Dear family and friends,Prop 8, y'know is the No Gay Marriage one.
I had a very disturbing experience yesterday that I would like to share with those of you that live outside of California (or outside of the San Francisco Bay Area).
This weekend we have stake conference. Our stake conference always begins with a stake temple session on Friday or Thursday night. Early Friday morning I received a call from the second counselor in our bishopric to let me know that there would be numerous protesters outside the temple, and to remind everyone to stay calm and to drive carefully. The beautiful Oakland Temple is located right across the bay from San Francisco , very
close to the city of Berkeley . Apparently the opposition to proposition 8, the amendment that seeks to make marriage in CA between a man and a woman again, has realized the deep involvement of the church and begun to protest right outside of the temple and harass temple patrons. The fastest way to get to the temple from our house is to take the 680 freeway, but the exit is a bit tricky. The off ramp is extremely short and straight uphill. You then make an almost blind left turn, an immediate right and another left into the parking lot. As we approached the off ramp, I realized there would be trouble. There was a backup onto the freeway from cars stalled on the off ramp. As we moved forward inches at a time, we realized this was due to a large group of loud protesters who were standing on both sides of the street, yelling, screaming and waving signs. When we got to the top of the off ramp ready to make our turn, one protester jumped out right in front of our car. It took my husband all his self control to carefully maneuver around him to
the left and proceed to the temple. I tried not to listen to all they were shouting at us, but I was shaking as I got to the temple front door.
Several of the sisters, especially the ones driving on their own, were crying (which made me snap out of it and go into RS President mode to > comfort them). Later, as I was sitting in the perfect quiet of the chapel, I couldn't help but think of Lehi's dream, and the people who mocked the Saints from the big spacious building but !> 'we heeded them not.' It was a truly surreal experience, I'd never thought that I would have to go through an angry crowd to get to the temple. As we left late at night, the protesters had dispersed, temple security (who all looked very large and Tongan) stood by the gates. I never saw a single police man.
Please pray for those of us in California fighting for prop 8--it's getting kind of scary out here!
Susanne
It's not cool to attack people at their place of worship because they disagree with your lifestyle choices. That's not the best way to make your point or change their mind. Actions like that make it harder for people like me to talk sense into other people like me but with different opinions than me. Ok? So stop that crap.
Here's where I would LIKE to stand.
I'm not gay. It makes me a little uncomfortable, but really, all sexuality beyond my bedroom makes me uncomfortable ... sexuality is a private and personal thing. A lot of people whom I love and respect believe homosexuality is a sin against God and nature, an evil abomination which will destroy our society and force God to punish us maybe with disease and possibly with fire.
I do not think homosexuality is the most evil our world faces. The gay people I've known were sweet and often silly, sometimes sad, sometimes depressed, self-loathing, but never perverted monsters. People do much worse stuff. I think it's a confusing world we live in where people confuse sex for love and marriage for security.
I define marriage as a contract between individuals to provide a stable and loving environment in which to raise a family. The tax breaks, the medical benefits, the next of kin rights, the inheritance, these laws are set up to make it easier for a family to function. If two people trust each other enough to make all these same arrangements, if they want to merge their lives together and commit to each other, they certainly can without getting married, it's more complicated and requires a lawyer, but it can be done. Technically, gay couples have the same rights.
But they want to call it marriage and we married types think it will somehow take away from what we call marriage. It's like your homemade bacon double cheeseburger with ketchup pickles and mustard - you call it a "hamburger," but it's so much more than what you'll get if you walk into McDonald's and ask for a "hamburger." Hamburger means more than one thing, AND your hamburger still rocks even if another hamburger is different, evil ... I'm getting hungry.
We're worried that the gay lifestyle will be taught in school, treated as if it were "normal" and my son will think its ok to be in love with his good buddies, hold hands, kiss boys. Can't have that can we? Then "they" will want adoption rights and the whole next generation will be even more accepting of sexual deviance. We can teach good stuff at home and if we have happy lives and treat people well, our kids will believe us. Kids are not dumb, they know stuff, they get it.
And evidently, my church has gotten involved. My wonderful church. Usually so good about keeping it's official hands out of politics, joined a multi-denominational coalition to legislate the definition of marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman.
Why are we involved in that? We don't even believe in limiting it to 1 woman ... do we? Maybe when we die and God works it all out, it will be a 1:1 thing, but I have been taught, all my life, that polygamy was a possibility in the afterlife. Personally, I cling to the hope that either when I die I won't care about sharing my husband OR I can just choose not to, cuz, here and now, I am a selfish jealous girl. I have faith that everything works out though. Polygamy is a sticky topic.
So is gay marriage. Seriously, I just don't quite get why the church has decided to tell me I ought to fight (or rather, the California members). How about focusing on adultery? In my old ward, a perfect little family was ripped apart cuz the dad had to go stick his wanker somewhere it ought not have been stuck. Explaining that behavior seems more problematic than when my kid sees a couple of tight pants wearing boys holding hands all googly-eyed at the mall, waiting to get beat up.
