RECONCILING MORMONISM WITH PROP 8
Alright, my friends. You knew this was coming: I couldn't let Prop 8 come and go without talking about it. I've been through a lot of emotions since it narrowly passed earlier this month, but I think I've gotten to a point where I can post a healthy essay on the subject. A (Mormon) childhood friend with whom I've had little-to-no contact as an adult has been going back and forth with me in an e-mail debate over Prop 8 (which she actively supports). She revealed to me that she felt qualified to speak on the matter because she herself questioned her sexuality at one point before getting married to a man. The following is an excerpt from my last e-mail, which begins with a quote from her last message:
"You are so incredibly intelligent, understanding, talented, and really gifted. Your sexual orientation doesn't change that one iota in my eyes."
Thank you for the compliments.
"But ultimately, do you really think that you will discover lasting joy in the life to come by pursuing this lifestyle?"
What lifestyle would you be referring to? Without sounding too accusatory, it sounds very much like you're tapping into that tired, intellectually bankrupt cliché that claims there is a heterosexual lifestyle (perceived as long-term commitment/marriage/family-centered) and a homosexual lifestyle (perceived as short-term/promiscuous/anti-family). My response to this claim is always: what do you know about my lifestyle? I have to laugh out loud every time I hear homosexuality referred to as "that lifestyle," because it is absolutely absurd to insinuate that sexual orientation is what defines a person's lifestyle.
I have plenty of straight friends who are at the bars every weekend looking for new, exciting sexual encounters. They are promiscuous and then some. They are not interested (at least at this point in their lives) in settling down, committing to one person, getting married, or having kids. Since you and I haven't been close enough to know about each other's "lifestyles" since we were in high school, let me tell you a little bit about my lifestyle. I haven't had sex in nearly two years, and that was when I was in a relationship. I am looking (and have been looking for many, many years now) for a long-term relationship: long-term happiness. I'm not interested in short-term happiness/fulfillment.
What I'm trying to do here is make you aware of the subtleties of epistemic violence against entire groups of people: referring to homosexuality as "this lifestyle" when you know nothing at all about my lifestyle. Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. I've seen plenty of straight friends and family sleep around, do drugs, drink and drive, produce offspring in and out of wedlock, and traumatize that offspring in outrageously selfish attempts at short-term fulfillment. I am morally opposed to their lifestyle. Would it be fair or logical for me to refer to that as "the straight lifestyle?" That would be laughably absurd. Individuals determine their lifestyle--their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
“Aren't Heavenly Father's laws in place to guide us and protect us? Don't you think that we will be better off by obeying them than by seeking our own way around them? [. . .] You know my upbringing. You know me. I am no moral giant, but I do think that there is a plan in place and that we will be happiest if we stick to it.”
You do realize I’m not Mormon, right? I can appreciate your personal faith, but when you try to impose your doctrine on me, it comes across as disregard for my own personal/moral beliefs. I have no right to tell you you’re wrong, because the Baptists will tell you you’re wrong, and the Muslims will tell them they’re wrong, and the Jews will tell them they’re wrong, and the atheists will tell them they’re all wrong … it’s just one vicious, counterproductive circle.
Personal faith isn’t a topic for public debate, since faith is defined by believing in that which cannot be proven through logic. It is when this faith becomes institutionalized and then politicized, however, that we have a moral obligation to apply some critical thinking skills to the rhetoric that is being presented. Trying to contain this debate within the confines of Mormonism is not likely to create mutual respect or understanding. On the contrary: it only attracts unwanted scrutiny to your belief system and reinforces the widely-perceived stereotype that Mormons are narrow-minded, xenophobic, and dogmatic. Knowing as many Mormons as I do, I know this is not necessarily true (I often hear complaints about narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, and dogmatism from Mormons about other Mormons). There are plenty of Mormons who shudder at the mere mention of three particular letters in succession: BYU. By definition, stereotypes are inaccurate, unfair generalizations.
Interestingly enough, I believe the argument for equality can, in fact, be made from within Mormonism, just as there are Mormons who voted no on Prop 8 and Mormons who are Democrats--not in spite of, but because of their moral beliefs. The following three examples come to mind:
1) Establishing a homogenized master plan for universal happiness and discouraging free agency… I believe that’s referred to as “Satan’s plan” in Mormon pre-existence theology.
2) Article of Faith #11: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” There are churches that believe sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis for moral or legal discrimination. Some of them performed same-sex marriages in California while they were legal and continue to do so in states and countries where they are legal. As a church with a history of being persecuted and marginalized by mainstream Christianity, it seems a bit hypocritical for the Mormon Church to tell these churches they don’t have the legal right to perform and bless marriages “according to the dictates of [their] own conscience.” I think the 11th Article of Faith is a fantastic one. I would invite the Yes-on-8 Mormons to revisit it and contemplate the historical context and spirit in which it was written.
3) The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A central principle for any Christian, and decidedly the thesis statement of the Bible.
Since you have stated some your religious beliefs, I will state some of mine in the spirit of the 11th Article of Faith (that is, recognizing that neither of us has the right to speak from an absolute moral high ground). I believe that plurality and difference exist for a divine reason. Human beings come in different shapes, sizes, and colors for a divine reason: so that we can intellectually/spiritually rise above the differences our eyes perceive and connect with each other’s spirits.
Just as skin color falls upon a continuum, so does human sexuality. The majority of professionals in the fields of medicine, academia, and psychology agree that sexuality is not a binary concept. You yourself are a great example of this: you fall somewhere along this continuum that had you questioning/analyzing your sexuality at one point. Apparently, your position on this continuum is somewhere in between 100% gay and 100% straight. This position was moderate enough to where you were able to embrace the part of you that’s attracted to men and commit to a heterosexual marriage and find happiness in that. I think that’s fantastic, and I completely support you. I do not consider your sexuality to be superior or inferior in any way, despite the fact that it is different from mine (just like snowflakes, no two sexualities are completely identical).
Do rainbow flag-toting activists have the right to tell you that, since you were doubtful about your sexuality at one point, you’re obviously gay and that you would be happier if you would stop living in denial and just accept a prescribed gay sexuality? Of course not! Only you can make that call. It’s your happiness. Sexual orientation and happiness are extremely personal, individual matters. They are matters of the heart, and no one can see inside or judge your heart except for you. Can you see where I’m going with this? Can you see the problem with trying to subject me to a prescribed sexuality?
