Battle of titans: Gays vs. LDS
The national press just can't seem to get over the Mormon church's decisive involvement in Proposition 8. Utahns, of course, having lived daily with the church's impact on all facets of life, are well aware of its political clout.The Washington Post offers an analysis by Stephen Stromberg of The Economist, who wonders that in a situation in which most groups would flaunt their proven political power, even Mormons who wholeheartedly supported Prop 8 are uneasy about the victory.
It's unusual for an institution to shrink from responsibility for a victory at the ballot box. But being Mormon isn't quite like being, say, Southern Baptist. The highly centralized LDS church makes a lot of Americans nervous, and it has done so since Joseph Smith founded the movement, which was driven out of state after state before settling in the Salt Lake Valley. Where some see an efficient religious organization that requires unusual devotion from its members, others see conspiracy, even cult. . . .The National Review Online says gays are exploiting anti-Mormon bigotry:
If Mitt Romney runs for president again, Americans will address, with renewed passion, the question of whether he would be a puppet of Salt Lake City in the Oval Office.
The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?The Boston Globe reports that on the other side of the continent, the church's call for support of Prop 8 first split the Mormon community, but now is uniting it in the face of anti-Mormon protests.
There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. . . . So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.
Julie Berry, a member who opposed the church's involvement in Prop 8, says:
I support the right to protest, but vandalism and damage to church buildings — that hurts . . . and I wish we could see a little more defense of Mormons' right to exist as citizens and vote how they wish to vote. I'm sad to think that some of the social and political good will we've gained in the last 15 years may be set back.
Meanwhile, gays and lesbians are showing they know a thing or two about organizing and using the media. Californian Dan Wentzel writes in a Washington Post op-ed column that gays and lesbians will no longer stand for casual bigotry:
It is no longer acceptable for people to say bigoted and hateful things about gays or anyone else in front of me. This behavior has to stop now.
But I wonder, when a homophobic remark is made in a conversation among straight people, whether anyone is willing to say, "That's not appropriate and I find that offensive." I don't know, but I hope so.
18 Comments:
The gay reaction looks like it has become very similar to the anti-abortion movement. A few crazies bomb buildings, many protest peacefully, and a lot more people secretly sympathize.
Immediately following the election, gays had the edge on grabbing the sympathy of most Americans. But with the recent vandalism and religious bigotry, the tide has turned against them.
This has turned into a battle of recognizing gay relationships vs. freedom of religion. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
How about this statement, which I believe is neither hateful nor bigoted.
"Marriage as a societal institution exists as part of an evolutionarily proven stabilization of culture and upbringing. Marriage helps ensure the genetic continuation of the species.
"Homosexuality is by nature an evolutionary dead end. If exclusively homosexual attraction exists as a genetic trait, it is what evolutionary geneticists might call a lethal recessive.
"Marriage and homosexuality are evolutionarily self exclusive."
Actually, I do find that statement bigoted and bias.
It addresses homosexuality as negative to our evolution. It ignores the fact that homosexuality has and will always exist. Allowing homosexuals the right to marry will NOT negatively impact societies evolution. Homosexuals will be homosexual rather or not they have the right to marry.
In fact, we have seen how two loving people (gay or straight) can raise healthy children who become contributing members to society.
It is debatable whether your statement is intended to be hateful or bigoted. What isn't debatable is that the statement is just plain stupid. By your arguments we should redefine marriage as only occurring on the birth of a child. So much for the evil of premarital sex! Infertile couples should not be allowed to marry even if they adopt. Couples beyond child-bearing age should be stripped of their marriage rights.
Do you honestly believe the "genetic continuation of the species" is reliant upon marriage? Are you really that incredibly dumb? Have you never had sex? Allowing homosexual marriage has ZERO impact on evolution. Guess what? Whether or not you allow it will not affect the reproduction of heterosexuals nor will it affect the ability of homosexuals to reproduce.
The problem with this whole issue is the fact that we as a society are accepting certain behavior as acceptable. Where and when do we draw the line? In 20 years what will we except next? Where or should a line be drawn?
The only "problem with this idea" is that people find the need to intrude on others personal lives with their own religious beliefs. How about this for a novel way to "draw the line"? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! If something directly affects you, than you can complain about it. But there is no way you can convince me or any other quasi-rational person that gay marriage is going to affect them negatively.
Lately, whether in politics, there is an attitude that you are either "With Us or Against Us". This attitude has to stop. It is tearing the country apart. Now, the LDS and Gay and Lesbian communities have this attitude. This is a dangerous and polarizing attitude to adopt. Not all persons that are LDS are against gay marriage, and not all gay and lesbian persons are for gay marriage.
Marriage between a man and woman is a sacred word for every religion that traces its doctrine back to revelation from God. The Bible and the Koran both teach that "man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man." They teach it is a sacred union. They also teach that God gave homosexuals up to uncleanliness because they dishonor their bodies between themselves -- men with men, working that which is unseemingly.
Now, I'm not advocating derogatory apithets, or unkindness toward gays. On the other hand, I believe in freedom of religion.