I'm no good at chess and I'm no prophetess ... I'm not good at guessing what will happen in the future based on today's actions. Perhaps there is a very good reason it is so important to fight for this very limited marriage definition, so limiting that had it been applied 130 years ago, the church might have been standing on the other side of the fence.
Seems like a compromise could be worked out ... I'm not convinced we should fight it (Brandy, have you prayed about it? No ...). OOhhhhh wait, I see ... if we allow gay marriage, well then that makes gay sex okie dokie, too. Because if you can't get married you just live a celibate life, gay or straight, and you're good to go to heaven. But, gay sex in and of itself is a sin that can't be made good with a marriage license.
It would be like having a license to kill (oo7) - no, sometimes killing is justified: self defense, in defense of the defenseless.
It'd be like a license to have sex with more than one woman - no, that can be ok: if the first wife dies or you were a LDS polygamist in 1889.
It's like child molestation - never, never sanctioned by God, cuz children are innocent and not able to give consent - except that we are talking about 2 consenting adults.
It's like ... in my limited imagination I can't think of what it would be like, what act is always a sin no matter what, something that adults want/need to do but can never be permitted to do without damning themselves to hell. It seems lazy to sigh and say, "I guess it comes down to keeping our appetites within the limits the Lord has set."
I don't get it. Enlighten me.
10 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
I raise rabbits and we tend to have a lot of "light in the loafers" friends and aquaintances at the rabbit and cavy shows.
One of the truths I keep repeating to myself (and anyone else who may be open minded enough to care) is that homosexuality is natural (I've seen bulls who like bulls, bucks who like bucks, and dogs who like dogs; even some scientific journals have documented homosexuality in the animal kingdom). Homosexuality is natural but it is not normal. If it were normal the human species would die out. Perhaps it's one of God's tools for limiting human population.
Marriage is a covenant you enter into with your spouse and God. It should never be a government institution. At what point did the general population begin to believe that we needed a government sanctioned definition of marriage? I'm opposed to the so-called "marriage amendments" for that reason alone. The government does not join you in marriage. God does.
I move that we all ask the government to keep it's nose out of our families and marriages and not "define" anything to do with how we see either one.
It is nice to read Brandy and Janet's opinions on this matter.
The main thing I have heard is that if gay marriage is okay then it is a SLIPPERY SLOPE and then the next thing you know, I am going to marry a goat.
What a bunch of crap.
I went 2 years ago with my best friend since childhood to be the maid of honor in her wedding. We went to Canada so at least somewhere it would be a legal marriage. She has one of the healthiest and most stable marriages of almost anyone I know. When I think about how difficult it is for their relationship to even be property acnowledged, yet any dumbass can go get married, it just seems twisted to me.
I was just in Cali for the weekend and saw lots of information on Prop 8. Hopefully it won't pass and I still can't believe people are making such a big deal out of it. I really am starting to think that people who are homophobic may have some leanings towards attraction to the opposite sex or something (just consider Senator Craig!).
Government has to get involved because some people want out of their marriage contract and God doesn't tell us who gets the house and who gets the yacht.
Other than that, I agree. A more open definition doesn't effect what my marriage is and does. Marriage is about honesty and self-sacrifice and love. Divorce and adultery effect my marriage and children more than gay marriage.
My uncle is gay. I grew up going to the 'gay parade.' I never knew anything was different or strange about him or it (it was the pride parade of the early 80s during the advent of AIDS). Nobody else in our family 'turned out' gay or anything else. I think people are people.
Adoption laws already allow for gay parenting. There have been gay parents since the dawn of time. It used to be that divorce was a scandal....that you could get your kids taken away if you were found to be 'morally suspect.' Yes, marriage is between you and your god, but it also confers certain legal protections and statuses on people in this country and others. I lived with my husband for almost 9 years before we got married because I was afraid of marriage...both our mothers were married thrice and divorced thrice. I just didn't want to be married. I wasn't even sure I believed in it. I'm still not sure that I do....to me it is still a piece of paper representing a commitment I made a long time ago. I never changed my name, and I don't plan to. However, I am glad for the insurance and the tax breaks. We need to protect the people and especially the children in this country who would otherwise be harmed because they cannot be married. In other words, yes, the state should get out of it, by stop trying to make people fit into neat definitions of what marriage is. It's actually ironic, because marriage is a conservative institution...gay people want to CONFORM, and not stand out, by getting married. They're not asking for anything other than that right to privacy in their relations---it would actually complicate and ask the state to regulate their lives MUCH more than it currently does. And I say why not? If I have to tolerate conservative uber-republicans, people who drive giant SUVs, or the unbelievably racist DJ at the wedding I went to last weekend who had the unbelievable nerve to walk up to a guest and publicly call him 'colored' to his face, then why don't these types have to tolerate my gay friends who just want to be married and live peaceably amongst us all?
Ok, but I'm looking for the why my church says I should support prop 8. Help me there, my wise friends.
It's always seemed to me that the more conservative churches push the most liberal social restrictions. I do not think any church is correct all of the time. Of course, I am not Mormon and ECLA Lutherans are quite liberal as far as Christian churches go. Maybe the answer you seek is that it's not always a bad thing to question and seek your own answer instead of relying on the opinions of others (even if the others are officials in your church).
