for a just resolution of this issue which is so important to the well being of the human family.
Fifth, as citizens of California, we need to avail ourselves of the opportunity to overturn this ruling by the California Supreme Court. On the November general election ballot, there will be Proposition 8 which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That language simply affirms the historic, logical and reasonable definition of marriage—and does not remove any benefits from other contractual arrangements.
A Constitutional Amendment to Restore the Definition of Marriage
"Only the rock of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of acting as a foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings."
—Pope Benedict XVI, addressing the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, May 11, 2006
The issue before us with Proposition 8 is "marriage"—an ancient, yet modern, human institution which pre-exists both Church and government. Marriage, history shows us, is intrinsic to stable, flourishing and hospitable societies. Although cultural differences have occurred, what has never changed is that marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race.
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the current law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. This radical change in public policy will have many profound effects on our society, because it
Discounts the biological and organic reality of marriage—and how deeply embedded it is in our culture, our language and our laws and ignores the common understanding of the word marriage; and because it diminishes the word "marriage" to mean only a "partnership"-a purely adult contractual arrangement for individuals over the age of 18. Children—if there are any—are no longer a primary societal rationale for the institution.
As teachers of the faith, we invite our faithful Catholics to carefully form their consciences. We do that by drawing on the revelation of Scripture, the wisdom of Tradition, the experience and insights of holy men and women as well as on what can be known by reason alone.
Crystallizing the teaching on marriage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1603, 1604) proclaims:
God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.
With all this in mind, we, as bishops, offer counsel to our Catholic people in California in their response to this radical change in California's public policy regarding marriage.
First, same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions. The marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father. We recognize that there are parents who are single and we laud them for the great sacrifices they make in raising their children.
Second, we need to recall that marriage mirrors God's relationship with us-and that marriage completes, enriches and perpetuates humanity. When men and women consummate their marriage they offer themselves to God as co-creators of a new human being. Any other pairing-while possibly offering security and companionship to the individuals involved—is not marriage. We must support traditional marriage as the source of our civilization, the foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings, and the reflection of our relationship with God.
Third, we need to remember that we are all children of God possessed of human dignity and that each of us is created in God's image. Protecting the traditional understanding of marriage should not in any way disparage our brothers and sisters—even if they disagree with us.
Fourth, we must pray and work for a just resolution of this issue which is so important to the well being of the human family.
Fifth, as citizens of California, we need to avail ourselves of the opportunity to overturn this ruling by the California Supreme Court. On the November general election ballot, there will be Proposition 8 which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That language simply affirms the historic, logical and reasonable definition of marriage—and does not remove any benefits from other contractual arrangements.
The American Muslim on Prop 8
Here's an opinion from a blogger I follow, The American Muslim. I agree with most of his piece, though I do think the wording of "civil union" v "marriage" has to be resolved. "Civil unions" though affording the same rights is not the same as "marriage." And yes, wording does matter.
Remember that "separate but equal" afforded African-Americans the same rights and access as whites. But it was not enough and it was not OK.
Read on:
Ordinarily, I don’t speak on GBLT issues. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion, but I never figured how it could pertain to my blog’s intent, however, I have changed my attitude and included my scope to include any and all issues out there. Which brings me to this prop 8 ruling.
I have to admit, I do see things from the GBLT perspective. I believe that this whole debate is a civil rights issue, not in the vein of the civil rights movement as many GBLT groups claim, but one nonetheless.
As an American, I have a hard time accepting that one citizens tax dollars should afford them more rights than anothers simply because of their beliefs and or sexual orientation.
I believe everyone regardless of ideology or background should be afforded equal rights across the board.
However, there has to be compromise on both sides.
I understand the faith communities points well as I too adhere to what my scripture tells me about same sex relations. BUT I believe that members of faith communities are being a wee bit hypocritical in their lopsided application of said scriptural mandates. If we are to be so anti same sex relations, then we should be just as harsh for adulterers, criminals, liars, etc.
We cannot have it both ways picking and choosing our hot-button issues at the moment swatting at gnats using our religion as a tool to propagate against those things that make us uncomfortable.
I believe scripturally that we have to afford people the CHOICE to be who they want to be no matter how sinful we as individuals may believe them to be. God Alone is the Ultimate Judge.
Now as it relates to our Republic, we have to make up our minds as to what we want. Do we want a Theocracy or a Democracy? If we want a Theocracy than we should expect to govern as such. That means shutting down all bars, clubs, etc. Shutting down Hollywood and ensuring swift punishment to all who fornicate, steal, cheat on their spouses, collect taxes, etc. Then we have to pick one religious law over anothers? Will we be a Christian Theocracy where divorce and re-marrying is illegal? Or an Islamic Theocrary, Judaic Theocracy, etc.
But if we want a Democracy than we have to accept that our laws must represent all people no matter their differences and as long as they do not commit any crimes.
Marriage has religious implications, but who has the monopoly on that word in the faith community? When we use that word which faith group has the unique right to define what that is? Does it involve a Priest, Rabbi, or Imam? This sacred rite, should not be confused with the legal rights that are given afterwards. Even after your ceromony you still have to have a license issued by the State. No religious leader can issue you a license, only the state can. Some people just go straight to the state and forgo religious rites alltogether. Is there a legal difference?
