Not yet a member? Register now.
Username
Password

July 4, 2009 6:02 am PDT

Advertise | Subscribe | Email Newsletter | Archive Search | |

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Yes, we gays and lesbians disagree with what Mormons believe, but we ARE NOT discriminating against them for it.  We are completely tolerant of their right to religious freedom.  We are focusing on them because of the massive effort they undertook to take away our rights.  We are intolerant of their intolerance in forcing their beliefs into law, with deception and scare tactics in their ads.

I’ve spent a tremendous amount of time trying to explain the truth behind the false information my Mormon family has been led to believe (such as fear that churches would not be free to consider homosexuality immoral).

I don’t think there is any way I can be tolerant of intolerance.  That’s the situation.

Comment by Darin W on 11/13/08 at 7:19 pm

Now they’ve turned to terrorism….

I missed that chapter in How to Win Friends and Influence People

Comment by Bob on 11/13/08 at 7:22 pm

Darin W,

No offense but you do appear to be discriminating. See, I haven’t seen any protests against Obama, who has the same position on gay marriage as the Mormons (despite his nebulous stance on changing the constitution to accommodate his stance).  And I haven’t seen Anti-9 people protest the different Yes on 8 voting blocks.  By definition: discrimination.

The No on 8 side calculates that it is politically acceptable to be rude and offensive to Mormons—but is too afraid of being labeled racists if they protest blacks and Hispanics.  Or in their racist way maybe they just fear that blacks and Hispanics will not be so tolerant of their abominable behavior.

Comment by Eric on 11/13/08 at 7:36 pm

Eric,

I’ve been protesting outside the mormon temple since BEFORE the election.  Not that it matters.  But at least I hope you’ll agree that *I* am not discriminating.  My beef has been with the mormons and the up to 77% of the money for prop 8 they provided, along with an army of feet on the ground.

To me, this level of involvement rises to picking a fight with the gay community.  It’s one group massively trying to steamroll another.

But in any case, I don’t think it’s discrimination to have a belief that the money and manpower of the mormon church is what really cost us our rights.  There has been plenty of analysis to show that the Black community, though voting against us by huge margins, cost the election.  To me, that shows that we need to build more of a bridge with that community, and that we may have failed to reach them effectively in campaigning.

And there is a huge difference between simply voting and steamrolling another group with money and manpower to spread lies and misinformation.

Comment by Darin W on 11/13/08 at 7:56 pm

Sorry—typo in the above.  I meant to say the Black community DID NOT cost us the election.  Mormon money and manpower did.

Comment by Darin W on 11/13/08 at 7:57 pm

“Now they’ve turned to terrorism….

I missed that chapter in How to Win Friends and Influence People”

Just who is “they”?  Are you implying the LBGT community is behind this?  How do you know who “they” are? 

Remember the McCain volunteer nutjob who carved the backwards “b” into her face?

Comment by jem on 11/13/08 at 8:09 pm

“they” obviously means whoever sent it. Whoever is mad at the mormons to do such a ridiculous thing.  a little defensive arent we jem

Comment by Ryan on 11/13/08 at 8:29 pm

Darin - you say

I’ve spent a tremendous amount of time trying to explain the truth behind the false information my Mormon family has been led to believe (such as fear that churches would not be free to consider homosexuality immoral).

Why is that false, or if it is false today will it be false tomorrow?

Perhaps you are familiar with the case of Ake Green, a Swedish pastor jailed for the crime of disrespect to homosexuals. He had delivered a sermon entitled “Are people born with homosexual orientation or is it the result of influence by evil powers?”,

He beat the rap as explained here, but this won’t be the end of it.

Closer to home, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just got into hot water for calling homosexual behavior similar to adultery. Well, isn’t it? Unless they are married of course and find themselves in the same unit. But even without marriage, you tell me what proportion of homosexual liaisons occur between committed couples, even compared to heterosexual liaisons.

But that’s just by the way. Let’s just understand that gay marriage is just the beginning. The conflict won’t end until every aspect of society, every person, statement and attitude is transformed, which means never. The backlash will be far worse than the status quo.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/13/08 at 8:33 pm

You are accusing the gay community for sending the white powder when you don’t even know the facts. It could be someone from the Mormon church trying to make it look that way or someone else on the outside of both parties. And yes it could be some wacky gay person as well but don’t say our whole community is out of hand.

Comment by R Brown on 11/13/08 at 9:18 pm

Oh my. Ben, these arguments about “what if this happens” or “what if that happens” sound suspiciously like the arguments used to lock up Japanese Americans in internment camps.

Why not address any SPECIFIC issues that MAY come up instead of going to the extreme of denying gay couples the right to marry, or otherwise use fears to justify discrimination?  The vast majority of gay people are reasonable, and don’t want kids in kindergarten to be learning information that is not age appropriate, etc.  While we don’t particularly like being called immoral sinners in churches or in private, there is certainly no way to force anyone to believe anything they don’t want to believe. It’s absurd to claim that is our goal.