When religious and/or political groups start throwing around rhetoric about sexual orientation, it’s a very sensitive, delicate issue because it goes so much further than what we give the term “sexuality” credit for at face value. When you’re talking about someone’s sexual orientation, you’re talking about their heart: the very core of them--the part of them that seeks love, companionship, and happiness. Surely you can see why I take this extremely personally. When you support discriminatory measures like Prop 8, you’re saying that my heart is somehow flawed and inferior--unworthy of the same legal protections as your heart. You cannot support Prop 8 and truly regard me as an equal.
When it comes to our relationship as friends, other political issues are trivial in comparison, since political stances and beliefs are something that we choose. I did not choose to be gay. When we're talking about me being gay, we're not talking about what I believe in or what I chose. We're talking about who I am. Since you were brave enough to share your story with me, I’d like to share mine with you. As you have alluded to, my position on the continuum of human sexuality has never been as ambiguous or as moderate as yours. I’ve been very strongly attracted to guys from a very young age. At what point is it morally justifiable to marginalize someone because of their sexuality? When I was a sweet, loving, innocent 10-year-old who happened to be attracted to other boys, was I still too young to be legislatively marginalized? Is that attitude cruel when directed to a child, but morally sound when directed to an adult?
Every single birthday cake that came my way between the ages of 10 and 21 meant one thing for me: I got to make a wish. And every time, that wish was to not be gay. When I was 12 and the van carrying my Boy Scout troop to a Phoenix Suns game passed through the tunnel between Globe and Superior, I held my breath and silently wished to not be gay. I didn’t say a single prayer that didn’t involve a desperate plea to my Creator to take these immoral feelings from me and make me “normal” and “worthy.” Despite being an “incredibly intelligent, understanding, talented, and really gifted” person (to use your words), I allowed others to convince me that I was a terrible, immoral person because I could not force myself to be attracted to girls. There were even times when I considered killing myself to end the torment (I know of one Safford-area teenage boy who did just that). Suicide is probably the most “unnatural” act a human being can perform, wouldn’t you agree?
I finally took a moral stance, however, to stop hating myself, because God isn’t hate. God is love. I took a moral stance to be honest (see the 13th Article of Faith: “We believe in being honest”) about who I am. I took a moral stance and decided that I would not force myself into a heterosexual marriage by using deceit to fool some poor girl into marrying me when I could never be in love with her (much less have sex with her--yuck!). Our friend [NAME OMITTED] actually thanked me for being courageous enough to take this moral stance. She knows first-hand what kind of damage can be done when gay people try to force themselves to follow a prescribed path of happiness. Now she’s a single mother with two kids. In retrospect, she really would’ve preferred honesty from her ex-husband rather than obedience to “Heavenly Father’s laws” (to use your words again). How can God command me to be straight but also command me to be honest?
When I finally fell in love for the first time (at the tender age of 23), it was like I had at long last discovered the secret of life. When I fell in love with someone and knew that he loved me back, the experience was indescribable: life-affirming, transformative, spiritual. I finally understood what all those love songs were about. My entire life, I had heard countless songs about love: allegedly the most powerful force humans can experience. Powerful enough to cause immense happiness, immense sorrow, obsession, devotion... a whole range of powerful emotions that up until I was 23, I truly did not understand. It seemed like every singer and song writer was ridiculously obsessed with this thing called love. The whole idea of being in love with someone seemed so illogical to me: so alien. I felt like I was outside humanity looking in. When I met my first boyfriend, I finally understood the elation human beings feel from love. It was a positive, truly spiritual experience. My spirit doesn't have to live in solitude and self-loathing afterall!
You have used “nature” to justify your support of a proposition that adds discrimination to California’s state constitution. I would remind you that homosexual activity does occur within nature (dogs come to mind). But human nature is a little bit more complex, isn’t it? For me personally, I can’t think of anything more unnatural than kissing a woman. Nothing was more natural than kissing my first boyfriend. I believe God and nature are One. A certain portion of every human population finds itself so far along the continuum of human sexuality that they are naturally inclined to find love and companionship with members of the same sex. I believe this is God’s/nature’s way of 1) taking the edge off of exponential procreation, 2) making sure there are enough adults to take care of those unwanted children whose existence is a result of irresponsible heterosexual activity, and 3) encouraging spiritual evolution (just like with racial differences, challenging us to intellectually/spiritually rise above the differences our eyes perceive so that we connect with each other’s spirits).
Those are my spiritual beliefs. You may not agree with them, which is fine. I believe in the 11th Article of Faith, which means that I shouldn’t impose my beliefs on you and vice versa. What a great country we live in: one that allows for plurality, coexistence, and equality. Despite suffering institutionalized marginalization in 19th Century America, Mormons are now free to engage in their own pursuit of happiness “according to the dictates of [their] own conscience” on a level (equal) playing field. Even though being Mormon constitutes making a choice and adopting a set of beliefs, as far as the law is concerned, they are equals. Other religions may (and do) continue to preach that Mormons are immoral, misled enemies of true Christianity. They are entitled to their opinions. As churches, the State has no right to force them to preach equality. As churches, however, they have no right to force the State to adhere to their discriminatory beliefs.
Seeing any parallels here? Despite current institutionalized marginalization, gay people are working towards a level (equal) playing field. The difference? Being gay does not constitute making a choice (other than choosing to be honest about one’s sexual orientation), nor does it constitute adopting any set of beliefs. Gay people are as heterogeneous as any other group when it comes to what they believe spiritually. Other religions may (and do) continue to preach that gay people are immoral, misled enemies of true Christianity. They are entitled to their opinions. As churches, the State has no right to force them to preach equality. As churches, however, they have no right to force the State to adhere to their discriminatory beliefs.
SOME AFTERTHOUGHTS:
Yes-on-8 people have claimed that a marriage and a family are defined as "one man, one woman." I grew up with just the "one woman" part. Do I not come from a real family? Is my family suddenly invalidated? Were there adverse consequences to coming from a single-parent home? Yes. Many of the issues my siblings and I have stem from the fact that my mother--who is amazing and did her very best--was physically/logistically incapable of being there for us as much as we needed (a) parent(s) to be there for us. Would I have been better off in the system or in a foster home? No. Would I have been better off with two mothers? Without a doubt. The Tanner family on Full House had zero women and three men. Are you really going to tell Michelle Tanner that she doesn't come from a real family?