I don't claim any spiritual wisdom here, but I have a social theory for why it's such a public issue.
Firstly, churches shouldn't tell members explicitly how to vote. Every vote is a matter of personal conscience and decision. Your authority is over your vote, and we're not in a theocracy.
That said, my cynical side wonders if it isn't part of the "interfaith" push to normalize Mormonism by partnering with Evangelicals and other traditional Christians. By doing so, the church looks just as normal and moral as them in terms of its definition of marriage: between 1 man and 1 woman. Then the Church gains status and seems like less of a fringe religion (from the Evangelical perspective). Perhaps it helps remove some of the stigma of polygamy and the nasty name of "cult" as thrown around by some other Christian denominations. (Sort of like a version of the whole theory, the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing). And let me just state for the record, this opinion is solely my own, and I ALONE take full, personal responsibility for it.
Of course, I'm certain they believe homosexuality is a sin, of immense consequence, but the reasoning and benefit I see behind the public campaign encourages the Church to be extra vocal about the whole issue. But, as I said, that is my personal, critical opinion of what else may be fueling the public nature of the debate.
I guess they officially explain the stance here:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
(Personally, I don't think "gender" and "sex" are the same either).
In psych, gender is like the masculinity/femininity scale and sex is your biological assignment.
And, yeah, aren't these Evangelicals the same ones who, earlier this year, refused to vote for Mitt Romney because he's part of that crazy cult who doesn't worship the True Christ?!
I'm all for improving inter-faith relations ... but not when it feels like your doing things to get in good with the cool kids.
My husband and I debated this topic last night and he has a good point; I'll try to summarize it in a post later today.
** My dear brother-in-law sent me this email and called to ask if I'd post it for him. Hey Steve, look, here are your words, forever on the internet! Pretty cool,huh! Get a blog account and start speaking up!
Hey there Sis,
I am going to step away from my strict no blogging policy to try and help clear up a few misunderstandings about LDS beliefs.
First of all to the first comment, you are absolutely correct homosexuality is a very natural tendency.
As once stated “Woman is searching for one Man to fulfill her every need, and Man is searching for every Woman to fulfill his one need.” And yes of course in Man’s case we are talking about sexual desire.
Now understandably the argument is easily made that one Woman could fulfill all of another Woman’s needs, and the same can be said for Man. Therefore I present to you The “Natural Man.” The natural man is a person who only worries about satisfying their own desires, their appetites for whatever they want, without any concern for tomorrow or who they have to go through to satisfy there desires. A perfect example would be a drug addict their craving is so intense they would do anything for the next hit.
However the natural man is not limited to such extremes another example would be an adulterer looking for something different because their desires are not satisfied by their significant other. Also pornographic addiction because of the same reason and even neglecting your own children to do something you want to do could be considered succumbing to your own natural man.
Now understandably none of us are perfect, but we strive to put off the natural man. In the LDS belief system there is a Scripture found in the Book of Mormon that states “The natural man is an enemy to God.” As an LDS member, Mormon, we believe that mankind plays a very important role here on the earth. One with a perspective of eternal families and eternal progression and we strive to act as our savior Jesus Christ acted, “Be ye therefore as I am” God Like. We also believe that appetites and desires should be kept in the bounds that the lord has set.
As far as government is concerned, we believe in upholding the laws that our country has set for us and in being good citizens who contribute to their communities. So you can see why the Church would take such a stance against gay marriage rights. Now normally the church is very non-political suggesting that the members only study the issues pray about their decision and vote accordingly. We are also a church that believes in modern day revelation (i.e. Prophets and apostles that are a direct link between the heavens and earth) and when the Church speaks I know that they speak with that kind of authority.
I KNOW the prophet speaks with the authority of God and that's where I am torn. I'm stuck between allowing free agency between consenting adults and feeling compassion and sympathy for homosexuals in love who want their love and commitment to be made public just like you and I have done AND not understanding why the church has asked us to fight this battle when so many others seem a far greater threat to family and children.
I'm torn between understanding that a gay couple can have every right afforded to straight couples, as far as insurance, medical decisions, property, etc, but we are fighting about the definition of marriage, when marriage already means so many things, good and bad.
I get that from a strictly religious stance, gay sex is a sin, but so are all other forms of fornication not between married people, so is gamboling (I think, thou shalt not shoot craps?), so is viewing a person with lust in your heart (i.e. Victoria's Secret commercials, Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition, and for me, Ewan McGregor!). Why come down here? Adultery and Internet porn are far more damaging to intact families then Ellen and Porshe sealing the deal.
Some people are much better at hearing the prophets direction and knowing it is God's will and they accept it unflinchingly. I have to reason it out in my mind and pray about it. I haven't been able to reason it out sufficiently. I feel like I'm missing some piece somewhere, if someone could say the right thing I could say Prop 8 is noble and right. I'll have to get Greg to see if I have his argument of last night down right.
Post a Comment