Just as racism and anti-semitism still exists, so will homophobia.  The only way to counter that is winning people over and getting people past their fears, and even then, only for open minded people who don’t just hate for the sake of it.

We simply want people to leave us alone to live our own lives, without laws that single us out for discrimination for no compelling state interest.

Comment by Darin W on 11/13/08 at 10:29 pm

We are protesting on Sunday November 16th at 10 a.m. at the First A.M.E. Church in Los Angeles located at 2270 S Harvard Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90018.  We need a well attended Protest to show we will go to any group, anywhere to let them know of our Civil Rights plight.  Blacks would not have gotten their civil rights without the Gay-Lesbian community!  Many of MLK’s inner circle were gay, they owe us big-time!!

Comment by usedtobegay on 11/13/08 at 11:17 pm

Ryan, my point was that we don’t know who sent it.

Ashley Todd, the McCain volunteer, carved the backwards “b” into her face and fabricated a story to cause hysteria.

We don’t yet know the facts on this whole white powder thing and it’s being asserted/assumed that it’s whoever who is mad at the Mormons. 

I agree with R Brown… We shouldn’t jump to conclusions until we learn more.

Comment by jem on 11/14/08 at 12:32 am

Darin W
Japanese Internment camps for Japanese citizens? Is that all you are worried about? Well, I am authorized to tell you that nothing like that is in the works. No fear. No hatred. No discrimination. OK ?

Interesting, this is a topic about intimidation and coercion of the heterophilic community by heterophobic homophiliacs, and you try to turn it around. Silly me. I assumed that by mentioning real live actual examples I could avoid being accused of ‘hypotheticals’. That Swedish pastor was exonerated by his Supreme Court, but not till a year after spending a month in jail.

If you think I am not being specific, you have not read the one or two dozen posts I have made hashing this out on topics on this blog. I don’t know an easy way to refer you to my discussion other than to recommend a search of the blog. It would be worth your time.

You don’t simply want the right to live your own lives free of legal discrimination. You have that already. It may have been a long road from outlaw status to deregulation to toleration, but here you are. Outside of the military which involves certain obvious same-sex complications, you may ask and you may tell. You may in fact marry each other in your own way, and do it with every kind of ceremony you wish; you may commit and contract with each other as far as financial arrangements. What would change for you if Prop 8 was struck down? What changes for you now that it passed?

But let’s work out a solution. I know… how about reverse discrimination!!!??? Payback time, baby!

Let’s allow gay people to marry and divorce each other completely at will, without government interference. But we will require all the heterosexual people to get a license!

Oh, they’ll kick and scream, but it will serve them right for disrespecting you all these years! Waddaya say?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/14/08 at 12:39 am

you gays don’t understand the lds church or it’s people. From the begining the more persecution they receive the stronger and the more people join their cause. This friction with the church and the gay community only shows the Christian world which church has the backbone to stand for something they beleive in, and not be tossed to and fro just to be popular or to make friends. The more you fight the Mormons the stronger they get…. 10% of people are gay? That leaves the majority that are quietly rooting for the Mormons.. The smartest thing the gay community could do is to shut up! And be good losers!!!

Comment by dave on 11/14/08 at 1:54 am

Well I’m one gay that does understand the mormons.  After all, I was mormon until this past Sunday, and all of my family is mormon along with extended family.

I understand them so well that I was out in front of the Mormon temple in los angeles protesting for a week before the election.  Glad my gay people came to join me since then.

You are entitled to your theory, but I absolutely know that they never expected this.

Actually, I’m privy to some “inside” communication from Mormon congregations and I know for a fact that this isn’t going well for them.

Comment by Darin W on 11/14/08 at 2:02 am

If anything, I bet these “anthrax” scares are being done by the homophobic assholes that advocated passing Prop 8. They do it to publicly discredit and give the gays a bad reputation and make the public unsupportive of their cause. We certainly know that the yes on 8 people used lies and dirty tricks to persuade people that gay marriage hurts kids and schools. It would not be surprising that anyone on that side would continue to fight dirty and low. “Gays are now terrorists, we have to stop them”. That’s what they’re going to do. Nazi Germany did it to purge the opposition in their rise to power.

Comment by Mike on 11/14/08 at 2:41 am

A couple things:

1.  The theory that a mormon sent the white powder to the mormon temple to frame the “no on 8 crowd” is as preposterous as the theory that a bunch of gays donated money to the yes on 8 campaign disguised as mormons to give them a bad rap.  Seriously, you can’t expect anyone to believe that.

2.  There was an excellent question posed here, and every time I hear it posed it gets ignored.  What rights are you denied by not being allowed to marry someone of the same gender?  This really is a question of semantics.  In CA you already have domestic partnerships, which afford you all the rights that most gay advocates are looking for (hospital visitation, inheritance rights, even adoption rights, etc.)  The marriage debate is just about getting the title.  Or do you disagree?

