Dear friend,
In regards to your comments, I appreciate your response, but more importantly, I appreciate the respect with which you responded. I was touched by your kindness, and I apologize for offending you; I know that this subject is very personal and very sensitive.
I would like to address the concerns of 1) Civil Rights, 2) the changing “Definition of Marriage,” and 3) hatred, that you have raised. I do so not to try and convince you, but because I know we both have valid opinions, and I would like to share mine. I hope that we can continue to share political views, and I would love to hear more about your perspective.
Civil Rights. It is true that Proposition 8’s impact has far-reaching effects. It is little surprise to anyone that there has been so much support on both sides. Although I agree that the United States would still be a very racist and divided place if segregation had been a choice of popular will, I do find differences between the arguments. I feel that during the 1950’s and 1960’s, racial acceptance was an absolute necessity because men and women were denied basic rights guaranteed in the “Declaration of Independence” and “Constitution.” In the current situation, same-gender couples are guaranteed equivalent rights. The differences between the two arguments bring me to my second point.
The “Definition of Marriage.” I understand why opponents of Proposition 8 argue that marriage has changed over time. For example, President Elect, Barack Obama’s parents had difficulty marrying because of the laws against inter-racial marriage. However, throughout the history of the world, marriage (in all cultures) has been described as a union of a man and a woman, sanctified by God. Marriage denotes religion, and thus religious history and doctrine, making the argument a religious issue.
This point is where I draw on Christian doctrine. Christianity says that marriage is sacred, ordained of God from the time of the creation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6.)
During His ministry, Christ himself taught the importance of marriage, and that it is between a man and a woman. In a world where morals are deteriorating, where secularism is dominating religion, the doctrine of marriage and Christ’s definition of love, have been changed and tossed aside. The following quote exemplifies the moral distortion that has been propagated by secularism throughout the world.
“Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. (Matt. 19:19) Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” (John 8:11) Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.” (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage#_edn14)
Hatred. In a world that is dominated by tolerance issues, it is hard to believe that the debate over Proposition 8 has caused those who have been victims of hate (same-gender couples) to turn to hate. Christ admonished all to love one another, yet we find our salvations at risk because we are forgetting to do so. Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals have been victims of this forgetfulness. The heinous crimes against them are nothing short of terrorism, yet the world has stood idly by to the point where lives of innocent people are in danger. My previous comments, “A Letter to a Governor” were in no way intended to demonstrate a hate for those who identify themselves as homosexual, or even to show a specific support of Proposition 8, but rather my support to stop the violence, rage, and hate against those who have supported it.
My support of Proposition 8 is not a fight to deprive people of their right to happiness, but rather to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Same-gender couples are seeking a sacred title from the religious world, for which they do not qualify, and which God has not sanctified. I love and appreciate all people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. My intention is not to discriminate. I support rights for domestic partners including heterosexual couples who do not wish to marry. I understand the sensitivity and personal nature of this issue. Within my own family, I have a close relative that is gay, and although I love him and wish for his happiness, I do not condone his behavior.
Once again, I appreciate your response, and the respect with which you responded. I was touched by your kindness, and did not mean to offend you. I appreciate the opportunity to express my beliefs, and although I know we disagree, I am grateful that we agree to disagree. I hope I expressed my views clearly and accurately, and hope that as you read them, you were able to understand my feelings about Proposition 8. Thank you for your friendship and kindness.
With friendship and respect,
McKenzie
12 comments:
Well phrased, but your point leaves me with a couple of questions. Pretty much, they're the same questions most people who have supported Prop 8 have left me with, and I'm still a bit confused. Most people seem to be saying basically the same thing, but my brain block is keeping it from getting through or something. Maybe you can help clarify.
You say that you believe marriage is sanctified by God, and that it 'denotes religion'. Is this simply a matter of semantics? Is a heterosexual civil marriage, one in which neither party has any religious affiliation, still sanctified by God? If there is no religion involved, isn't it still legally considered a "marriage"? So, are ALL heterosexual marriages sanctified by God simply because they are between a man and a woman, even abusive or dysfunctional ones?
My thoughts on the matter, do with them what you would like. I would say that the union of a man and a woman is defined and sanctified by God. How they choose to make their relationship is up to them. The same can be applied for a temple marriage. Just because some may not work out, does not mean that the union was not performed with proper authority or that the definition or doctrine is affected. I would say, that because heterosexual couples who may be atheist fall under the religious definition of marriage, their union is what God intended regardless if they believe in Him or not.
I like cake!
McKenzie,
Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate repsonse and thank you also for keeping respect in the equation. You seem to be a compassionate person and bright as well.
First and foremost, let me say thank you Thunderdan for injecting some light-hearted humor in the mix. The subject matter certainly begs for it. I presume you mean wedding cake, considering our topic. Do they have "civil union" cakes? Just kidding.
Anyway, there is a lot to address here. Before I get started, McKenzie, I want to say that I consider any hate crime or violence to any group of people to be sad and 100% intolerable no matter the reason, no matter the cause. I think even many pro-life people have been horrified over the years at abortion clinic bombings. I find this no different.
