Thursday, November 13, 2008

My Little Feelings on Prop 8

It was interesting to listen to both poles of the issue concerning Proposition 8. In the end though I was disappointed in the decision to simplify vilification of one section, the Mormons, of the group that supported yes on eight. There were multiple religious groups that spoke out politically. When will attention be called to their bigotry? It concerns me that no mention of this showing a bias in editing of information concerning other groups that supported Proposition 8. And makes me wonder if the Gay Community hasn't fallen into the same attitude that you so vehemently protest. Would the protesting of the LDS church be received in the same way if the dissenters of Prop 8 protested the African American, Hispanic, or Elderly community that mostly voted for the ban on same sex marriage. I think within that context it would not be as widely accepted.
When I first heard that the ban on gay marriage I was surprised and disappointed. I was disgusted that people would go so far as to fast that the state amendment would pass. I hated that some people were told to pay their tithing to the vote yes on Prop 8 campaign. I was disappointed that people spent time in call centers trying to "educate" voters on this issue. It didn't seem congruous to a church which once practiced plural marriage. How could it be so vocal about the holiness of a union of just one man and one woman when it abdicated the sanctity of having multiple wives? Yet when put in a certain context I can understand the protesting and politicizing of the Mormon church on this issue.
This is obviously a moral issue and I don't mean to discount that but I am viewing this from a legal angle understanding the morals believed by the LDS Church and not questioning it to eliminate controversy. I think that churches, including the LDS church are concerned that the acceptance of gay marriage would create a law which would force their religious institutions to preform same-sex marriages. In this way I find it appropriate for a religion to become involved in government. If an amendment can potentially alter the way a religion is practice then by all means fight to protect what you believe in. This is what our country was founded for (Well, that, and to harvest ridiculous amounts of natural resources). I believe that everyone should have the choice to practice as they wish. This is the complication in these types of decisions. What we should focus on is discussing how we can extend this constitutional right and still respect peoples right to practice religion according to their own dictates. If other churches choose to marry gay couples then great, but an amendment should be more explicit in this regard stating explicitly that all churched needn't honor same sex marriage within their own religion but that Gay couples can have the civil freedom of same sex couples marrying.
Last Week was a big step towards a dialog between the gay community in SLC and the church. They are right that there does need to be a separation of church and state and that is on both sides. The state can not force religions to alter its practices and churches should not seek to legislate its moral agenda.

1 comment:

Amanda Jane said...

I think that is the perfect picture for this post.