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 3:04 am

I agree the title is the point. It is not that gay people need a change in their condition, it is that they need social validation by having everyone else’s marriage redefined as a subset of something they don’t agree with. Prop 8 only clarified the intent of existing marriage legislation by making it explicit, since the Supreme Court decision proved that there was a loophole. As long as the government accomodated the classical definition of marriage that was fine. When the government is used as a club to change it that should be resisted.

But the demonstration tactic is counterproductive because it is an apples-to-oranges argument. The Mormons and evangelicals don’t care about the behavior of gay people. They care about doing God’s will on a social as well as personal basis, and are using peaceful democratic means to do so. That’s the game and those are the rules. That is what gay mobs are up against, so attempts at intimidation are a waste of time. They might as well demonstrate for the right for their baseball team to field eleven men. Waste of time.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/14/08 at 3:22 am

I’m really curious if a No on 8 supporter would agree that it’s about the title.

But thanks for the response Ben.  I’ve enjoyed your posts so far.

Comment by Scott McPhie on 11/14/08 at 3:25 am

Thanks. The title is not a trivial thing. It drags in a boatload of regulation, litigation and enforcement implications. Pre-nups, marriage, adultery, custody, divorce, orders of protection, child support, yechhh. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bar Association was behind the whole thing. How about suing the cities if education if too much or too little or politically incorrect. The possibilities are endless. Those issues ae tough enough as it is. I have made the point that the one and only “compelling state interest” lies with the propagation and rearing of children. That requires protecting and supporting a healthy partnership from a social and financial pont of view. Otherwise, the government should butt out and privatize and deregulate marriage. Let any given interest group be free to recognize or not that of any other.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/14/08 at 3:48 am

Now that I have been forced to think back on all these discussions, I also made the point that marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the licensing agency, and that to a couple and not an individual which would make no sense. The couple of course has to qualify in some terms that do make it a compelling state interest as for protection of children. And I even dragged in the UN’s Declaration of the Universal Human Rights or whatever that specifies that a man and woman have the right to marry, and the family is the fundamental social unit.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/14/08 at 4:02 am

It is as simple as this: Human beings want what they can’t have. Look at any 2 year old. If he has a rattle and his friend has a pile of horse crap, he will throw away the rattle and try to take the horse crap. Why? Cause he wants what he doesn’t have.
Marriage. It’s a ‘title’ as stated in earlier posts. A title that affords no greater power than to use it in a sentence about yourself.
Come on, go out and create your own word and leave it at that. Stop humiliating yourselves.

Comment by Tones Bones on 11/14/08 at 11:19 am

Forgot to attach my URL to my name!

Comment by Tones Bones on 11/14/08 at 11:22 am

Social validation is definitely a major factor, but I think the outrage against the churches comes from a need for moral validation. In spite of friend Darin’s protestations, when one has decided to dive off the bridge of mainstream sexuality into the uncharted rocks and shoals of, er, whatever, before one’s feet leave the railing one has to give up on any adherence to the moral will of the God of Israel as known in the Scriptures.

Various superficial intellectual means are used to paper over the gap, but nobody is convinced deep down.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/14/08 at 12:24 pm

The God in my Scriptures says no such thing.  So is your God better then my God?

All these “in the name of MY GOD” arguments are the most dangerous thing facing the world today.  After all, many feel that their God is telling them that the state of Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.  Does that make them justified?

Anyone who advocates forcing their God on others is a step away from becoming a terrorist.

Comment by Darin W on 11/14/08 at 12:35 pm

Agreed.  I think those are the two issues at hand.  As far as the moral validation is concerned though, I don’t understand going after the mormons.  It’s true - they believe that homosexual actions (distinct from homosexual feelings) are a sin.  But the mormons believe a lot of things are sins and you don’t see people crying out about discrimination and hatred on those issues.  No one is saying “Those 13 million mormons hate the 6 billion of us that don’t think it’s a sin to drink or smoke!  Let’s get them!“  And nobody gets outraged by the fact that the Catholic church believes divorce is a sin.  Why can’t we just agree to disagree without assuming that the other party judges us and hates us for seeing things differently?  Granted there are zealots on both sides, and the zealots on both sides make me sad.  But don’t the rest of us who quietly follow our consciences (the strong majority) deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 12:38 pm

I guess that’s my point Darin, why do we have to ask “do you think your God is better than my God?“  Why can’t we all be civil enough to agree to disagree and then give everyone else the benefit of the doubt that they are also mature enough to do so?  Because let’s face it.  There is not a person on the planet that sees everything exactly the way we do.  If we’re going to feel defensive towards those who think we’re wrong, than we may as well feel defensive and judged by the entire human race.