My first concern is along the lines of Kristen's: you say that marriage denotes religion. This is not necessarily the case. If we take a look at ancient history marraige was put into place as a way to secure an environment for the perpetuation of the human race. It also allowed for a way to grant and protect property rights. Marriage was origianlly a civil institution existing since ancient Greek and Roman times.
Throughout most of history and in many cultures marriage was contractual in nature and brought more economic considerations into the union rather than any notion of love or even procreation. Marriages were often arranged, even.
The idea of the holiness of a marriage did not come about until Paul (in Ephesians) declared it so, and was not recognized as a sacrament in the Christian realm until the 12th century. In fact, during the first 1200 years of Christianity, Christians married according to the civil laws of the time, most often without any special church blessing. It wasn't until 1563 that the presence of a priest was even required by the church.
Even currently, in the East, marriages are not a religious institution but are, instead, based on local custom. Cultures in portions of Asia and Africa can be made, with or without a ceremony even.
And if, for the sake of argument, we say that marriage is a religious institution - what relgion should we base that on? Christianity? Buddhism? Islam? What God is sanctioning these marriages? To Kristen's point - is my marriage between myself (an atheist) and my husband (an agnostic) brought together in a ceremony with no prayers and no mention or religion or God truly a marriage? Well, either way, it is legally binding and he and I are able to accept and receive all the rights and benefits of being a married couple.
Tolerance: You speak of loving the sinner and not the sin. I have two problems with this. First this presumes that homosexuality is a sin. That it is a sinful choice. First, I believe, as supported by vasts amounts of scientific evidence that is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community that our sexual orientation is something that we are born with. How can something, supposedly given to us by God, be sinful? BUT, just for the sake of argument, let us say that homosexuality (or at least acting upon one's homosexuality) is both a choice and a sin. This is completely irrelevant.
Why should the definition of marriage and all the rights that come with it ride on that dangerous slippery slope? I think many, if not most Americans find pornography to be immoral. Do we deny publishers of pornography magazines and movies the right to marry? Do we deny the men in women in that material the right to marry? Pedophilia is a heinous and highly immoral crime committed against our most innocent victims. Yet, we allow them the right to marry. If you think all of these individuals should also not have the right to marry, where would you draw the line and who should decide?
Most religions teach that sex before marriage is immoral. Should those couples who engage in premarital sex be denied the right to marry? More importantly, WHO gets to decide what is immoral and where we draw the line?
Bryan and Afton (cool name, by the way) to your point about marriage not being a civil right. You are correct. However, the civil rights DO include equal protection under the laws and protection from unlawful discrimination. The 14th amendment does guarantee every individual the right to the pursuit of happiness. For me, my greatest source of happiness has come from my marriage. I would hate to deny my fellow human beings, gay or straight the beauty of the marriage union, including the protections of the laws afforded to married couples.
This brings me to my last point, which addresses your first point, McKenzie. You say that "In the current situation, same-gender couples are guaranteed equivalent rights." This is just absolutely not true. McKenzie do you realize, that by the passing of Prop 8, that your gay relative is affected in so many ways? It's not just health insurance, although that is a big one. He also can not get the marriage discount on
his auto or homeowners insurance. He will not be allowed to make health care decisions regarding his partner if his partner were unable to make those decisions. He will not have the same rights under our tax codes. He will not be guaranteed any survivorship rights if his partner dies. Do you
really want to saddle your relative (or any children you may have in the future that might be gay) with the extra burdens and limit their rights in their relationships because of their sexual orientation?
I honestly ask, EVEN IF you feel that homosexuality is sinful, does your conscience really tell you that it is okay to deny your brothers and sisters the joy (and rights) that come from the union of marriage? I don't understand - their love, their lives together will go on anyway. And they will go on in a way that wil not harm you or your family. Why not give them the rights that you and I enjoy?
Sincerely,
Jennifer
One note: Seeing as I work 50+ hours a week and am busy with the activities of 5 kids, I typed out my previous response in a fast and furious manner on my work break and realize that there are some spelling and grammar errors. Sorry for that...
A friend of mine wrote me and asked that I post her comments on my blog. She asked that she remain anonymous.
"Hi McKenzie,
I want to respond to the girl's question of why I support Prop 8. I was actually quite surprised when I read that no one can tell her why we support it. I felt that maybe she wasn't listening?
1. I support Prop 8 because I believe that marriage is and should only be between a man and a woman. I don't ever want my kids to think that being a homosexual is "normal." While I have friends who are homosexuals, I still hold the belief that they should not marry. Just as a straight man or woman may be tempted to have sex outside of marriage, I believe they shouldn't, even if that person will never have the chance to marry. It's the same thing with homosexuals, while they may have homosexual tensions, I do not believe they should act on them.
2. I don't want my child to be taught about same-sex marriage in school. I want to teach them myself.
3. If it had passed, churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. I don't want this to happen.
4. If it had failed, religious adoption agencies would be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father.
There are other reasons but my baby is crying. I just wanted to say that my support for Prop 8 is grounded in my religious beliefs. I believe that the wonderful elements of marriage this girl was talking about are created when a MAN and a WOMAN are joined together. Men and women are created differently for a reason. Not just physically, but the emotional differences between them are what make a marriage beautiful to me.
