I sincerely apologize for offending you. It was not my intent to demonize or belittle you in any way.
I am so sorry for the pain you have experienced in your life. My understanding and sympathy for your pain is but a shadow of the reality you must live. For 90+% of us, this debate is a philosophical exercise – for you and the LGBT community, it is so much more. I sympathize with your pain, rage, and fear. I do not have the power to remove it and I regret adding to it.
I am sorry.
*****
If I can respectfully clarify a few points:
I live in Utah and therefore did not participate in the California voting process of Proposition 8. At that time, however, I did not support Prop 8 and would not have voted for it. Due to my personal philosophical and religious contentions, I probably would have abstained from voting either way.
You countered that my definition of marriage is “completely out of touch with humanity,” however, 37 out of 50 states and 52% of voting Californians agree with the one man, one woman definition. Majority consensus does not make the definition right, but it doesn't make it wrong; it simply clarifies the limitation most people subscribe to at this point in time.
You said “marriage is the vehicle delivering people to equal rights, responsibilities, privileges, and protections.” Marriage is not the car you think it is. Legalizing Gay Marriage may provide legal protection, but it won't end discrimination. You can't legislate tolerance; sometimes you can punish intolerance. However, people rely on their stereotypes, and won't easily give them up – a few of your commenters read “Mormon” and assume “lazy reflexive thinking,” “similar to many other bigoted opinions I've seen,” not worth the time it takes to read my post. Some people will always hate me for being a Mormon and you for being homosexual.
I need you to define equality for me. I see it as equal protection under the law. I am sincerely trying to find a fair and equitable resolution to a bitter, painful situation – I don't know if 100% equality in anything is feasible.
You wrote of fear and rage. Can you imagine my fear, holding my baby girl in my arms and my little boy's hand, as I approach my sanctuary, my church building, and realize some angry person with a gun has taken out his frustrations so violently? Is a window enough to alleviate his rage or will he harm my children, punish me for whatever wrong he imagines I believe? We have to push past the fear, rage, confusion and try to find a way to harmonize, if that's possible. I hope it is.
Love is an effective strategy for changing hearts. What if maybe you stop being afraid to hold Jenn's hand in public if I and at least 48% of California promise that if we see someone bugging you, we say, “Knock it off; let them be!” What if you just put those lovely pictures on your desk and smile when people notice. How about if I promise you, Erika, that I will stand right up in church and correct any homosexual misconceptions I hear? That's a start, no?
Your hurdle - 37/50 states have marriage definitions on the books, and the majority (however small) wants to keep it. I respect your passion and desire to change the law democratically. The LGBT community has been begging and fighting for equal rights for (ever?) as long as I can remember. The governor of Utah and the LDS church have stated that they support civil unions and equal benefits and protection for homosexual partners … I think it should go further, that the federal government should require all couples to have a civil union – all committed couples should have the same rights and protections for their loved ones and families, same access to insurance, etc. How does the LGBT community feel about that?
Finally, as I said at the beginning, for me, it's a philosophical debate – nothing to lose (except the fear of shot out church windows, maybe). I'm coming from the side that enjoys all the power and privileges. I feel it my duty and responsibility to be able to defend my beliefs, though I understand and accept that others will disagree. I am sincerely trying to find a fair and equitable resolution; would you rather I shut my mouth and never address “your” issue again? If I can't help, I don't want to hurt...
12 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
Brandy--
Just wanted to let you know that unlike, say Daylight Savings Time (which is coming soon and elicits an immediate yay! from me even as I know it elicits an immediate boo! from you), the word 'Mormon' doesn't send me into a state of reflexive ignorant mockery....though sometimes the word Nascar does. I just don't believe in ministers and the like....but I respect yout ability to do so. Like I said, in the Friends tradition (aka the Quakers), it's just you and the Divine revelation....no other intermediary ntecessary.
I would also like to respectfully like to point out that while I do not know statistics, I would bet that far more gay people have been assaulted and killed in gay bashing incidents in the past few years alone (not to mention the past several decades...think of poor Matthew Shepard alone) than in anti-Prop 8 backlash incidents.
Anyway, even though I am not gay, to me this is still a very real debate....I have close friends and family who this issue affects on a very real and personal level. It's not just philosophy. It also feels a little like 2004, when I read a bumper sticker that said,
"52% is not a mandate."
In reading through your blog posts and most everybody’s comments, one encouraging and positive tone floats to the top – compassion. You make a very good point in stating that love is an effective strategy for changing hearts. Amid all of the fear and angry words, willing and sincere exchanges like yours and Erika's stand out and their ability to make a difference cannot be overstated. In the end, what else is there to change people's hearts and attitudes other than love? Angry words and nuclear bombs…not so effective.