Maybe, like was stated in the letters to the editor of the Deseret News..."Why not call a gay marriage a pairrage." Then the gays could be pairried without infringing on a word that is sacred to so many religions.
Regardless of your stance, here's how it works, folks.
You vote. If you win you get what you want. If you lose you don't. That's how the American system functions. Just because most voters didn't agree with you doens't mean you were cheated, it means you lost. If the reverse happened then Gays would be saying what a great institution democracy is. Sore losers, that's all.
Democrats whined for 8 years when Bush won and that was stupid too.
Sorry morons, we're not talking about a vote on zoning laws. We're talking about CIVIL RIGHTS. Just as women suffragists were not "sore losers", just as african-americans were not "sore losers", the homosexual community are not "sore losers." The courts overturned the vote once and they will do it again because we live in a country that believes in equal rights. For you shallow-minded bigots, that means overturning unjust laws.
Maybe all LDS aren't against gay marriage but you belong to support and organization that ACTIVELY supports such bigotry. I don't care if not all KKK members hate blacks, I will still speak out with all my might against every member of such an organization.
For the poster who says being gay is uncleanly. I think supporting a known pedophile and con-artist in Joseph Smith is far more reviling than is being homosexual. Difference is, I'm not trying to strip you of your religion. Furthermore if the State issues only "pairing" rights and it is equal across the board, then that would be fine. If that is the case, you can do whatever you want in your cult and we won't say a word.
The most revealing thing to me on these boards is the lack of logical reasoning and intellectual thought displayed by the anti-gay groups. This is exactly what the exit polls in CA showed: Those with education overwhelming opposed Prop 8, those without supported it. But, then again, what would one expect from bigots?
I don't know or care about mormon reaction to this. But from where I sit, people who once had vague awareness of a religious movement are now decidedly anti-mormon. They're convinced that this is a cult and that they, like the moonies or the scientologists, have organized to achieve a political end that is not the rightful work of any legitimate religion.
The mormon church, in addition to bringing senseless shame on the people of Utah, have decidedly done away with any good will they think they might have had. They are forever tarnished as bigots and cultists.
I can't wait until the CA supreme court overturns this ridiculous travesty of a ballot initiative. This could even do away with ballot initiatives in CA altogether. Ironically, the mormons' efforts to eliminate the rights of same sex couples to marry may have the opposite effect: enshrining it on a federal level. And the cost? The image of the LD$.
In this battle, you can bet your bottom dollar that gay people will win. They have the force of civil rights, public acceptance and history on their side. Mormons end up looking like small-minded provincial bigots obsessed with people who want nothing to do with their "church".
As to the accusations that no one is going after other supporters of prop 8, it's just not true. There are google maps of prop 8 supporters making the rounds of email at my workplace, and believe me, you do not want to be branded a supporter.
Mormons have picked a battle they cannot win. I can only laugh as they finally get what they deserve.
It's time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. "Marriage" should be reserved for religions and let the state simply act as enforcer of civil union contracts. Then, religions can offer a "marriage" ceremony specific to that faith. Catholics can have their "sacramental marriage," and Mormons can still offer their "temple marriage." Gays who wish to join a church that allows "gay marriage" may do so. Others who do not agree with this concept may choose to leave such denominations.
This has never been a question of equal rights. every one has the right to do the exact same thing. This is not a rule for some but for all. It does not say you cant do this and I can. The term equal rights is a word that is used to fire up emotions. Now it does limit what we are able to do but remember this about the definition of marriage not of individual people. That would be extremely personal, that is something you decide. Also
this was not done by the Mormon church the state of Utah. this vote was was voted on by the people of California, who I would assume would be very offended by the idea that they had been "tricked" into voting for it. Mormons I think make up like 5 percent of the state of California, I believe that it was like 52 percent that voted for it.
Mormons were exhorted from the Salt Lake City pulpit to help support Prop 8 in California. It may have been Californians doing the voting, but it was a lot of Mormons pouring millions into the Prop 8 campaign.
According to the census, polls and other reputable sources of quantitative data, about 0.6% of Americans profess to be gay or be regularly involved in some form of homosexual behavior. There are easily 5-6 times as many Mormons. Here is an interesting theory: Gays are jealous. Not too many years ago, Mormons were treated like pond scum. In some ways they still are, but they have managed to rid themselves of a lot of their baggage. Maybe instead of vandalizing chapels and burning Books of Mormon, gays should learn what the mormons did to shed their poor image.
By the way, I bet there are lot more people in California (48% based on the recent vote) who accept Gays than there are people who accept Mormons. I don't have the stats (wish I did), but I can only imagine that the acceptance rate of LDS people is lower.
This also makes Mormons an easy target for Gays. Who's gonna get mad at them, or prosecute them for their hate crimes?
Sounds like both groups are persecuted.
Misery loves company.
This appeared in a town newspaper about 50 miles east of the bay area, America's hot bed of homosexual liberalism.
It's an outrage! Mormon church donated $2,864 to Yes on 8 effort
Dennis Wyatt
Managing Editor
Manteca Bulletin
QUESTION: How much money did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints give to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign?