This is where I believe there can be compromise. I believe the GBLT community should leave the word “marriage” alone. Go straight to the legal heart of the matter and fight for a civil union. I mean the whole point is to get the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple right? Who cares if us religious folk don’t agree with the “sanctity” of what you legally want to have. I don’t agree with many things that are legal, some don’t agree with my disagreement, but that’s what America’s all about. We don’t have to agree on anything ever, but as long as we have the same rights, we can agree to disagree.
And that is something I think we can all agree with.
Remember that "separate but equal" afforded African-Americans the same rights and access as whites. But it was not enough and it was not OK.
Read on:
Ordinarily, I don’t speak on GBLT issues. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion, but I never figured how it could pertain to my blog’s intent, however, I have changed my attitude and included my scope to include any and all issues out there. Which brings me to this prop 8 ruling.
I have to admit, I do see things from the GBLT perspective. I believe that this whole debate is a civil rights issue, not in the vein of the civil rights movement as many GBLT groups claim, but one nonetheless.
As an American, I have a hard time accepting that one citizens tax dollars should afford them more rights than anothers simply because of their beliefs and or sexual orientation.
I believe everyone regardless of ideology or background should be afforded equal rights across the board.
However, there has to be compromise on both sides.
I understand the faith communities points well as I too adhere to what my scripture tells me about same sex relations. BUT I believe that members of faith communities are being a wee bit hypocritical in their lopsided application of said scriptural mandates. If we are to be so anti same sex relations, then we should be just as harsh for adulterers, criminals, liars, etc.
We cannot have it both ways picking and choosing our hot-button issues at the moment swatting at gnats using our religion as a tool to propagate against those things that make us uncomfortable.
I believe scripturally that we have to afford people the CHOICE to be who they want to be no matter how sinful we as individuals may believe them to be. God Alone is the Ultimate Judge.
Now as it relates to our Republic, we have to make up our minds as to what we want. Do we want a Theocracy or a Democracy? If we want a Theocracy than we should expect to govern as such. That means shutting down all bars, clubs, etc. Shutting down Hollywood and ensuring swift punishment to all who fornicate, steal, cheat on their spouses, collect taxes, etc. Then we have to pick one religious law over anothers? Will we be a Christian Theocracy where divorce and re-marrying is illegal? Or an Islamic Theocrary, Judaic Theocracy, etc.
But if we want a Democracy than we have to accept that our laws must represent all people no matter their differences and as long as they do not commit any crimes.
Marriage has religious implications, but who has the monopoly on that word in the faith community? When we use that word which faith group has the unique right to define what that is? Does it involve a Priest, Rabbi, or Imam? This sacred rite, should not be confused with the legal rights that are given afterwards. Even after your ceromony you still have to have a license issued by the State. No religious leader can issue you a license, only the state can. Some people just go straight to the state and forgo religious rites alltogether. Is there a legal difference?
This is where I believe there can be compromise. I believe the GBLT community should leave the word “marriage” alone. Go straight to the legal heart of the matter and fight for a civil union. I mean the whole point is to get the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple right? Who cares if us religious folk don’t agree with the “sanctity” of what you legally want to have. I don’t agree with many things that are legal, some don’t agree with my disagreement, but that’s what America’s all about. We don’t have to agree on anything ever, but as long as we have the same rights, we can agree to disagree.
And that is something I think we can all agree with.
Keith Olbermann on Prop 8
I usually think Keith Olbermann is a kook, but his commentary on Prop 8 makes sense.
I don't think he'll be winning any points from the religious conservatives but his argument on love is a good one. Essentially: Just give people the same chance to love that you have!
I don't think he'll be winning any points from the religious conservatives but his argument on love is a good one. Essentially: Just give people the same chance to love that you have!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
No on Prop 8!
I've been following the debate on Proposition 8 in California. The proposition would basically amend the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
I support a 'No' vote on Proposition 8!
I'm sure my publicly stated opinion will bring in commentary and emails from all sides of the argument. And, I invite them.
I will remind you that not long ago laws prevented interracial marriage. Arguments were made that such a marriage would harm our nation's children and bring about the end of society as we knew it. The arguments were disgusting. I am sad to say that the same arguments are being made again regarding same-sex marriage. Those arguments are disgusting.
This is a civil rights issue/state issue. There is no just reason that two people should not be allowed to celebrate their love through a legal union. It's simply wrong to treat people differently.
I am a supporter of The Human Rights Campaign, the biggest GLBT civil rights organization in our country. If you can spare a minute or two, please visit their website for more information.
Here are some ads urging voters to vote NO on Prop 8:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere! - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I support a 'No' vote on Proposition 8!
I'm sure my publicly stated opinion will bring in commentary and emails from all sides of the argument. And, I invite them.
I will remind you that not long ago laws prevented interracial marriage. Arguments were made that such a marriage would harm our nation's children and bring about the end of society as we knew it. The arguments were disgusting. I am sad to say that the same arguments are being made again regarding same-sex marriage. Those arguments are disgusting.
This is a civil rights issue/state issue. There is no just reason that two people should not be allowed to celebrate their love through a legal union. It's simply wrong to treat people differently.
I am a supporter of The Human Rights Campaign, the biggest GLBT civil rights organization in our country. If you can spare a minute or two, please visit their website for more information.
Here are some ads urging voters to vote NO on Prop 8:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere! - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