Now again, to me that’s the answer if homosexuals really are just looking for moral and social validation.  If there really are rights being denied homosexuals, then we ought to look into that.  But in CA domestic partnerships already provided all the rights that have been being discussed.  So is it validation or is it a question of rights?  If it’s rights, which rights are being denied?

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 12:45 pm

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.“

However, I will fight to the death against efforts to have my government or my constitution say it.

Did the German majority, following what they believed to be their consciences, deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Did the American majority in the south, following what they believed to be their consciences, deserve the benefit of the doubt?

There is a very dangerous line that is crossed when ANY group or majority targets an unpopular minority.

The Mormons here did not *silently* follow their conscience.  They funded 77% of a dishonest campaign and probably that much in manpower to put forward dishonest, fear inducing propaganda to single gays and lesbians out.  That in itself is wrong, and in ADDITION, singling out another group for government sanctioned discrimination is wrong.

We are not angry about what the Mormon church thinks is a sin (coffee, alcohol, gay perversion).  We are angry that they think it’s right to single out the gays in law.  Mormons shouldn’t force Jews to live in a certain way, nor should they force me.

Comment by Darin W on 11/14/08 at 12:58 pm

OK Darin, awesome post!  I feel so burned out on the super emotional, avoid-the-real-issues arguments on both sides.

I want to respond but have to sleep.  Will post later.

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 1:20 pm

Darin,

I commisserate with you and sympathize with the idea that “your religion/beliefs/philosophies should not be imposed upon me.“ I do. But what can you do but howl into the wind when you have a group of people that really believe that taking a particular social stand is what the God of Heaven and Earth would have them do? You can’t beat them over the head with secularist rhetoric about what should and should not be part of the socio-political discourse, you cannot appeal to “fairness” (which is too subjective to make sense in a sweeping argument like this one), and you cannot think to intimidate the opposition with epithets like “bigot” and “liar” and so on.

The Mormons have not “singled out another group for government discrimintion.“ That’s more of the putrid rhetoric being employed here. They stood up for their belief about what is really good for people and society. Specifically, they stood up for what an institution (or really, a word) should encompass, and what it should not. If you think they’re wrong in their position: fine. But there’s nothing wrong with casting their vote AND speaking out. Certainly No on 8 took the same tack.

And by the way I heard so many lies and hateful speech coming from No on 8 people: but that doesn’t invalidate your movement, nor does it imply guild on any of its members purely by association. So let’s stop with that argument.

The fight is about a word. It is. It’s a very important word. Everyone seems to realize this (or we wouldn’t be fighting about it). But because it’s just a word (given that every right of action and legal recognition, short of the magic word, is available in CA), what’s really being fought for is moral validation. And that is something which no one that believes in the God of Israel (whether purely Biblcally or as augmented by Mormon scriptures) can give in good conscience. Does that make us terrorists? “Hey Muslim extremists believe in God, and they do bad things. And hey, wait, Christians believe in God (albeit in diverse ways—not unlike Muslims) too! So they must also want to do bad things?“ LOL! Yes, only people who don’t believe in God are capable of rational thought and action. Come on man.

No one’s forcing you to live any particular way, and you know that. Whether given the approval of the word “marriage” or not, gays will choose to live how they choose to live. Fine.

But I believe—in a very unhateful way—that God created men and women with a special purpose in mind: that they might have joy and eternal happiness. But this was going to take some action on their part. They were ALL going to have conquer certain aspects of themselves to achieve that. As part of that God ordained that a man should marry a woman as a sacred union which is part of that path to happiness. All kind of insights come from having to deal with a member of the opposite sex so closely. Growing out from that typically also, comes a family, and this too brings new insights. And the children themselves are served in special ways various, by the mother and the father. Or so intends God. Sometimes tragedy or sin destroy or alter that picture. Life goes on, but the ideal is what is to be worked for.

This is part of what I have come to understand about God’ plan for his children. Not because mommy and daddy told me, or because ‘why not’? Had to seek and seek hard, knock and knock hard, but the Lord does answer prayers—sometimes in startling ways. And this is true for everyone.

And for that reason, proponents of same-sex marriage have found themselves up against such a formidible opposition. I know these things are true. Will I flee at the first insult, lie, or insinuation that I am some kind of terrorist (shoot, it was OUR temple that got targeted, not some LGBT community center)? No.

Comment by Bryan on 11/14/08 at 1:53 pm

And if I ever post again without proofreading I’ll shoot myself.

Comment by Bryan on 11/14/08 at 1:55 pm

Thanks Scott.  I’ll look forward to it.  Before getting some rest myself, I’d like to just add a quote from the Beverly Hills Bar Association and California Women Lawyers, from their brief to the court asking to stop Prop 8:

“The question presented is straightforward. Does California law allow one group of citizens, by majority vote on an initiative, to deny other citizens a fundamental constitutional right? This issue begs for definitive resolution.”