ANSWER: Try $2,864.21. And that was an in-kind donation to pay for plane fare for some of its members.
In a contest that cost both sides well over $80 million the Mormon Church put up only $2,864,21. Yet a large chuck of the No on Proposition 8 supporters who now want to challenge the church's tax-exempt status are demonizing the church. The No on 8 committee is now unleashing its lawyers to see whether the church violated its tax-exempt status.
Forget the fact non-profits are allowed to spend up to 20 percent of their budget on political activities. They are prohibited from directly supporting candidates.
Also, no one is going after the Catholic Church from the No on 8 camp even though the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gave $200,000 - almost 70 times the Mormon Church - to the Yes on 8 effort. That pales compared to the Knights of Columbus. The Catholic fraternal group put up $1.25 million or 436 times more than the Mormon Church.
Why aren't the Catholics being targeted like the Mormons by those seeking revenge for losing at the ballot box? It's easy. The No on 8 forces that are foaming at the mouth vowing to damage the Mormons are bigger bigots than they claim the Mormons are when it comes to blessing same-sex marriage.
It's a bigotry against Mormons that has nothing to do with the church's stance on gays, which, by the way, only excommunicates them from priesthood if they act on their homosexuality. While that may sound a bit odd in this day and age of Brittney Spears, Madonna and a host of other - everything-goes celebrities - there are human beings out there who don't go around acting on or defining themselves by their sexuality.
The argument that the Mormons have no room to talk about marriages that deviate form the American norm - one man and one woman - because there are still some sects who aren't recognized by the church that allow multiple wives is akin to painting all gays with the same brush as John Wayne Gacy. It is completely wrong and unjustified.
But wait. What about the $20 million in donations that came from individuals who happened to be Mormons? The more wild-eyed among the No on 8 people - the same who have been protesting at, and in some cases defacing Mormon temples, stake centers, and meeting houses - are guilty by association or that they are mindless robots like the followers of Jim Jones.
Really. The "guilt by association" argument would make Sen. Joseph McCarthy proud. The second argument is mere madness. It assumes that all people of a group think alike unless, of course, they are all part of the group you belong to which is made up of independent thinkers who all managed to make the right views on the world. It is an insult to lump all Mormons together as mindless just as it would be to assume that a Catholic politicians such as Nancy Pelosi takes her marching orders from the Vatican.
Those who use bigot-based logic have targeted the Mormons for years and across the spectrum of American life.
Back in 1984 when Brigham Young University football went 12-0 in regular season and made an amazing come-from-behind victory over Michigan in the Holiday Bowl with quarterback Robbie Bosco literally limping for the last half and won the national championship, many in the media snickered at the idea that a "church school" should be voted as the No. 1 team in the nation.
And the snickers came from publications such as the New York Times and Newsweek.
Forget the fact the same media outlets had no problem if Notre Dame, Boston College, or Southern Methodist University were on top of the college football polls. They were never equated as "church schools."
The No on 8 people need to get past their outrage, their own bigotry, and their Machiavellian approach to try and unleash the IRS on the Mormon church and simply fight the good fight.
The lasting change that counts comes in working with your opponents for change. And that change probably is best accomplished by dropping all state references to marriage - man and woman, woman and woman or man and man - in California and calling all such legal partnerships recognized by the state civil unions and leaving the term "marriage" to churches where it came from originally.
That, by the way, would be real change and assure separation of church and state -something that the No on 8 folks say they want.
I object to gay marriage on moral grounds. Some would say this holds no place in civil rights and politics, however most of those same individuals do not realize they are very comfortable with many other types of morality being legislated. If I listed them, then I would be mocked for trying to compare apples and oranges. However, my main point is that there are other legistlated moralities who many would not object to, the same people of which support "gay marriage".
For people such as myself, this issue has always been about people trying to redefine the term "marriage" to something new. Marriage is not the union of man and man or woman and woman. It is the union of man and woman. It bears the purpose of conceiving and raising children. It is supposed to be an agreement which stabilizes a family.
Society could change marriage to a variety of things that I am also opposed to. It could try to make it a union of more than two individuals. Ironically, the LDS church itself implemented bigamy in the 19th century. Other christian religions only have to peruse the Old Testament to find that this is is part of their theological history. But I am also opposed to marriage between brother and sister, which presumably happened in Genesis. Philosophically I must ask why not marriage between a father and daughter? (Assuming both are adults.) Aside from moral objections, it could be claimed it is to maintain genetic variability. But who said sex was required in marriage? What if they never had children? More creative people than I could come up with many other ways to liberalize marriage that most would object to.
I look upon the act of same-gender sex as morally wrong, but at the same time I do not believe I am individually better than anyone else who participates in this. To anyone else who objects to my viewpoint, it must be pointed out that you are looking down upon me for my beliefs. I will continue exerting my influence to oppose "gay marriage", but if it turns out that through proper channels this comes to be, as it has in some places, I will accept it and move on.
Post a Comment
<< Home