Can you take a look around you at some of the child-producing "one-man-one-woman" unions in any given supermarket and honestly tell me that their family environment is better for children than one I could provide, simply because I'm gay? Even if they're drug-dealing, welfare-collecting, hideous people? It's OK for them to make a family with kids because they're straight, but it's not OK for a socially-responsible PhD candidate to marry a like-minded person and adopt children (who would otherwise be in the system) to form a family simply because we're gay? It's even OK for them to get married while one of them (or both of them) is incarcerated, since they're straight? Really? What kind of message does this kind of institutionalized narrative send to gay kids everywhere?
Money donated to Yes-on-8 was used to propagate the lie that allowing gay marriage to remain legal would force clergy to perform same-sex marriages. Really? Church and State, people. Church and State. Only Mormon weddings are allowed to take place in Mormon temples. Can a Catholic sue the Mormons for not allowing him/her to get married in their temple? No! Churches have always had the right to decide whom they will marry.
There is a video from the “Family Research Council” (viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puI4pfRB0w0) that erroneously states that, because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, primary schools there are now forced to incorporate “gay marriage” literature into their curriculum. Blatantly false. It highlights the case of a Massachusetts family whose son was sent home from kindergarten with a book about two men who fell in love with each other and lived happily ever after (as part of a “diversity packet”). The parents were outraged, and the purpose of this ridiculously sensationalist video was to spread that rage and fear to as many people as possible and somehow connect the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts with the stance that particular school board took. This alarmist, dishonest video has everything to do with one isolated quarrel between two parents and their son’s school administration and nothing to do with a legitimate debate about gay marriage.
Having previously enjoyed a position of non-involvement, Yes-on-8 Mormons now find themselves uncomfortably associated with the blatant lies and misrepresentations launched by the religious right, with whom they have formed an unprecedented official alliance to support Prop 8. No-on-8 Mormons have found themselves doubly marginalized by the fierce anti-Mormon reaction that has followed the outcome. To reconcile Mormonism with Prop 8, I propose that those who are fighting against discrimination and bigotry be very careful with their reaction. We can’t fight discrimination with discrimination. Gay people did not appreciate being grouped into one homogenized category and targeted under a microscope. There are some Mormons who feel the same way now that they are under the microscope. The difference, of course, is that their civil rights aren’t at stake (while ours were), but labeling all Mormons as bigots is counterproductive and inaccurate. There are precious moderate voices from within Mormonism who are calling for reason, just as we are. I suggest we find common ground rather than subjecting anyone else to unfair generalizations.
And for my Yes-on-8 Mormon friends, I would like to leave you with a quote from the fantastic PBS documentary Anyone and Everyone, which highlights parents from several different religious and ethnic backgrounds and interviews them to see how they dealt with the news that their child was gay. Sister Lanette Graves, an active Salt Lake City No-on-8 Mormon, says the following:
"We all realize life is short. Life is precious. We need to not let doctrine or dogma divide us. What ought to be most holy of all are the issues of the heart. And as I said befeore, God is love. That is the Great Commandment. They said to Jesus (trying to trick him up), 'What is the Great Commandment?' and his answer was, of course, to love God and to love one another. The Great Commandment is the commandment to love. And so I decided long ago I'm probably gonna make some mistakes in life, and even on this issue, if I'm gonna make a mistake, I'm going to boldly make it on the side of love."
Alright, my friends. You knew this was coming: I couldn't let Prop 8 come and go without talking about it. I've been through a lot of emotions since it narrowly passed earlier this month, but I think I've gotten to a point where I can post a healthy essay on the subject. A (Mormon) childhood friend with whom I've had little-to-no contact as an adult has been going back and forth with me in an e-mail debate over Prop 8 (which she actively supports). She revealed to me that she felt qualified to speak on the matter because she herself questioned her sexuality at one point before getting married to a man. The following is an excerpt from my last e-mail, which begins with a quote from her last message:
"You are so incredibly intelligent, understanding, talented, and really gifted. Your sexual orientation doesn't change that one iota in my eyes."
Thank you for the compliments.
"But ultimately, do you really think that you will discover lasting joy in the life to come by pursuing this lifestyle?"
What lifestyle would you be referring to? Without sounding too accusatory, it sounds very much like you're tapping into that tired, intellectually bankrupt cliché that claims there is a heterosexual lifestyle (perceived as long-term commitment/marriage/family-centered) and a homosexual lifestyle (perceived as short-term/promiscuous/anti-family). My response to this claim is always: what do you know about my lifestyle? I have to laugh out loud every time I hear homosexuality referred to as "that lifestyle," because it is absolutely absurd to insinuate that sexual orientation is what defines a person's lifestyle.
I have plenty of straight friends who are at the bars every weekend looking for new, exciting sexual encounters. They are promiscuous and then some. They are not interested (at least at this point in their lives) in settling down, committing to one person, getting married, or having kids. Since you and I haven't been close enough to know about each other's "lifestyles" since we were in high school, let me tell you a little bit about my lifestyle. I haven't had sex in nearly two years, and that was when I was in a relationship. I am looking (and have been looking for many, many years now) for a long-term relationship: long-term happiness. I'm not interested in short-term happiness/fulfillment.
What I'm trying to do here is make you aware of the subtleties of epistemic violence against entire groups of people: referring to homosexuality as "this lifestyle" when you know nothing at all about my lifestyle. Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. I've seen plenty of straight friends and family sleep around, do drugs, drink and drive, produce offspring in and out of wedlock, and traumatize that offspring in outrageously selfish attempts at short-term fulfillment. I am morally opposed to their lifestyle. Would it be fair or logical for me to refer to that as "the straight lifestyle?" That would be laughably absurd. Individuals determine their lifestyle--their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
“Aren't Heavenly Father's laws in place to guide us and protect us? Don't you think that we will be better off by obeying them than by seeking our own way around them? [. . .] You know my upbringing. You know me. I am no moral giant, but I do think that there is a plan in place and that we will be happiest if we stick to it.”
You do realize I’m not Mormon, right? I can appreciate your personal faith, but when you try to impose your doctrine on me, it comes across as disregard for my own personal/moral beliefs. I have no right to tell you you’re wrong, because the Baptists will tell you you’re wrong, and the Muslims will tell them they’re wrong, and the Jews will tell them they’re wrong, and the atheists will tell them they’re all wrong … it’s just one vicious, counterproductive circle.
