Like many open minded Americans, I was disappointed to see 52.5 percent of California voters back Proposition 8, a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban marriage between anyone other then a man and a woman.
In other words, to ban gay marriage.
The Proposition 8 campaign was heavily funded by out-of-state donations from Mormons. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) sent a letter to every Mormon temple in California that was read to church members advising them to vote yes on Proposition 8.
The LDS is now facing a backlash. One blogger is attempting to have their tax exempt status revoked. Since the LDS has decided to take a proactive role in politics, they no longer qualify as a tax exempt religious organization.
Gay activists have organized protests at Mormon temples in California and Utah.
I think it’s more than a little ironic that California has been manipulated on the subject of marriage by Mormons. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had their way, Mormons would be practicing polygamy. Marriage would not only be between a man and a woman, it would be between a man and ten women. Middle-aged Mormon men would be allowed to marry their pre-teen nieces.
Mormons have no business defining what marriage is.
Willard
/ November 9, 2008I am a Mormon who advocates respect and tolerance for gays. I have no desire to control their lifestyle and thus support domestic partnerships which will allow gay couples the rights they deserve without redefining an important institution.
I know many gay marriage advocates don’t understand this, but although I supported prop 8, I advocate gay rights.
Rachel
/ November 9, 2008Willard,
Domestic partnerships do not give the same rights as marriage.
Separate is not equal. See Brown vs. BOE, 1954.
And there is a fairly significant difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance.”
Rachel
Rick
/ November 9, 2008@Willard:”redefining an important institution”? We have constantly redefined the institution of marriage. It wasn’t to long ago that marriage between white people and black people was a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws in 1967. See Loving v. Virginia.
Before Utah was allowed to become a state, marriage was redefined in the Utah state constitution to ban polygamy.
Redefining is just something intelligent people do.
Steve
/ November 9, 2008@Willard: You advocate gay rights, but only certain gay rights. You support giving them maritally equivalent domestic partnerships or civil unions, but draw the line at recognizing them as marriages. Why is that? Can you cite me a single rational, objective reason for denying same-sex couples the right to have a state-sanctioned marriage? I have never heard one. Every argument I’ve heard against gay marriage eventually can be traced back to some tenet of a religiously-derived moral code.
“Because [your holy book of choice] says so” is no reason for a free and civil society to deny basic rights and recognitions to some citizens that it happily grants to others. Nor is “because it’s been this way for a long time and we don’t want to change it.” Slavery existed for hundreds of years in the Americas. So did bans on interracial marriage, as Rick pointed out. Both were eventually recognized as reprehensible and without any moral justification, and both were thankfully done away with. Bans on same-sex marriage belong in the garbage heap of history along with them.
You call yourself a gay rights advocate, yet you support a statute that writes their second-class citizenship into the state constitution. You should be ashamed.
Benjamin
/ March 15, 2009Willard,
Kudos to you for trying to represent the views of the moderate LDS, but why butter it up?
I do not advocate gay rights, no ands, ifs, or buts about it. And you’re right Steve, it mostly comes down to a religious moral code. Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting and the family is the building block of society. If two men, or two women want to live together then ok, but why call it a marriage when it is nothing of the sort.
If a man wanted to marry a horse, I wouldn’t support that either. I don’t see much of a difference to the issue here.
Call me insensitive, call me closed-minded, call me to shame; I don’t care. You have your views, I have mine, and at least for the time being the people of California have spoken theirs.
Bentcorner
/ March 16, 2009@Benjamin:
So I guess if Joseph Smith had found some magical golden plates buried somewhere in upstate New York that said, among other tings, gay people should be afforded basic civil rights, you would be all for gay marriage?
Gay couples have families.
Gay couples buy property.
Gay couples raise children.
Gay couples pay taxes.
All they want is the same basic rights that non-gay Americans have.
Concerned Commentor
/ March 23, 2009There are at least 6 plainlty demonstrable (obvious) factual errors in your rather short post.
You would do well to defend your argument using facts and reason, otherwise your credibility is lessened before those who know (whether they are sympathetic to your position or not).