BAH! Enough love ;o)
Brandy – you asked about equality being defined. I think equality is a subjective notion, but you are asking for it to be defined it in terms of the law, right? And laws are black and white. My question is, if you are truly behind separation of church and state, then how can the state’s opinion on a matter be relevant to you religiously? Isn’t that a contradiction?
Here is my point - up until recently, I too felt that an acceptable solution would be to withdraw the term “marriage” from state affairs and let churches “have” it. We’re all civilly united at the courthouse, and married at the church. Remove the word, if it is indeed the point of contention. But, at the end of the day what message does that send to the minority? A compromise in terminology is still a compromise, separate and unequal, no matter how you dress it up. Messages like this should not be doled out by a fair and impartial government.
Ok, but its not nearly as bad as withholding actual rights from gay people as is the case today, so the compromising means justify the ends, right? Well, what ends? What does this accomplish, really and truly? For example, Bob isn’t religious – he goes to the courthouse and gets “Civilly United” to his girlfriend. I am religious. Belonging to a church that is willing to marry me as a gay man, I get married. You are also religious, so you get married too. At the water cooler, I talk about my marriage, you talk about yours. We both complain about our spouses. Passing legislation will not change the terminology we’ve used for centuries.
So what have we really accomplished? Are you going to feel that much better knowing that our government didn’t grant me a marriage license, when nearly everybody (at a rapidly increasing rate) refers to me as “married” and Kris as my husband? If so, again, are you really for separation of church and state, theocracy, or some flavor of your own design somewhere in between? Maybe this is a rhetorical question. You know my intent isn’t to attack you.
I’m beginning to think that kicking around the idea of enacting such legislation is a pipedream and an intellectual exercise. Kind of like telling two kids that if they don’t stop bickering over a toy, you’re going to take it away from them both when, in reality, you just want them to see that it would make a lot more sense to share.
Ben, you know, in my heart of hearts, I have very little problem with calling it what it is.
I do not believe, in that same heart, that our current society is willing to evolve that far today. Rather than wait another decade or two or ten, I say, compromise now and see if that doesn't move evolution along a little faster.
The emancipation proclamation of 1863 freed the slaves, but it wasn't until a few weeks ago that it became clear that the majority of society had fully embraced it.
I love love - it makes us happy, it's divine. It's the point of life, as I see it (well, love and, correlatively, babies). It means more than we can fully understand; we all want it, need it, and whatever the secular laws may say, we love whom we love.
People may think I am a narrow minded-hyper-religious bigot ... fine ... they haven't read carefully enough.
You think everyone in the underground railroad was black? You've got to work with the society as it is, not as we wish it could be ... but maybe without a "civil" war.
Ben, I think the issue with the state defining marriage when some religions are vehemently opposed to gay marriage is that with legal endorsement it becomes a very real possibility that every faith will have to perform marriages, even when those marriages are opposed by the church, or face legal reprisal. If church and state are separate- if you obtain a civil union from the state and marry in a church- that does not make it separte but equal.
Seperating marriage and civil unions as religious ceremony vs. binding legal action does offer equal rights. It also allows religions with different views to keep their convictions. It does not mean gay people cannot be married. You can be married in my church. There are churches that do support gay marriage.
Just because a religion has wacky views (in someone else's opinion) does not mean the state gets to dictate what people of that faith believe and practice.
Hold the phone. Hold the phone just a gosh darn minute!
I read Erika's posts, all of your posts on your site, respectfully commented on her site, EMPATHIZED with the struggle you yourself described and I was attacked? I spoke to what I knew of your back-and-forth feelings about this situation. Did you or did you not say that at times you have seen both sides of the story? That you're having intellectual discourse with people in your life and you've questioned the opinions of other people in your life (including fellow members of your church). Hemming and hawing (which is an over simplification, I know) as you described it, is in fact a "struggle" of sorts. We're all struggling to figure out both sides of this. Every one of us.
You spoke to your struggle, as did the other commenter Kasi. I replied and said the struggle of faith for EVERYONE is difficult. I spoke about members of the Mormon church and non-LDSers because you belong to the Mormon church. If you were Catholic or Baptist or Amish, the message would have been exactly the same. Not one word of my comment was hurtful or angry or judgmental. In fact, I thought my response was compassionate and I was really hoping to draw a similarity between all parties by explaining the internal struggle we ALL (as people) feel during this debate.