Personal faith isn’t a topic for public debate, since faith is defined by believing in that which cannot be proven through logic. It is when this faith becomes institutionalized and then politicized, however, that we have a moral obligation to apply some critical thinking skills to the rhetoric that is being presented. Trying to contain this debate within the confines of Mormonism is not likely to create mutual respect or understanding. On the contrary: it only attracts unwanted scrutiny to your belief system and reinforces the widely-perceived stereotype that Mormons are narrow-minded, xenophobic, and dogmatic. Knowing as many Mormons as I do, I know this is not necessarily true (I often hear complaints about narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, and dogmatism from Mormons about other Mormons). There are plenty of Mormons who shudder at the mere mention of three particular letters in succession: BYU. By definition, stereotypes are inaccurate, unfair generalizations.
Interestingly enough, I believe the argument for equality can, in fact, be made from within Mormonism, just as there are Mormons who voted no on Prop 8 and Mormons who are Democrats--not in spite of, but because of their moral beliefs. The following three examples come to mind:
1) Establishing a homogenized master plan for universal happiness and discouraging free agency… I believe that’s referred to as “Satan’s plan” in Mormon pre-existence theology.
2) Article of Faith #11: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” There are churches that believe sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis for moral or legal discrimination. Some of them performed same-sex marriages in California while they were legal and continue to do so in states and countries where they are legal. As a church with a history of being persecuted and marginalized by mainstream Christianity, it seems a bit hypocritical for the Mormon Church to tell these churches they don’t have the legal right to perform and bless marriages “according to the dictates of [their] own conscience.” I think the 11th Article of Faith is a fantastic one. I would invite the Yes-on-8 Mormons to revisit it and contemplate the historical context and spirit in which it was written.
3) The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A central principle for any Christian, and decidedly the thesis statement of the Bible.
Since you have stated some your religious beliefs, I will state some of mine in the spirit of the 11th Article of Faith (that is, recognizing that neither of us has the right to speak from an absolute moral high ground). I believe that plurality and difference exist for a divine reason. Human beings come in different shapes, sizes, and colors for a divine reason: so that we can intellectually/spiritually rise above the differences our eyes perceive and connect with each other’s spirits.
Just as skin color falls upon a continuum, so does human sexuality. The majority of professionals in the fields of medicine, academia, and psychology agree that sexuality is not a binary concept. You yourself are a great example of this: you fall somewhere along this continuum that had you questioning/analyzing your sexuality at one point. Apparently, your position on this continuum is somewhere in between 100% gay and 100% straight. This position was moderate enough to where you were able to embrace the part of you that’s attracted to men and commit to a heterosexual marriage and find happiness in that. I think that’s fantastic, and I completely support you. I do not consider your sexuality to be superior or inferior in any way, despite the fact that it is different from mine (just like snowflakes, no two sexualities are completely identical).
Do rainbow flag-toting activists have the right to tell you that, since you were doubtful about your sexuality at one point, you’re obviously gay and that you would be happier if you would stop living in denial and just accept a prescribed gay sexuality? Of course not! Only you can make that call. It’s your happiness. Sexual orientation and happiness are extremely personal, individual matters. They are matters of the heart, and no one can see inside or judge your heart except for you. Can you see where I’m going with this? Can you see the problem with trying to subject me to a prescribed sexuality?
When religious and/or political groups start throwing around rhetoric about sexual orientation, it’s a very sensitive, delicate issue because it goes so much further than what we give the term “sexuality” credit for at face value. When you’re talking about someone’s sexual orientation, you’re talking about their heart: the very core of them--the part of them that seeks love, companionship, and happiness. Surely you can see why I take this extremely personally. When you support discriminatory measures like Prop 8, you’re saying that my heart is somehow flawed and inferior--unworthy of the same legal protections as your heart. You cannot support Prop 8 and truly regard me as an equal.
When it comes to our relationship as friends, other political issues are trivial in comparison, since political stances and beliefs are something that we choose. I did not choose to be gay. When we're talking about me being gay, we're not talking about what I believe in or what I chose. We're talking about who I am. Since you were brave enough to share your story with me, I’d like to share mine with you. As you have alluded to, my position on the continuum of human sexuality has never been as ambiguous or as moderate as yours. I’ve been very strongly attracted to guys from a very young age. At what point is it morally justifiable to marginalize someone because of their sexuality? When I was a sweet, loving, innocent 10-year-old who happened to be attracted to other boys, was I still too young to be legislatively marginalized? Is that attitude cruel when directed to a child, but morally sound when directed to an adult?
Every single birthday cake that came my way between the ages of 10 and 21 meant one thing for me: I got to make a wish. And every time, that wish was to not be gay. When I was 12 and the van carrying my Boy Scout troop to a Phoenix Suns game passed through the tunnel between Globe and Superior, I held my breath and silently wished to not be gay. I didn’t say a single prayer that didn’t involve a desperate plea to my Creator to take these immoral feelings from me and make me “normal” and “worthy.” Despite being an “incredibly intelligent, understanding, talented, and really gifted” person (to use your words), I allowed others to convince me that I was a terrible, immoral person because I could not force myself to be attracted to girls. There were even times when I considered killing myself to end the torment (I know of one Safford-area teenage boy who did just that). Suicide is probably the most “unnatural” act a human being can perform, wouldn’t you agree?
I finally took a moral stance, however, to stop hating myself, because God isn’t hate. God is love. I took a moral stance to be honest (see the 13th Article of Faith: “We believe in being honest”) about who I am. I took a moral stance and decided that I would not force myself into a heterosexual marriage by using deceit to fool some poor girl into marrying me when I could never be in love with her (much less have sex with her--yuck!). Our friend [NAME OMITTED] actually thanked me for being courageous enough to take this moral stance. She knows first-hand what kind of damage can be done when gay people try to force themselves to follow a prescribed path of happiness. Now she’s a single mother with two kids. In retrospect, she really would’ve preferred honesty from her ex-husband rather than obedience to “Heavenly Father’s laws” (to use your words again). How can God command me to be straight but also command me to be honest?
When I finally fell in love for the first time (at the tender age of 23), it was like I had at long last discovered the secret of life. When I fell in love with someone and knew that he loved me back, the experience was indescribable: life-affirming, transformative, spiritual. I finally understood what all those love songs were about. My entire life, I had heard countless songs about love: allegedly the most powerful force humans can experience. Powerful enough to cause immense happiness, immense sorrow, obsession, devotion... a whole range of powerful emotions that up until I was 23, I truly did not understand. It seemed like every singer and song writer was ridiculously obsessed with this thing called love. The whole idea of being in love with someone seemed so illogical to me: so alien. I felt like I was outside humanity looking in. When I met my first boyfriend, I finally understood the elation human beings feel from love. It was a positive, truly spiritual experience. My spirit doesn't have to live in solitude and self-loathing afterall!