My religion teaches me that while Heavenly Father loves all of his children, each one faces a different trial. The trial may be immorality, tests of faith. a child with cancer, depression, and in my eyes homosexuality.
Also, if the leader of my church tells me it is wrong, then I believe it is wrong. For me, it is enough to say "If God says it is wrong, I will believe even if I do not fully understand."
I will never stand with a degrading sign against gays and lesbians. I do not run in their Gay Parades shouting "Go to hell," I will not bash in their car window if they have a "Say no to Prop 8" sticker. I will not take my pen and write obscenities on their cars, or vandalize a gay bar, but I will vote against gay marriage because it is a peaceful way to show my values and beliefs.
I am not signing this with my name because of the fear for my family. How sad that I don't have the courage like you to publicly write these things and not fear that something will happen to my family, my home, my car. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to write this.
Dear McKenzie, your friend's response saddens me. First, she shouldn't have to fear physical retaliation for her opinion. That is abhorrent and no one in my family or circle or friends would ever, ever hurt someone.
But you see, her argument is solely based on a religious premise. And our constitution guarantees a separation of church and state. Prop 8 does not require any religion or church to condone or perform same sex marriage. It just says bsaically. "Hey, you and I differ. But why should you get rights that I don't?"
Your friend, as sincere and kind as she might be, and probably is kept saying "I believe, I believe". Well, the civil rights are not founded on what people "believe". Religion should never come into the picture. Separation of church and state. That is fundamental.
McKenzie, you wouldn't be being honest with me if you did not accept the fact that MOST of the Christian community believes that Mormonism is a cult. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can't ignore the fact. Some of my dearest friends are Mormon and as a group, they have proven themselves to be a self-sufficient, honorable and hard-working group of people. But their deeper beliefs are completely against traditional Christian beliefs. You KNOW this. What if that majority banned up against you and said your marriage was null and void. I would fight tooth and nail for you, McKenzie. Tooth and nail. And I think your beliefs are, well, crazy, to me. But that is beside the point. You, as an individual are important. And honored. And valued. So you differ from me? So what? You deserve certain fundamental rights. And I would fight for you for those rights even if you led a lifestyle that I disagree with.
You are, clearly a beautiful person. I mean that. So you believe in things differently than I do. So what? It does not hurt me. I could say (if you were my neighbor - I'd like to have you as my neighbor) "That McKenzie and her husband, they are a cute couple. They are sweet and considerate". I don't give a flip what your religious convictions are because it DOES NOT HURT ME AND MY FAMILY - which I happen to love beyond belief. I could dine with you and laugh with you and hold your beautiful children (future children).
But because of that, because I value you, you as a person, I would NEVER, EVER deny you of basic human needs and desires. Never. Even if I think your religion is a cult. Why? Because we were born into a different culture. We were born with different personalities. But, fortunately for us, we were born being heterosexuals. We share that. But many of our fellow human beings don't. But they yearn for the same closeness, the same rights, the same family unity that you and I do.
God, if there is one, would never deny his child this blessed family union. After all, he created us. And a gay union? It hurts neither you or me.
We must stand for what is just. The laws of the land are separate from religious belief - hence the outlaw, ironically, of polygamy. McKenzie, you know as well as I, that this is a higher teaching of Mormon doctrine. But the prophecy stands that we are not spiritually aware enough to accept it now. But I would never deny anyone the right to live, in their private life, the way they want to live. And I would be surprised, dumbfounded even, if you, as the obvious compassionate and very smart girl you are thought any differently.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
By the way (side note) no one, NO ONE addressed any of my actual historic facts or obvious American civil liberties. So far, I have only been fought with religious arguments. And Mormons, of any group, should understand and want to oppose religious intolerance. I certainly want that for all of my friends and family whether Mormon (got a lot of those - shout out to you, my Mormon friends), Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish or atheist. Love you all. Support you all. May you find your true happiness. And may no one thwart your pursuit thereof.
That doesn't mean that I am not willing to address your concerns... be patient, and I will respond. Thanks. :)
It is difficult to come to a bipartisan conclusion on this argument, especially between people who base their values and beliefs on completely different sources. Some taked their values from deemed religious sources, others from personal or family based morals, and others from morals that society creates. I believe that this is central to the whole argument. Religious groups view marriage as being ordained of God, and as being defined as being a man and a woman bound lawfully together. They believe that this is how God would have it be. Society used to also adhere to this definition, but has come away from the word. I think that homosexuals also desire to have their union, which is not congruous with the religious definition, to be recognized by religious groups. This is from where the problems arise. While we hope for all to pursue happiness, and believe that God grants all mankind agency to act how they desire, we do not believe that God sanctions such a union, and thus the opposition for such unions to acquire the marriage title. However, we do support legislation for couples to be able to enjoy rights that will allow them civil benefits like those of married couples.
Sorry about grammar and spelling errors in my comment, I am aware of them, and could not change them after posting it.
Post a Comment