“If, under Proposition 8, a majority vote can lawfully strip a minority of a fundamental constitutional right, then no minority group will every be safe from being stripped of other California fundamental rights by majority vote.“

I completely agree. It is that simple.

Comment by Darin W on 11/14/08 at 1:55 pm

Bryan, I’ll just quote a 1954 talk by Mormon Elder Mark E. Peterson:

God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death….

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. “No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood” (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a “Nation of Priesthood holders”....

The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject….

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, “First we pity, then endure, then embrace”....

Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation….

When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation….

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them….

Comment by Darin W on 11/14/08 at 2:21 pm

That’s too bad, Darin.  I was interested to read your response to Bryan, but your post had nothing to do with anything he said.  I thought your argument was that marriage was a fundamental right and that no church should have a voice in politics.  But this makes it sound like you embrace the mormon protests cause you have some beef with their doctrine.

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 3:26 pm

LOL! And therefore…God does not exist? No? And therefore…because this individual said what he said the Church cannot be true? If all I had to go on with respect to the Church as this speech…well, yeah that would be weird.

But in the full context, this is revealed as ribald sophistry, and a banal attempt at that. Old rehashed stuff which relies purely on its ability to shield the reader from any all other sources of knowledge. If I created a page of absurd things which otherwise erudite homosexual individuals have written, would that then mean that they all feel that way, or that any cause which they might take on is invalid?

And this evades the whole point of discussion entirely. It’s not “is the Church true?“ This is probably entirely the wrong place to have that discussion in any kind of meaningful way. Believe what you will in that department.

Rather the point was: there are people that believe strongly that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. They believe that the Lord expects them to do more than suck their thumbs and say “fiddle-dee-dee” when that is challenged on a societal level. They are expected to speak out for what’s right, and THEN let things shake out how they will. And they are.

This was very instructive. When one’s arguments are under attack, it’s very tempting I suppose to pull a knee-jerk “Oh, well, HERE LOOK AT THIS YOUR CHURCH IS NOT TRUE!“ move, using one of these tired cut-n-pastes.

I also have to heartily disagree that marriage to a person of the same sex is a “fundamental constitutional right,“ a favorite darling phrase of same-sex marriage proponents (we need an acronym for this). Since when is marriage to a person of the same-sex a “fundamental right?“ Who is getting this right, and then denying it to everyone else? If whites were getting the right to marry people of the same sex and denying that right to blacks, that would be something I suppose. But while the fundamental rights argument might be self-convincing to the LGBT community, it finds a less credulous audience in everyone else. Even Elton John (gotta love that guy) recently acknowledged this. This is different.

The idea that withholding the right to marry a person of the same-sex is going to lead to some retrogression of voting rights or marriage rights for minorities…this argument must made (1) disingenuously, (2) unthinkingly, or (3) with that sort of self-interested cognitive dissonance which makes conservative talk-show junkies agree compulsively with Rush Limbaugh and liberal-types their own demogogues. Ah the deep irony that Yes on 8 were said to be “fear-mongering.“ If by that you mean creating irrational fears (as opposed to fully justifiable concerns), then this is ironic indeed.

Bleh, why do I get caught up arguing with people who cannot be persuaded? You might ask yourself the same question. We are a sad lot, we hard-headed rhetorical pugilists.

Comment by Bryan on 11/14/08 at 3:29 pm

One more quick question - why can’t there be different but equal?  That seems to be the big reason that Elton John voted yes on prop 8.  He basically said homosexuals can have civil unions, heterosexuals can have marriage.  Each gets the same rights, but there is a distinction between the two.  Since when did acknowledging a difference become hatred?  Am I a racist just because I notice an individual’s ethnicity?  I am if I give them different rights.  But again, Bryan, what are the rights that the homosexuals are being denied?

Comment by scott on 11/14/08 at 3:41 pm

Scott, there really is nothing to respond to in Bryan’s post.  I’ve already made clear, I hope, that what one believes is one thing, and making it law is another.  The majority denying rights or imposing religion on others is wrong.  I’ll refer back to my quote of the Beverly Hills Bar and Womens Lawyers.  That’s my position, pure and simple.

Religious views have no legal merit on this topic for the purpose of law.  So there isn’t a lot to respond to in his post.

My quoting from a Mormon leader on segregation was an effort to point out how scary it should be to everyone, no matter how heartfelt and “true” it may seem (and the 1954 statement sounded entirely reasonable to many at the time) to codify these beliefs into law against another group.

The speculation about “what are the Negros after” sound a lot like “what the gays are after” arguments.

The comments about how the Mormons believed in defending the divine intention of segregation sound a lot like arguments being used to justify discrimination against gays today.

It’s a rather disgusting passage, I think we can all agree.  In 10 or 20 views, what will be the view be on the justifications being used today?