You have used “nature” to justify your support of a proposition that adds discrimination to California’s state constitution. I would remind you that homosexual activity does occur within nature (dogs come to mind). But human nature is a little bit more complex, isn’t it? For me personally, I can’t think of anything more unnatural than kissing a woman. Nothing was more natural than kissing my first boyfriend. I believe God and nature are One. A certain portion of every human population finds itself so far along the continuum of human sexuality that they are naturally inclined to find love and companionship with members of the same sex. I believe this is God’s/nature’s way of 1) taking the edge off of exponential procreation, 2) making sure there are enough adults to take care of those unwanted children whose existence is a result of irresponsible heterosexual activity, and 3) encouraging spiritual evolution (just like with racial differences, challenging us to intellectually/spiritually rise above the differences our eyes perceive so that we connect with each other’s spirits).
Those are my spiritual beliefs. You may not agree with them, which is fine. I believe in the 11th Article of Faith, which means that I shouldn’t impose my beliefs on you and vice versa. What a great country we live in: one that allows for plurality, coexistence, and equality. Despite suffering institutionalized marginalization in 19th Century America, Mormons are now free to engage in their own pursuit of happiness “according to the dictates of [their] own conscience” on a level (equal) playing field. Even though being Mormon constitutes making a choice and adopting a set of beliefs, as far as the law is concerned, they are equals. Other religions may (and do) continue to preach that Mormons are immoral, misled enemies of true Christianity. They are entitled to their opinions. As churches, the State has no right to force them to preach equality. As churches, however, they have no right to force the State to adhere to their discriminatory beliefs.
Seeing any parallels here? Despite current institutionalized marginalization, gay people are working towards a level (equal) playing field. The difference? Being gay does not constitute making a choice (other than choosing to be honest about one’s sexual orientation), nor does it constitute adopting any set of beliefs. Gay people are as heterogeneous as any other group when it comes to what they believe spiritually. Other religions may (and do) continue to preach that gay people are immoral, misled enemies of true Christianity. They are entitled to their opinions. As churches, the State has no right to force them to preach equality. As churches, however, they have no right to force the State to adhere to their discriminatory beliefs.
SOME AFTERTHOUGHTS:
Yes-on-8 people have claimed that a marriage and a family are defined as "one man, one woman." I grew up with just the "one woman" part. Do I not come from a real family? Is my family suddenly invalidated? Were there adverse consequences to coming from a single-parent home? Yes. Many of the issues my siblings and I have stem from the fact that my mother--who is amazing and did her very best--was physically/logistically incapable of being there for us as much as we needed (a) parent(s) to be there for us. Would I have been better off in the system or in a foster home? No. Would I have been better off with two mothers? Without a doubt. The Tanner family on Full House had zero women and three men. Are you really going to tell Michelle Tanner that she doesn't come from a real family?
Can you take a look around you at some of the child-producing "one-man-one-woman" unions in any given supermarket and honestly tell me that their family environment is better for children than one I could provide, simply because I'm gay? Even if they're drug-dealing, welfare-collecting, hideous people? It's OK for them to make a family with kids because they're straight, but it's not OK for a socially-responsible PhD candidate to marry a like-minded person and adopt children (who would otherwise be in the system) to form a family simply because we're gay? It's even OK for them to get married while one of them (or both of them) is incarcerated, since they're straight? Really? What kind of message does this kind of institutionalized narrative send to gay kids everywhere?
Money donated to Yes-on-8 was used to propagate the lie that allowing gay marriage to remain legal would force clergy to perform same-sex marriages. Really? Church and State, people. Church and State. Only Mormon weddings are allowed to take place in Mormon temples. Can a Catholic sue the Mormons for not allowing him/her to get married in their temple? No! Churches have always had the right to decide whom they will marry.
There is a video from the “Family Research Council” (viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puI4pfRB0w0) that erroneously states that, because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, primary schools there are now forced to incorporate “gay marriage” literature into their curriculum. Blatantly false. It highlights the case of a Massachusetts family whose son was sent home from kindergarten with a book about two men who fell in love with each other and lived happily ever after (as part of a “diversity packet”). The parents were outraged, and the purpose of this ridiculously sensationalist video was to spread that rage and fear to as many people as possible and somehow connect the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts with the stance that particular school board took. This alarmist, dishonest video has everything to do with one isolated quarrel between two parents and their son’s school administration and nothing to do with a legitimate debate about gay marriage.
Having previously enjoyed a position of non-involvement, Yes-on-8 Mormons now find themselves uncomfortably associated with the blatant lies and misrepresentations launched by the religious right, with whom they have formed an unprecedented official alliance to support Prop 8. No-on-8 Mormons have found themselves doubly marginalized by the fierce anti-Mormon reaction that has followed the outcome. To reconcile Mormonism with Prop 8, I propose that those who are fighting against discrimination and bigotry be very careful with their reaction. We can’t fight discrimination with discrimination. Gay people did not appreciate being grouped into one homogenized category and targeted under a microscope. There are some Mormons who feel the same way now that they are under the microscope. The difference, of course, is that their civil rights aren’t at stake (while ours were), but labeling all Mormons as bigots is counterproductive and inaccurate. There are precious moderate voices from within Mormonism who are calling for reason, just as we are. I suggest we find common ground rather than subjecting anyone else to unfair generalizations.
And for my Yes-on-8 Mormon friends, I would like to leave you with a quote from the fantastic PBS documentary Anyone and Everyone, which highlights parents from several different religious and ethnic backgrounds and interviews them to see how they dealt with the news that their child was gay. Sister Lanette Graves, an active Salt Lake City No-on-8 Mormon, says the following:
"We all realize life is short. Life is precious. We need to not let doctrine or dogma divide us. What ought to be most holy of all are the issues of the heart. And as I said befeore, God is love. That is the Great Commandment. They said to Jesus (trying to trick him up), 'What is the Great Commandment?' and his answer was, of course, to love God and to love one another. The Great Commandment is the commandment to love. And so I decided long ago I'm probably gonna make some mistakes in life, and even on this issue, if I'm gonna make a mistake, I'm going to boldly make it on the side of love."
posted by Charlie at 12:27 PM
20 Comments:
Just wanted to let you know I read your essay. Cheers, Amanda
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm a Charlie blog stalker! Haha! I love your writting, and somehow I always agree with you and feel what you are saying in my heart. You almost made me cry!
Aaah, thanks! :-)
Hey Charlie, Fantastic article. You have always had an incredible ability to communicate your view in a powerful and authentic way.