Somehow all of that got lost. Your response was horribly defensive and it is obvious I have upset you. I commented only to the things you yourself talked about. I was not jumping to some sort of grandiose conclusion about who you are, where you live, etc. In fact, I flat-out said people that do not belong to the LDS church cannot understand the life of an LDS member. Did I not? So how the HECK does that mean I myself was 'speaking with authority'?
I urge you to re-read my comment and remove every LDS/Mormon word from it. Without those words that sound as though I am attacking you, the point I am trying to make is still there. I understand your struggle of faith because I am a woman of faith. Conversely, you are not a lesbian and have never experienced the bigotry that Erika has/does. Much the same, although Barack's election means a lot to me, it means more to African Americans in a way I can never understand. I can get it on paper, intellectually, spiritually but my ass won't ever be black.
Seriously, it pains me that this turned out this way. I GET why every single person feels the way they do. I can both sympathize and empathize with everyone.
I was trying to 'reach across the aisle' and someone threw a pie in my face.
LilSas -
Mmm, sorry. I WAS defensive ... people were saying really mean things without even bothering to read my post ... your comment was almost nice, especially by comparison.
I guess my biggest gripe was with the "They cannot see a way around their faith because it is every.part.of.their.LIFE and the rest of us? Well, we’re lacking god and prophets and faith because we don’t celebrate our faith in the same way? I dunno." That makes it sound like all Mormons think they are so much better than non-Mormons. Also, the use of the word "every" pretty much guarantees you're wrong.
Oh, and remember, you said, "radicals (yes, I used that word) are often in capable of seeing the middle ground, the 'grey' area if you will. Living in a world where the faith cup runneth over, I can imagine, doesn’t allow for a whole lot of free thought outside the parameters of faith." Hopefully, my blog EXEMPLIFIES that there are OCEANS of grey area - my faith FORCES me to evaluate these issues, and I don't know how your cup is doing, but mine's not running over, baby.
Then there was, "I want to focus on where she is coming from, how she feels what she feels and what that must be doing to her heart and her mind." Please. My own husband doesn't know how I feel what I feel, and I'd like to think I've expressed on my blog what it does to my heart and mind (hello, button eyes?).
The part about, "In their world, it’s ALWAYS about God. Every action you take, every dime you tithe, every thought before a meal, every communal gathering is about God. You try to take God out of that, out of anything and people simply cannot wrap their brains around that." Again with those words, every, always, every every every ... what I can't wrap my brain around is how you think anything you say is accurate with those extremes ... you think I say a little prayer when I flush the toilet? Not EVERY time.
I also take issue with the, "Unfortunately, the only way to get equal rights in this country is through a 'religious' practice" bit. What is that supposed to even mean? I'm very separation of church and state.
But I think it was the "Mrs. B and those of her ilk won’t ever be able to understand the bigotry you face every day. The inclusive nature of the LDS community breeds ignorance by simply not being able to empathize with people so different. So unlike you. People who pray differently and live differently and feel and love differently. Although masked in love and openness, the Mormon bubble can do real damage and I fear, really tear people away from what life is really all about" that pushed me over edge ... y'know? YOU can empathize with me, being so different, but we Mormons are incapable of such high and noble brain functions? Because Mormons have NEVER been treated with intolerance? And what is life all about? Making people feel better at any cost or sacrifice? I feel and love differently? Because I'm Mormon??
Yeah ... so ok, maybe I'm still feeling a little defensive. And what's more offensive is that you couch these hostile biting comments in a mask of understanding.
LilSas - we are all a lot more alike than different. I would hope that the love I feel for my spouse is just as powerful, certain, and strong as Jenn and Erika's.
Look, I don't want to call you out ... hold on, let me breathe .... in ... peace ... out.
LilSas - I do appreciate the time and care you spent trying to articulate on my behalf. I'm sure you had only the best of intentions and hoped to bring a clearer picture to outsiders, looking in on me. However, many of the generalizations, in my opinion, blurred the picture even more. Please, feel free to stop by and comment any old time - if nothing else, your words bring about great opportunity for discussion and clarification.
Kindest Regards (and no more defensive mean badness, I promise),
Brandy Roth
Please allow the record to state that I have gotten into more discussions about gay marriage than I have ever about bacon. And if you have read my blog, you'd know I feel pretty strongly about bacon.
*ahem*
Brandy, I feel like I've been beaten up. I'm just so tired of this conversation (which I knowingly entered today ... I know, I know). This conversation just never ends. Hey! The upside is that people aren't arguing about abortion anymore. Woohoo! Progress for America! I kid, I kid. I get a little tongue-and-cheeky when tired.