Comment by Darin W on 11/14/08 at 3:45 pm

To Scott:

Really, no “right” that I am not also “denied.“ Given the chief motivations for this whole to-do, defining marriage as between a man and a woman is no more a denial of a fundamental right than the government denying me, or a Catholic, or a Jehovah’s Witness, the right to the official status of “Member of the Only True Church on the Earth.“ I suppose if it was granting it to some individuals and not others, then there might be something to fight about.

Comment by Bryan on 11/14/08 at 3:48 pm

One more quick question - why can’t there be different but equal?  That seems to be the big reason that Elton John voted yes on prop 8.  He basically said homosexuals can have civil unions, heterosexuals can have marriage.  Each gets the same rights, but there is a distinction between the two.  Since when did acknowledging a difference become hatred?  Am I a racist just because I notice an individual’s ethnicity?  I am if I give them different rights.  But again, Bryan, what are the rights that the homosexuals are being denied?  You can’t say “to marry whoever they want”.  No one has the right to marry whoever they want.  There always have been guidelines, and there always will be.  You can’t be related.  You can’t currently share that relationship with someone else.  You must be of a certain age.  So again, what fundamental right are they really being denied.

Okay, I’m really going to sleep now.  But when I come back I hope to share some thoughts on why the churches weren’t out of line for supporting a cause that they feel was best for society (I say churches because it wasn’t just the mormons - they just happen to be the easiest target because it’s socially acceptable to mock them).

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 3:48 pm

Bryan!  You’re great at pulling me back in!

First off, no one imposed their religion on anyone else.  The churches just said they didn’t want the gays to use the title they held to be sacred to describe their homosexual unions.  There is no lost freedom there.  For that matter, they can even use the title if they want.  I’ve got a buddy who is living with a girlfriend and he routinely calls her his wife.  And he’s not all bent out of shape that the government “discriminates” against him just because he hasn’t gone through the marriage process yet.

Second, the idea that what one believes is one thing, making it law is another…  Who does not vote on laws based on what they do or do not believe?  You either believe gay marriage will have a negative impact on society or that it’s not right for some other reason, or you don’t.  And you end up voting based on your beliefs.  So I don’t get that.

As far as comparing blacks to homosexuals, I don’t know any blacks that like that comparison, and not cause they’re all bigots.  And I feel strongly about this.  The enslavement of blacks, and the horrible persecution that followed was one of the most horrendous sins against humanity I know of (up there with the holocaust).  The intolerance that any other minority has faced in the history of America pales in comparison.  And it is outrageous and borderline offensive to compare them.  You want a perfect example of why prop 8 has nothing to do with civil rights - reference the text book example of the African Americans’ lack of civil rights and the stark difference puts things back in perspective.

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 4:02 pm

Sorry - Darin you’re great at pulling me back in.

Bryan, that first post of yours was really moving.

Comment by Scott on 11/14/08 at 4:05 pm

I guess I won’t get into the fact that gays and lesbians were right there in the concentration camps with the Jews.  Does that give us enough cred to complain about discrimination today?  Discrimination in any form is wrong.  Saying, “well this discrimination isn’t that bad” doesn’t make it right.

Comment by Darin W on 11/14/08 at 4:07 pm

Darin,

“Religious views” have always undergirded our entire system of government and theory of rights. Whether these were couched as overtly Christian, “Deistic” (as that word is over-confidently used), or on a more philosophical basis—though with no less of a belief that “these things are true” or “this way is best.“ You CANNOT divorce one’s moral sense of what ought to be from one’s political convictions (except of course where material interests run contrary—then sadly, many people abandon principle).

Any theory of rights contained in a Consitution either explicitly, or even as expounded upon by a court, spring from that same source—that sense of right and wrong, call it what you will. For some, this sense (and other experiences) leads them to believe that particular religion is true. For many this is a long process, but nevertheless, once arrived at, this religious understanding and life experiences continue to inform their moral sense. And they learn by hard experience what to do, and who to trust.

For others this sense does not (or is not permitted to) lead them to any religion, but nevertheless, these people have a sense of right and wrong. Avowed atheists and agnostics are often the most ardent advocates of particular causes, or opponents of injustice as they see it.

So in a political debate whose opinion should prevail? Better asked: who should get to participate? Only the second group because they have no “religous” aspect their sense of right and wrong? Their religion (i.e. beliefs) is simply that there isn’t a church or religion that they can believe in, but that still the following things are true (“we should have a right to this, that, and the other”). Why do these beliefs trump those of the others? Why do only their arguments matter?

But I say again: rights spring from this moral sense, however informed. And rights (here’s the golden nugget) are instituted in the first place by majorities (oh no!). They ratify constitutions, they vote legislatures and executives in and out of office, and when a court has sufficiently overstepped their moral sense, they amend the governing documents.

If the “majority” had truly been overwhelmed by the “evilness” of Brown v. Board, the U.S. Constitution would have been amended to allow separate but equal. But a majority of people, either explicitly or deeper down, knew that this was not a worthy cause, whatever their initial discomforts might be. And so desegregation began (in places where it was not already so).