I think that there are a couple of statements that you made that generalize "Prop 8 Supporters" a bit. First of all I NEVER heard anyone try to define "Family". Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for centuries. We are not "redefining" anything. We are simply adding the definition to the constitution. You have a wonderful Family and I don't believe that anyone would make an argument there.
Secondly, you misunderstand the "lie" that Mormon marriages would be affected by Homosexual marriage. You use "separation of church and state" to make your point, however in reality it is this very principal that would be used to cause the problem. There have been multiple law suits filed by homosexual's that have claimed "discrimination" because a church or other organization does not recognize their relationship. The State of California was set to REQUIRE all organizations who apply for a license to perform marriages to ALSO perform Gay Marriages. The problem isn't that Mormons couldn't be sealed in the temple anymore. The problem is that if the church wanted to perform ANY marriages in California, it would have to perform gay ceremonies as well. Because the homosexual community is attempting to cloak this as a "civil rights" issue, if the Mormon church failed to marry gays in chapels or in parks or on streets or in homes or ANYWHERE...then using the "separation of church and state" principle the church's Tax exempt status would be removed and other penalties imposed due to "discrimination."
You know that Amber and I both love you dearly and in no way do we judge you, or think less of you for your "lifestyle".. lol couldn't resist. ...... in no way do we judge you or think less of you for your sexual orientation. (Is that better? - I think the problem is that "lifestyle" seems like a word that doesn't feel like it would be offensive, we're not sure what to say without sounding judgmental or insensitive.)
Know that I wish you every joy and happiness in life and hope that you recognize the spirit in which I have written this response.
Speak soon,
danny
Danny Boy!
I appreciate your comments. Your first point (about the definition of marriage vs. the definition of family), I believe, is a valid one. Indeed, not all Prop 8 supporters would tell Michelle Tanner that she doesn't come from a real family (that was more for comic relief than anything else). The point behind that paragraph, however, was that marriage affords unique legal protections for couples starting and raising families, and that families come in all sorts of different sizes and circumstances. Some (not all) Prop 8 supporters tried to make the argument that families (or at least their narrow, prescriptive version of families) are formed when a man and woman form a union and "organically" produce children (yes, that word was actually used for that argument). My point is that sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis for discrimination when it comes to the legal protections granted within marriage for two consenting adults who--out of love and our most basic impulses as human beings--wish to establish a family.
As for your second point, I would like very much (not out of antagonism, but out of genuine curiosity and concern) for you to provide proof that "The State of California was set to REQUIRE all organizations who apply for a license to perform marriages to ALSO perform Gay Marriages." So far, I have been unable to find proof of this. I myself have looked for concrete examples of "law suits filed by homosexual's that have claimed 'discrimination' because a church or other organization does not recognize their relationship," and I have yet to find any examples, so if you can be more specific, that would be extremely helpful. Like yourself, I don't believe the State should have the right to force churches to recognize or perform marriages they don't approve of.
Your fear that "the church's Tax exempt status would be removed and other penalties imposed due to 'discrimination'" is particularly interesting to me, since I have read debate as to whether it was fear of revocation of the church’s tax-exempt status that ultimately afforded Black men equality with other men within the Mormon Church in 1978. The more I read about this (from sources inside and outside the church), the more it seems that the link cannot be solidly made. I bring this up only to address your fears about the possible revocation of the church’s tax-exempt status due to changes in the public/civil realm as to what constitutes lawful discrimination. Side note: this is precisely why gay marriage is a civil rights issue. The question at hand is whether sexual orientation is a legitimate basis for discrimination in the public/civil realm. This isn’t being “cloak[ed]” as a civil rights issue. It IS a civil rights issue. But going back to why this civil matter will in no way change what churches preach or practice privately (and by privately, I mean in their own churches and church-owned buildings). In 1971, the IRS made it clear that religious institutions are not required to adhere to the same public standards as educational institutions when it comes to discrimination. The following is an excerpt from an essay on the topic (http://jhuston.com/Documents/1978.htm):
(BEGINNING OF EXCERPT. IT’S RATHER LENGTHY)
In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) grants non-profit status to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other religious organizations. This is of tremendous financial benefit. Meanwhile, clergy and other employees are guaranteed free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are free to voice their opinions and beliefs, and advocate changes to legislation. They can attack women's freedom to obtain an abortion. They can advocate that special rights be reserved for heterosexuals, and not extended to gays and lesbians, including the right to marry. Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and everyone else are free to engage in hate speech against women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, immigrants, and other groups. A pastor in Texas recently called on the U.S. Army to round up and execute area Wiccans with napalm. The tax exempt status of his church was not threatened. Religious groups can promote a stand on other similar "hot" religious topics, from spanking children to the death penalty and physician assisted suicide. They are even allowed by the IRS to contribute small amounts of money and resources to the fight for changes in legislation. In the words of the IRS regulations: "no substantial part of (church) activities (may consist of) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." Unfortunately, the term "substantial" is not defined precisely in the service's regulations.
The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Morg, but not the core corporation.
On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could "no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination." IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not "treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170]." Ibid. By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, "applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education. (emphasis added) " See id., at A232.
BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter:
On June 30, 1971, the three-judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge. Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971). That court approved the IRS's amended construction of the Tax Code. The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination.
The IRS's 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above "charitable" concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3). Pp. 592-596.
The Government's fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners' asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 602-604.
(END EXCERPT)
Now that I have ended that excerpt, I have one more for you to address your fears that gay marriage in the public sector would mean forced compliance in the private religious sector (taken from http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ArticlePage=2&ID=20198):
(BEGINNING OF EXCERPT)
Also of interest is §221 [same link as the last one above], which destroys the oft-repeated lie that religious institutions will be forced to teach that “gay is OK”:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
[Some Prop 8 supporters claim that] Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
This is a two-fold lie. There are two issues here: 1] allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in church-owned facilities, and 2] religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
They want you to think your 'pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi' is going to be forced to perform marriages that are in direct conflict with your church's beliefs.
Issue 1: Same-sex marriages in church-owned facilities.
Let's get the obvious out of the way first: It's highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights—just as, say, a Muslim couple would want to be married in a place where the pastor preaches that Islam is evil. Which is probably why we've never heard of a Muslim couple suing a Christian church for denying access to a church hall [or a Christian couple suing a synagogue, or a Jewish couple suing a mosque, etc., etc., etc.].
Now, to the point: If the facilities are 'open to the public,' then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples—or anyone else for that matter.
