Gay Marriage or a redefinition of marriage in our society, what’s going on?
As a matter of an intro for those who don't know, I'm a single, straight, thirty one year old man from Lakeside, California located in glorious San Diego county and I currently reside in Ocean Beach.
An email was forwarded to me with a letter attached that essentially accuses those against proposition 8 (e.g. not against gay marriage) of wanting gay marriage taught in school in the context of "respect for marriage". Essentially, and I think both sides can agree, there is some relatively vague language in the California Education Code that needs to be revisited and rewritten to remove inconsistencies in the definition of marriage in terms of how it relates to sexual orientation. Rewriting those sections (220, 51500, 51933) is a topic for another time. The concern of the anti-gay marriage movement in this letter is really whether gay behavior (call it "marriage" or not) should be taught in school.
Gay marriage taught in school. Is learning about gay marriage a threat? My thought is that this shouldn't be an issue about marriage being taught in school any more than other modern day unions being taught in school. There are plenty of unions (or marriages) that should be explained in school as a matter of simple social studies on a local, national, and global scale (odd note: It turns out that there's a lot of gay sex in adolescent male Bottle-Nosed dolphin world. But they're pushing for marriage in Florida this election so we don't need to factor that in.). There are countries whose 30-something men barter pigs and woven bags for teen wives (Papua New Guinea) while other oil-rich polygamists countries maintain harems as long as the money is there (Saudi Arabia and friends). These are relationships that exist in the world and that behavior should be taught along with other behaviors. The judgment on whether a behavior has merit on a religious morality level lies at home where people are free to judge without reprisal. The facts will remain. There are gays, polygamists, monogamists, and isolationists. Yes, these are people in the world. 6 billion strokes to move the different folks of the world. But I digress...
Is there or should there be a legally defined hierarchy of these behaviors (marriages, unions)? There currently is. Is this position providing a service better than the alternative? In the context of raising kids, I'm curious to see the research projects, test cases and consequent statistics (provided by the opponents or supporters of gay marriage) that identify specific threats and benefits to kids and how the children of same sex couples fair compared to the children of opposite gender couples in a comparable scenario. How well adjusted are the kids? Education? Emotional stability? If there is actual, scientific data that confirms the worst, that harm is being done, I'll be happy to read it. Until then, keep the studies moving.
Ultimately, if there is an injustice in the laws, a change should be made. What I mean is, if there is more than more than one way to maintain a successful family unit with evidence of an overall positive effect on society and there are laws in place or proposed that prohibit that family unit, those laws should be changed or defeated. If it is a matter of heaven and hell, it should not be a government position to support one type of union over another. Unless we're communists on the subject of religion (I'm an Democratic Republic American).
In regards to the tax policy on marriage, I strongly disagree with tax breaks for marriage in and of itself (Not because I'm single!). In terms of marriage and tax cuts, the only reasonable conclusion I have seen is for tax relief to be given on a per-child, per-responsibility basis. The government and society as a whole do benefit from people raising successful children and extensive tax relief should be offered for anyone who is legally and financially responsible for raising a child. Tax cuts should not affect someone just for getting married.
To me, the biggest issue of the pro-marriage movements should be that of the big decisions in life and death as they relate to the family unit. For example, I think someone's spouse should have legal dominance in certain decisions their spouse may not be able to make such as funeral (burial vs. cremation), life support (when to "pull the tube"), hospital visitation rights, that kind of thing. Let's not forget timeshare presentations too!
I imagine the early Utah Mormons lobbying for statehood went through a lot of the same discussions and heard a lot of the same comparisons as gays are hearing in California now in terms of moral perversion, degradation of the societal structure, a threat to the American family and way of life, etc. They decided to concede the fight for polygamy until the afterlife for now. However, if the Mormon fundamentalists had won their battle to achieve statehood without compromising their right to marry in their own way (albeit morally perverted to most of the rest of the country), maybe gay marriage would have been tolerated a long time ago too. The fears of the anti-polygamist marriage lobbyists (who did win) have now seen their worst fears come to pass now that the gays are allowed to join together in unholy matrimony. So much would be different... Warren Jeffs et al wouldn't be locked up and a religious practice considered Eternal by some and unnatural and unethical by some would be legal in America making our relationship with Islamic people more friendly and personable (Allahu Akbar! He gave us the chocolate cake! ...and polygamy). I'm a dreamer.
I plan to vote No on the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Proposition" (AKA, Prop 8).
Anyone whose eternal views of marriage (or whatever name you give a permanent, interpersonal relationship) differ from that of "one-man, one-woman, 'till death do us part" would be better off voting No on prop 8 to allow gay marriage to continue its success and expansion which will encourage a more direct and complete discussion of creating a constitutionally fair definition of marriage and how it relates to our local, state, and federal governments.
As far as I can tell based on some of the arguments I've seen against gay marriage, here's the worst case scenario: Sodom will burn again.
But even then, there were some survivors. ...although one did transform into salt.