I cannot accept the idea that religious convictions can somehow be done away in the political discourse, or especially in one’s private polticial action (like voting, or talking with ones friends and associates). Nor should they! Nor should anyone’s moral sense cease to be voiced in public (even when they vehemently disagree with me).

So, I’ll agree that what was there to say to my testimony of what I think is true? But I find a kind of intellectual bankruptcy in the idea that a religious conviction cannot have anything to do with political discourse or a theory of rights. They have everything to do with it. A good system of rights should make a people happier. If my religion informs me as to what things make people happier…you can bet your bottom dollar I’ll be there with my crazy religious ideas. And you’ll be there with your own closely-held beliefs. And that’s as it should be.

Comment by Bryan on 11/14/08 at 4:08 pm

I think Gays are full of it. Again, if they already have the same rights thru a Civil Union contract in California, the whole deal is the title “Being Married”.
1st The word Marriage has Christian connotations
2nd I don’t know if you know what Sodom and Gomorrah are but these cities tell you about the relation between Gays and Christians.
3. You know it is all Christians that are against your actions.
Big questions. Why do you want the title? Because you want to be accepted by everyone as a married couple (and everyone includes kids, and many of gays have called these dirty mormon tactics). Because you all feel that you are attached to a God that you have already deceived and you feel you are somehow being recognized.
Now you all cite the Nazis here and call this the mormon conspiracy. But, what about your conspiracy, you say mormons used dirty tactics. However, that is what you want in the end. You want everyone to see what you do as something normal. Why don’t you just say it and accepted. Why don’t you say that eventually that if a teacher was (and I use the word IF) to define the word marriage you wish you were part of the definition.
Why don’t you call this a conspiracy to make all Christians accept you practices. Isn’t this what you really want? Don’t you want everyone to accept your practices and now to take our word and simplify its Christian term to whatever you want to attach to it?
Just say the true and work with the true and don’t be calling people Nazis. Stick to reality and not to your 5th grade slippery slope tactics.

Comment by Luis Lopez on 11/14/08 at 6:34 pm

Darin W,
You jumped on what I said, but I don’t see how you can disagree. You said “The God in my Scriptures says no such thing.  So is your God better then my God?“ Well, of course He is, why would I worship an inferior god? But sticking to the objective, how should I know who your god is if any, and how should I know what scriptures you accept, if any? Naturally in America we live and let live; it is no crime to accept and worship what your want or not. All I said was, “one has to give up on any adherence to the moral will of the God of Israel as known in the Scriptures”. I didn’t place a judgement on that, I just stated it as a fact. I also put it forward as a relevant analysis on the vehemence of this dispute. If you want to know what the moral will of the God of Israel as known in the founding document of every Western religious variant and every Western culture, it is super crystal clear. Let me know if I have to list chaper and verse, as I did on another blog thread, or disagree and stimulate another interesting response.

As to your other point regarding rights, I have adressed this numerous times. Fundamental constitutional rights are protected for individual citizens, not to any combination of them. Multiples of people are not people and can be legally treated on a different basis than people. When I mentioned the Bar Association before I was kidding, but based on what you said the Bar Association is wrong about this. What a shock that Bar Association lawyers would be making a ton of money by its sticking its oar into the issue. You spoke of a ‘compelling state interest”. The only state interest in marriage has to do with supporting “the natural sexual process and orderly social process” for procreation and stable rearing of children.  Other than that, the state doesn’t NEED marriage. It has to accomodate existing practice but following on what Scott said, “No one has the right to marry whoever they want…  You can’t be related.  You can’t currently share that relationship with someone else.  You must be of a certain age.“ Once you change one definition of marriage, there is NO legally defensible aspect of it. The regulatory environment will become a zoo.

Re: “... the idea that what one believes is one thing, making it law is another”. I believe that it already was the law but it was simply worded in an imprecise way. There was never any reason to tighten it up until the Supreme Court of California was compelled to allow a loophole in the literal language if not the intent of the law. Prop 8 just made the intent explicit. These things happen all the time. Gays would not be forced to live a certain way other than what they feel compelled to by their impulses and appetites. You are like children protesting to bring junk food into school cafeterias. It is every child’s right to buy junk food privately, but not the public’s responsibility to supply it. The minimum common definition of marriage can reasonably be employed for this purpose.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/16/08 at 12:37 am

Have any of you actually READ the supreme court decision?  It’s really a beautiful document.  I highly suggest taking a look.

The court did say there is no compelling reason for the state to ban gays from marrying.  They ruled that marrying the (adult) person you love IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.  I can’t remember if they get into the “people will want to marry dogs and children” arguments but these are absurd on their face.  There are reasons to each outside of “the bible says so”—that’s all I’ll say.

The supreme court didn’t find a small loophole.  They went to great lengths to espouse that this is a fundamental right, and the government has no interest in discriminating against one group over another.  “But gays can still get married if they’ll marry the opposite sex” is not an acceptable answer.  Seems like they covered that too.

