Okay, gay rights activists. I think I get it. You are feeling officially oppressed, denied your rights, cheated. You fought in the courts and have won some battles and lost some battles. Now you have had a victory in the courts snatched from you by the hands of the voters. It must be discouraging. So, as human nature dictates, you are looking for someone to blame. First you blamed the blacks. Then you blamed the Hispanics. Now you are blaming the Mormons.
You fought a fair fight in a democracy and you lost. You failed to build a winning majority in the electorate. Maybe you were out maneuvered. Perhaps you were outspent. Perhaps your political lies were not as believable as the other side's political lies.
You say they lied about elementary school children being taught to accept a homosexual lifestyle. If that is a lie, why is "Heather has Two Mommies" promoted to elementary school children?
They say you lied when you aired a TV ad depicting two Mormon missionaries brutalizing a lesbian couple and defacing their property. Really? Has anything vaguely like this happened in the last 150 years or so?
Lies happen in politics. Sad but true. The electorate gets to choose whose lies are closest to either (1) What they want to believe, or (2) the truth. Get over it and get on with your work.
One thing is for sure: Oppression, violence, and threats against other citizens will not win you any votes. Don't physically attack 69-year old women who come out to exercise their right to disagree with you. I sincerely hope that the persons guilty of attacking Phyllis Burgess are apprehended and tried for committing a heinous hate crime. Destruction of the property of organized religions will not play out well in the courts of public opinion. Peaceful protests; community outreach; voter outreach; lobbying; -- these are all time-tested ways of righting perceived wrongs.
My advice, keep working in the courts and with the electorate. Stop desecrating houses of worship. If you want rights and freedom, you must respect others rights and freedoms.
Showing posts with label Propsition 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Propsition 8. Show all posts
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Marriage is not EZ. Not even defining it...In Nepal one wife may have five husbands!
A quote from the Heritage Foundation: "For thousands of years [some] societies have considered marriage to be a relationship between a man and woman that forms the cornerstone of a family..." (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2201.cfm)
And some have not.
The fact that our church leadership encouraged citizens of California to vote in favor of proposition 8 leads me to believe that legitimization of same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of our society. I trust our leaders. I certainly do not wish to ever see any private or religious organization in the United States forced to perform marriage ceremonies that run counter to their beliefs. However, I have two points of argument with the Heritage Foundation and others on this point as they present it at the site linked above; in other words playing on their turf and under their rules:
Point 1: In the 1950's every white right-wing organization, from the Baptists to the Klan, used exactly these same arguments to fight the legalization of mixed-race marriages -- that doing so would "destroy traditional marriage and families in America." It would place an undue burden on those that disagree and would bring a catastrophic end to religious freedom. Since that time our nation's tax policies have hurt traditional marriage and religious freedoms much more than bi-racial marriage.
Point 2--and this is, for me, is the biggy: The Heritage Foundation, and anyone else using these same arguments, playing by these same rules, in my opinion has totally forfeited the right of using the protection of religious freedoms as an argument to oppose same-sex marriage. Why do I say this? Because they have steadfastly refused, over and over again, to support religious freedoms dealing with marriage unless the religious beliefs in question were THEIR OWN. I'm sorry, but I will not allow them to claim religious freedom as a reason unless they are 100% [...100%...] willing to allow that same degree of religious freedom to everyone else. It goes like this in a first-person presentation: Since my religion defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, I claim the right of religious freedom to support that definition of marriage. However, since your religion defines marriage as a union of one woman and seventeen men, I also accord you the right of religious freedom to support that definition of marriage. Oh, and since his religion defines marriage as a union of three men and a chicken, I also accord him the right of religious freedom to support that definition of marriage. If religious freedom is the justification for opposing same-sex marriage (and what other reason is there?) then the opponents of same-sex marriage who claim the religious freedom justification must be willing to extend that same right to people who hold other religious beliefs. Where was the Heritage Foundation when it was time to step forward and protect the religious beliefs of the FLDS? Who raised a hand to keep children with mothers and keep fathers in homes? Where is the real support of religious freedom relating to marriage and family life?
Certainly the Heritage Foundation and other supporters of legally defining marriage as between one man and one woman have every right to express and to publicize their views. My friends who hold a religious belief in polyamory share that same right or there can be no such thing as religious freedom. What the Heritage Foundation is calling for is the protection of freedoms for their religious beliefs. In the words of Voltaire, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
And some have not.
The fact that our church leadership encouraged citizens of California to vote in favor of proposition 8 leads me to believe that legitimization of same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of our society. I trust our leaders. I certainly do not wish to ever see any private or religious organization in the United States forced to perform marriage ceremonies that run counter to their beliefs. However, I have two points of argument with the Heritage Foundation and others on this point as they present it at the site linked above; in other words playing on their turf and under their rules:
Point 1: In the 1950's every white right-wing organization, from the Baptists to the Klan, used exactly these same arguments to fight the legalization of mixed-race marriages -- that doing so would "destroy traditional marriage and families in America." It would place an undue burden on those that disagree and would bring a catastrophic end to religious freedom. Since that time our nation's tax policies have hurt traditional marriage and religious freedoms much more than bi-racial marriage.
Point 2--and this is, for me, is the biggy: The Heritage Foundation, and anyone else using these same arguments, playing by these same rules, in my opinion has totally forfeited the right of using the protection of religious freedoms as an argument to oppose same-sex marriage. Why do I say this? Because they have steadfastly refused, over and over again, to support religious freedoms dealing with marriage unless the religious beliefs in question were THEIR OWN. I'm sorry, but I will not allow them to claim religious freedom as a reason unless they are 100% [...100%...] willing to allow that same degree of religious freedom to everyone else. It goes like this in a first-person presentation: Since my religion defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, I claim the right of religious freedom to support that definition of marriage. However, since your religion defines marriage as a union of one woman and seventeen men, I also accord you the right of religious freedom to support that definition of marriage. Oh, and since his religion defines marriage as a union of three men and a chicken, I also accord him the right of religious freedom to support that definition of marriage. If religious freedom is the justification for opposing same-sex marriage (and what other reason is there?) then the opponents of same-sex marriage who claim the religious freedom justification must be willing to extend that same right to people who hold other religious beliefs. Where was the Heritage Foundation when it was time to step forward and protect the religious beliefs of the FLDS? Who raised a hand to keep children with mothers and keep fathers in homes? Where is the real support of religious freedom relating to marriage and family life?
Certainly the Heritage Foundation and other supporters of legally defining marriage as between one man and one woman have every right to express and to publicize their views. My friends who hold a religious belief in polyamory share that same right or there can be no such thing as religious freedom. What the Heritage Foundation is calling for is the protection of freedoms for their religious beliefs. In the words of Voltaire, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