So I was trying (and apparently failing) at being empathetic while being a jerk. And others think you're rose-coloring the separate but equal argument. Maybe we're both failing at this??
You know what's stupid? Having discussions of real value on the interwebs where we can't hear voice inflection and tone and sarcasm and whatnot. We don't know each other. Hell, if you lived next door I'd bake you a pie. Tell you to vote for the gays and THEN give you a pie.
I have a bad tendency to speak in hyperbole to get a point across.
I was merely trying to make an argument about the difficult nature of living within a strict religious community and what an impact that has on people. Community is the fabric of ANY strong religion. Um, they're one in the same no? When surrounded by like-people can breed ignorance. (Hear me out)... "Ignorance" in that when you are surrounded by like-minded people (similar socio-economic status, same race, same sexual orientation, same faith system, etc.) prevents one from being exposed to other people. Now c'mon Brandy, this is not a new concept and not one particular to your people. (I use that term in a jokey/fun way). Catholic school was STIFLING for me. Living in an all Catholic world, surrounded by "my people", from the same walk of life, the same family structure, the same lots of things, prevented me from learning about OTHER PEOPLE. I mean, this sounds so simple, right? Religious communities, especially really tight knit ones CAN be detrimental to one's growth, if one is simply unable to "access" different people. It's TOTALLY a gross over simplification and I know, I know I am arguing the mundane details here. But again I am trying to make some sort of sense of this.
Aaaaahhh!!
What people are hearing is this: THIS IS NOT GOD'S WAY, your "chosen lifestyle" IS A SIN ... while saying, "oh no, you can totally love each other. Yeah. You can't call it marriage. And you can't do it in my church. But sure, we're equal." (Those 'yous' are universal yous, not 'you' Brandy)
Separate is not equal. Women and men do NOT receive equal pay. Blacks and whites do NOT have equal opportunities in this nation. It's so much easier when people just call it as it is and say, "yeah, shit ain't equal at all." As opposed to saying "yes it is, yes it is, yes it is."
I want to address two things in your response to me. *sigh*
I also take issue with the, "Unfortunately, the only way to get equal rights in this country is through a 'religious' practice" bit. What is that supposed to even mean? I'm very separation of church and state.
I'm glad you're very 'separation of church and state' as am I. But the current state of our union would say otherwise. There really isn't any arguing in my statement; it isn't my opinion, it's fact. Equal rights to partnership only exist within the confines of a marriage. A 'marriage', per your opinion and definition only exists on an altar, in front of God, etc. So yes, in order to earn CIVIL rights (with a partner), two parties have to get married to get access to life insurance and hospital rights and probate issues, etc. You and I agree that gays should have access to these things. To-date, the only way gays CAN access is these is to get married. Um, which they can't. So. Yeah.
When The Church owns the word 'marriage' yet the government doles out the benefits to said religious practice, um things get tangled, no? THIS IS THE CRUXT OF THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT! (someone put me to bed, I'm tired).
And lastly, I never once called Mormons radicals. (So don't defend yourself in that, unless you are guilty of being a radical). I was merely making a point about strict religious doctrine and how it can cloud judgment.
At the end of the day, this "argument" is about faith. We are arguing whether people deserve rights given by the government, via a vehicle only practiced IN A CHURCH! This is maddening! Church and state are being forced to meet and this celebrity death match isn't going well.
So when someone uses their faith to defend their position and is then offended when their faith is under attack ... does that person have a leg to stand on? *ahem* When killing in the name of Allah becomes one's movement, expect those to be judged by a court of their peers. No?
Random thought for the day: Is it possible to be raised in a "Mormon Bubble" when your parents were practising pagans? It's possbile I've been reading too long and need to work on writing something for my own blog :-)
Happy Valentine's day! (early)
What a good point Janet ... hmmm ... could people have been making wild assumptions about my unique and individual circumstances? Circumstances which may give me a somewhat less than straight up hoity toity Mormon view of sex and marriage and relationships?
You're my favorite reader of the day - stick with me.
yikes! Practicing! That phonics stuff is evil! I used to be a good speller before I tried teaching my kid phonics! Evil! Evil! Evil!
I was raised in the "Mormon Bubble", and I was raised by openminded loving people. I have never once in my life thought that Gays shouldn't marry. I don't have the ability yet to blindly follow the prophet. I do feel sad when people from any religion are grouped together as one mind. Thanks for your blog. I completely understand what you are trying to do and I wish you luck.
wow. and i thought i got a lot of impassioned comments when i posted about kindergarten...
Post a Comment