I’m really getting kind of bored here with analogies to junk food in private and such, so this will likely be my last post.  It’s been real fun though.

Comment by Darin W on 11/16/08 at 1:20 am

Sorry Darin, I found the Supreme Court decision, a little hard to follow at 172 pages so you can fill us in what makes it so beautiful. I did however skim the beginning of the prior Appelate Court decision, 128 pages, which I found very beautiful and includes that following:
“Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage
... judges are not free to rewrite statutes to say what they would like, or what they believe to be better social policy.
... The dissent delivers what is essentially an impassioned policy lecture on why marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Lacking controlling precedent, it misconstrues case law and mischaracterizes the parties’ claims and our analysis to reach this result. But the court’s role is not to define social policy
... The six cases before us ultimately distill to the question of who gets to define marriage in our democratic society. We believe this power rests in the people and their elected representatives, and courts may not appropriate to themselves the power to change the definition of such a basic social institution. Our dissenting colleague’s views, while well intentioned, disregard this delicate balance.
...We conclude California’s historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class
,...we conclude the marriage statutes are constitutional. The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.

I have also reviewed the whole mess. What I have found is a history defined by activist political assaults over decades, beginning with casual anti-discrimination as an opening wedge and moving with greater boldness to radically change core social contracts. What you are seeing in the 4-3 Supreme Court decision, not counting dissents of course is a case of judicial activism or legislation from the bench. What Prop 8 did was to take the decision out of the Court’s hands. I am not a lawyer but I have not heard a counter to the logical inconsistency with the guarantee of individual rights leading to a guarantee of group rights, which the government opposes regularly on a case-by-case basis, and at times with violent and deadly coercion. And as I pointed out it is absurd to speak of an individual right to marry, unless one marries oneself.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/18/08 at 12:50 am

Oops,meant to address the ‘junk-food’ issue. Marriage, as you refuse to enage, is based upon biblical precedent and principle. In a sense, there is no concept of secular marriage. I challenge you to explain in some coherent way in what way a secular or atheistic mariage differes from a contractual civil union. The government merely serves as pehaps a clearinghouse for the institutions legitimizing the diverse ceremonies. It should not itself be such an institution. In fact, heterosexual atheist couples with integrity ought to establish civil unions and not marriages, just as a statement.

As for your percieved insult at being compared to various dysfunctional situatuations, well, we really do believe you are dysfunctional. Believers do not at all concede the field of principle to secular viewpoints. Rather than being an army of blind followers, we are a living statement of the confidence we place in God’s benign and positive purposes in his policies. Aside from simple obedience, we also understand that Biblical laws are ripe for yielding profound consonance with natural personal and social health and wellbeing. If God says that same-sex physical relationships are an abomination, it is not ‘hate-speech’ but a message that they are fundamentally personally and socially unhealthy and destructive, even in light of God’s full knowledge of love and joy and the proper priorities placed upon them.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/18/08 at 1:14 am

Let us know when you stone adulterous wives and kill disobedient sons.

Then we can talk about why some Biblical ‘laws’ are for other people to obey but not you.

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/18/08 at 1:21 am

As someone put it in this week’s Letters to the Editor:

“ . . . Banning same-sex civil marriage is about as relevant to Orthodox Judaism as banning the sale of shellfish . . . “

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/18/08 at 1:24 am

For one thing, according to the record the law regarding disobedient sons was never carried out in Israelite history. It is stated in order to establish a priciple. I can’t tell you about the one for adulterous wives, but I can tell you that there is a large body of law that exists in a comprehensive Torah society which has not existed for millennia and will not until the redemption. Not to worry; the ‘honor killing’ action is all in the hands of gentiles for lo these many years. if we start with the Muslims we could be here all day, but a large number of wives are burnt in India each year for failing to come up with the dowry.

The writer of the letter obviously has not been following the thoughtful discussions such as the one which stated recently that “Marriage, as you refuse to enage, is based upon biblical precedent and principle. In a sense, there is no concept of secular marriage. I challenge you to explain in some coherent way in what way a secular or atheistic mariage differes from a contractual civil union.“ Orthodox Judaism has an interest in a healthy and stable civil society. In fact, with Chanukah coming up let’s remember that Orthodox Judaism has already had its run-ins with the Greek-valued society, and I don’t mean the Greek Orthodox.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/18/08 at 1:50 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:
URL:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories

Featured Stories

Site Sections

• Home
• Arts
• Calendar
• Education
• Food
• Israel

• Kids and Teens
• Los Angeles
• Obituaries
• Opinion
• Singles
• Sports

• Torah Portion
• U.S.
• World

Newspaper

• Current Edition
• Archive
• Contact Us
• FAQ
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service
• Site Map
• Advertise

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2009 The Jewish Journal and JewishJournal.com
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net