The best case scenario: A goat is elected Chancellor of the United Nations after her wife, the former Chancellor (who was a human female) died in a recycling accident. And people will focus on the family and not the genitals. Let's live the dream!
I'll vote "yes" on 8, if marriage is defined thusly:
ReplyDelete1 Man, 1 Woman.... until death.
Now THAT... is sanctity.
This is Randy and Katie leaving a joint comment: First of all, We agree with almost every point you made in your blog. And we applaud you for your concise (couldn't think of how to spell cesinct sp?) description. Further, we would like to add that anyone who looks at this proposition from solely a religious or school-teaching standpoint should look into the other aspects of the proposition... which you (Eric)failed to do in your blog comments ya religious nut! Lessons at school should be cross-examined by loving parents in their homes to determine if what their kids are being taught is in line with their personal beliefs. Some teachers are nuts "You're the retarded offspring of a monkey having butt sex with a fish squirrel CONGRATULATIONS!!!" (Mr. Garrison on teaching evolution). So if gay marriage is taught in school or something else that conflicts with your beliefs, you should talk to your kids about it. We would rather it was not taught in school but the school teaching scenario is not our greatest concern. Like you pointed out, there are things to be learned about the practices of other cultures and societies. It is important to be informed.
ReplyDeleteThe problem we have with Prop 8 is that it will blur the lines between church and state, it will restrict religious freedoms, freedom of speech, and encourage intolerance for those who hold more traditional values. Thats when you ask... "how?" Religious adoption agencies, such as the Catholic Charities that were cloesd in Boston, that did not want same sex couples to parent an orphan should not have been demonized or penalized for their policies which were based on their moral beliefs. This Catholic Charity in Boston was sued by a Lesbian couple based on discrimination. If a Bishop of an LDS church refuses to marry a Gay couple should that church be closed or lose it's tax exempt status? Do those with differing religious or moral beliefs have the same voice in "equal rights" if Prop 8 is not passed? We believe everyone should have equal rights and not discriminated. The fact of the matter is that a No vote on Prop 8 opens pandoras box for much more discrimination (there are more examples than that Boston one alone). We believe same sex couples should have the same legal rights and protection as heterosexual married couples; A yes vote does nothing but protect the word "marriage" so that those with differing beliefs will not be persecuted based on moral grounds. Please reexamine the effects of Prop 8 and vote yes, because it's the right thing to do.
I voted yes on 8, in part because it returns the law to the voters’ original decision that was overturned by judges. But additional support for my “yes” position was received from Bev’s suggestion to get the view from the gay news station. We turned on a news program on that network and I was surprised to find the reporter supporting Prop 8! Her reasoning was that domestic partner laws AS THEY NOW EXIST give the couple by a very clearly stated statute every right of married couples. She went on to warn homosexual couples trying to decide between domestic partnerships and marriage, that with the former the couple would likely be in a higher tax bracket and it could be quite a costly decision. Her advice was to choose domestic partnership regardless of the passing or failing of Prop 8.
ReplyDeleteMy full decision could have been made on my belief that Thomas Monson is a prophet of God like Moses, Elias, Jonah and others in their own times. The scripture Amos 3:7 says that the Lord God does nothing without revealing his will through his prophets. When I personally pray about a decision and receive a personal revelation on the issue and it matches the word of the prophet, I know for sure that I am on the right track. If I am not in agreement with the prophet (has not happened but for the sake of a balanced sentence..) I would pray for a resolution. The spirit of God witnesses to truth and gives clarity and light to the mind on a subject.
I cannot pretend tell another person what the spirit has to say to him or her. I do know that when I pray about an answer and receive confirmation of what the prophet has said, or asked, I simply will not ignore it. When Moses built an ark in the desert, I am sure that most of those who viewed it did not agree that is was purposeful, until the rains fell and fell.
In times like these, in the years heading into the return of the Savior to rule personally on the earth, which will be returned to its paradisiacal glory (TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!), I believe that for many decisions, it is HOW the decision is made that is going to be important and at times it may be even more important that WHAT the decision is!
Gather data based on experience, compare to what is already known, and ask: Does this make sense?
Truth is truth wherever you find it. Most people are not looking for what is the truth of a matter but are simply looking for more information to use to make their already held position look better. I am so happy with the “blog” format of discussion of this or any matter. I am so proud to have sons and daughters committed to getting to the bottom of an issue and who are not held back by worries about what others may think. There is only one source of truth and as I said, truth is found in many unexpected places. Thank you for being committed to ferreting out truth and hammering ideas out to temper them and get rid of the slag and keep the jewels.
On Prop 8, it was confusing to find people I thought would agree with it voting against it and people I just knew would be against it, voting yes. When the prophet spoke out on this issue, the debate was over for me as the spirit bore witness to my heart that regardless of opinions of others, for reasons that we may not even know for years, voting yes is what I knew I should do. So I did it :-)
CJ