A Press-Enterprise article from late July [linked below] sums it up:
David Cruz, a professor of law at USC, an expert on sexual-orientation law and president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, said religious institutions might be required to allow their meeting rooms or halls to be used for same-sex weddings if the religious groups already rent their facilities to the public. There has never been a court ruling on the matter, so the law is unclear, he said.
If a court does rule there is a requirement, it would be based upon long-standing state law that prohibits public-accommodations discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not on the Supreme Court's marriage ruling, he said. A religious group that does not rent out its facilities to the public would not be affected, because the facilities would not be considered 'public accommodations,' he said.
The solution: Don't rent your church hall to the public.
The real bottom line: Whether your church gets sued for its discriminatory practices or not has absolutely nothing to do with Proposition 8.
Issue 2: Religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
To require any church to perform any civil marriage is unconstitutional—that is, it violates the United States Constitution.
No church can be forced to perform any marriage. The Catholic church will not, and cannot be forced to, perform a marriage for a non-Catholic couple, nor for a divorced Catholic [a Catholic whose previous marriage was annulled by the church, yes, but not a civilly divorced Catholic]. The same goes for every other church—and applies to secular officiants as well [i.e., an atheist officiant cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony].
(END OF EXCERPT)
Alright—those are the last of the excerpts. I promise. Note that both excerpts make direct references to the legal documents in question and expound up on them. This is why I (along with the Human Rights Campaign and countless others) feel comfortable referring to claims of forced non-discrimination within the private religious sector as "lies." If you have similar evidence that contradicts their positions, please let me know, as I truly would be interested in reading them.
PS, I love you and Amber, too! I know you're a lot happier now, but I somehow wish you were still starving college students in a trailer in Thatcher. Selfish, I know.
THIS COMES FROM THE SECOND EXCERPT:
"Now, to the point: If the facilities are 'open to the public,' then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples—or anyone else for that matter."
He then goes on to quote an article that defines "open to the public" as a facility that is rented out. But, I am having difficulty finding ANY definition to that effect. In fact, the church must conform to other laws because it is "open to the public". We are not allowed to show movies at activities because our facility is "open to the public." The church must (not that it wouldn't have anyway) conform to the laws that require handicapped access, because it is open to the public.
One can find lawsuit, after lawsuit after lawsuit where homosexual groups are accusing religious organizations of discrimination. Adoption, marriage ceremonies, even a doctor in his private practice who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, these are examples of how religious freedoms are being trampled in the name of equality.
Let's be clear, the church has repeatedly said that it would not oppose legislation that allowed "civil unions" or sharing of benefits. I agree completely. As long as the rights of others are not effected I have no problem whatsoever with gays sharing benefits or hospital visits, etc.
I was under the impression that a lawsuit was already pending in CA against a church that refused to perform a gay marriage. I am not, however, able to find any record of it. There are examples in Boston, and New Jersey, but nothing I can find in CA. I'll keep my eyes open and if I stumble upon it I will let you know. I concede your point, however, that I was misinformed on the eminence of California forcing the church to perform gay ceremonies. I do feel however that a quick search of the internet and looking at cases across the country proves that such a fear is reasonable.
I have yet to see a lawsuit in which a gay couple or gay rights organization has sued a religious institution for refusing to PERFORM a gay marriage. I can't imagine anyone wanting to force a Catholic priest or a Mormon bishop to perform their same-sex marriage, and I certainly can't imagine a court or a judge forcing them to bless a marriage they do not wish to bless.
There is no doubt there are several lawsuits out there that have to do with discrimination based on sexual orientation. In this country, we have a tradition of establishing public policy through lawsuits (Brown vs. Board of Education comes to mind). In our legal system, sometimes the only way to fight institutionalized discrimination is by challenging its legitimacy through lawsuits. In the context of the gay rights movement, many of these lawsuits have been legitimate cases of unlawful public discrimination. The definition of what constitutes public discrimination, however, is an ongoing debate: a debate in which I myself sometimes find myself opposed to some of these lawsuits and some gay rights activists. I would remind you, though, that frivolous lawsuits are not unique to the gay rights movement or any other civil rights movement. They are all too common in American society on an endless number of fronts and in an endless number of contexts.
Your assertion that because Mormon church buildings have to adhere to public standards for the handicapped, they would also have to adhere to public discrimination laws as they relate to sexual orientation is merely speculation. Please bring to my attention any lawsuits in which a judge or court forced a church's doors open to host a same-sex wedding. As the excerpt states, "The solution: Don't rent your church hall to the public.
The real bottom line: Whether your church gets sued for its discriminatory practices or not has absolutely nothing to do with Proposition 8.
Issue 2: Religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
To require any church to perform any civil marriage is unconstitutional—that is, it violates the United States Constitution."
It is not my goal to change any religions or force my way through any of their doors. That would be unconstitutional. All I'm seeking is a level playing field in civil matters. Like I said, I will not deny that there are some counterproductive, ill-spirited, illegitimate, frivolous lawsuits out there as they pertain to discrimination based on sexual orientation. There are some rainbow flag-toting wackos out there who are calling for the destruction of the Mormon Church and posting a lot of hateful, alarmist rhetoric about Mormons in general. They compile their "evidence" (some of it accurate, most of it blown-out-of-proportion/severely-manipulated/logically-flawed) and sound the alarm at the top of their lungs: "Their radical agenda is out to destroy us!" It is my responsibility to reject such sensationalist rhetoric (despite its attempts to appeal to my cultural and emotion sensibilities) and call for reason and respect.
Similarly, there are some extreme right-wing wackos out there who are posting a lot of hateful, alarmist rhetoric about "the gays" in general. They compile their "evidence" (some of it accurate, most of it blown-out-of-proportion/severely-manipulated/logically-flawed) and sound the alarm at the top of their lungs: "Their radical agenda is out to destroy us!" The purpose of my article is to ask that you reject such sensationalist rhetoric (despite its attempts to appeal to your cultural and emotion sensibilities), call for reason and respect, and within your own hearts and minds, re-think Prop 8 considering the perspective I have presented (that is, ultimately, to work from love rather than from fear).
Here is an example of a church being sued for refusing to allow a gay marriage on their private property. The problem is they use the fact that the church's private land was "open space" and "open to the public" to justify their claim. AND THEY WON. This court case is not over yet, but the courts have already ruled that if the Church was going to allow their land to be used for marriages and other public gatherings, then they MUST allow gay civil unions there.
ARTICLE
OCEAN GROVE, N.J., September 19, 2007 - The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced on Monday that it was stripping the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of its tax-exempt status for part of its property. The Methodist camp made the news earlier this year after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.
The pavilion, said Scott Hoffman, the camp's chief administrative officer to LifeSiteNews, "is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869."
Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.
In June, however, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Pester, a lesbian, filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, after Ocean Grove refused to allow them to hold their "civil-union" ceremony at the camp's pavilion. A second lesbian couple has also sued Ocean Grove. New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.
"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis,"DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status.
"When people hear the words 'open space,' we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people," (sounds eerily similar to the "open to the public" doesn't it?) Jackson continued. "And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs."
Currently, however, there is some confusion over just how much of the camp's property no longer has tax-exempt status. As such, one homosexual advocacy group is threatening to appeal the DEP's decision, saying that it doesn't go far enough, reports the AP. "We're looking for a bigger victory here," said Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality. "We have the symbolic victory of the state telling Ocean Grove they're wrong, but there is a bigger victory to be had by having the entire tax-exemption removed. We're happy, but there's a lot more happiness to be had."
According to the Neptune Township tax assessor, the revocation of the tax-exempt status on the pavilion will only cost Ocean Grove about $175/year, although Scott Hoffman has reportedly issued a statement claiming that the DEP's decision in fact appears to revoke tax-exempt status for "over 99 percent of the land." Hoffman said that Ocean Grove's lawyers are currently reviewing the decision.
In August, the Christian camp preempted the complaints currently pending against it by itself suing New Jersey state officials. According to the Alliance Defense fund, which is representing the camp, the attorney general's office is violating First Amendment protections by investigating Ocean Grove. "Religious groups have the right to make their own decisions without government interference," said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "The government can't force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs."
END ARTICLE
I think you and I are actually in more agreement on the issue than I had previously thought. Your original blog seemed much less "tolerant" of a religion's right to NOT perform gay marriages. But, from your last remarks I feel that you and I are in actual agreement. We just need to find a solution that supports the basic needs of both sides.
I am completely for finding a solution that defines a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults that allows them all of the legal benefits of a marriage. As long as the solution presented does not redefine marriage's ancient definition and as long as the rights of the majority are not threatened in the name of the demands of the few.
Cannot tell you how refreshing it has been to have a civilized and constructive conversation about this. If only the politicians and leaders of the two factions could get together and speak this openly and honestly-with sincere concern that the other side not be harmed. What a wonderful world it would be.
Sorry for the delay--I had a project due for school and it was crunch time. :-) Thank you for sharing that lawsuit with me. It surprised and disappointed me, because you're right: we appear to have more in common on this issue than we thought. My original posting was an effort to express the spiritual/moral reasons I have found for supporting equality, but by no means did I mean to insinuate "this is my moral stance, and it makes sense--therefore, religions should have to change their doctrine" or "I want equality within the context of all organized religions." Quite the contrary: I stand with you in the belief that the State should not be telling the Church what to preach. Like Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Steve Goldstein's statement is particularly troubling to me. It was made in the spirit of confrontational antagonism and is hugely counterproductive to our goal of civil/secular equality (and equality for those churches who do wish to perform same-sex marriages). If Gandhi or Martin Luther King taught us anything, it's that, in the context of a nationwide struggle for civil equality, we have the obligation to abstain from picking vindictive fights. I just want to let you know I completely disagree with the spirit this lawsuit represents.
Having said that (and going back to the beginning of our discussion), I just want to point out that in this lawsuit, the State did not force clergy to perform a same-sex marriage. The State did not force the Church to allow a same-sex marriage on its property. The State did not force the Church to change its doctrine. The only thing that State did was to revoke the tax-exempt status for that particular property. This runs counter to the widely-circulated allegations that the failure of Prop 8 to pass would have resulted in forced same-sex marriages and a forced change in doctrine for churches and clergy who are opposed to same-sex marriage.
Hopefully Goldstein doesn't get the "bigger victory" he's looking for. He's clearly trying to bully this church, which is horrible. As a gay person who has probably suffered physical or at least verbal bullying, he should know better.
I echo your sentiments: totally refreshing to have a civilized and constructive conversation about this. If we could get Steve Goldstein and Anne Coulter to get together and speak this openly and honestly about respecting each other's rights... Well, that would be a disaster. Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich? No... How about Ellen DeGeneres and Marie Osmond? They have no legislative influence, but I don't think we should underestimate them.
Osmond/DeGeneres 2012!
Enjoyed the post. Your friend Emily tipped me off to this blog--glad she did. I'm excited to read the next thing you write. If you're interested, you may want to check out my blog here.
Above all Honesty...
Through some internet stalking I happened upon this blog and I am very impressed. Even the conversation through comments got my heart pumping and makes me think you and I must share a brain.
little background...
I knew your family and grew up in the Gila Valley. I was raised Mormon. I knew the Hawmans at EAC, where I questioned my sexuality for 2 seconds. I stopped practicing and/or believing in religion. I ran around the west living a very promiscuous "lifestyle" until I got pregnant and gave my baby up for adoption. I met and married the man of my dreams. My best friend is a lesbian. My family and I love each other but DO NOT see eye to eye on anything political and I'm sure my name is taken to the temple whenever my mother goes because of her hopes that I will come back to the fold.
the point...
I am in awe at how eloquently you used the very articles of faith and simplest commandments from our upbringing to say what so many of us have felt so deeply for so long. This is a civil rights not civil privileges. Thank you for the reminder.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that!
Hi Charlie,
Just introducing myself as a new follower pointed here from an ex-mo friend of yours. I'm an ex-mo and a fellow Arizonan. I loved this blog post, particularly the "three examples".
Thanks,
David
Hi David! Thanks so much for your comment! I'm glad you liked the post.
Hi, I'm Chris Capel's wife. We met at the reunion in Thatcher. Anyway, I saw your blog on Facebook and had to take a gander.
This can be a hard topic to discuss but you did a wonderful job. Someday (hopefully) we will look back at this and it blow our minds that gays weren't allowed to marry.
Hi Lindsey! Thanks so much for your kind words and for taking the time to read about this. I completely agree with you: I think looking back at this will be like looking back at previous laws that banned interracial marriage.
Hi Charlie! I just discovered your blog and have enjoyed reading it. I was going to write a more lengthy comment, but my baby just woke up from her nap, so I will just say the most important stuff: I love you and miss you! I was just thinking (with fondness) about our BYU days yesterday. It's funny that I happened upon your blog today.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home