#47600 Proposition 8

[vorpal blade]

Since this is "reader response," here is my response to former board member Lavish and her comment today regarding the way the board answered a question (#47538) about Proposition 8.

Lavish said "Wow. You probably could have done more research on this one." That came across to me as being much too harsh. I thought the board had done a reasonable job of answering the question. I live in California, and I have been very active in support of Proposition 8.

I'm sure the way it is handled differs in different parts of the state. Lavish's experience seems unusual to me. Evidently her bishop was taking a much more direct and "hands on" approach than we have in our stake. In my stake great pains have been taken to make sure that those in charge of the effort were acting in behalf of the coalition, and not the Church. The meetinghouse was NOT used for distributing literature, or as a meeting place before walking the streets. Church leaders are not in charge of the "yes on Proposition 8" effort here in my part of the state.

The instruction from Church headquarters said in part, "A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause."

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage." (From a letter sent from the First Presidency to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008).

Lavish says "But as the organization of our efforts got underway, our stake was given a fundraising goal and in turn gave our ward a goal." In our stake the stake president attended a meeting (of the Coalition, I believe.) Our stake president, after prayerful thought, volunteered an amount that he thought the members of his stake could raise for the effort. He then let the members of the stake know what goal he had set for the stake.

No goal was given to the wards, and no goals were given to any individuals I am aware of. I'm pretty sure I would have been one to have been approached for money had anyone been privately approached. Lavish says, "In order to meet our ward goal, our bishopric set a general goal for every family donate no less that $100. Additionally, specific families were asked to donate substantially more. (I’ve heard of families that were asked to pay up to $5,000 each the last time Prop 8 was being vote on.)" This didn't happen in our stake, nor in other stakes where I have family and friends.

Lavish says that "families were asked to pay up to $5,000 each time Prop 8 was being vote on," I suppose she means that the one other time this issue came up, in Proposition 22 in the year 2000, they were asked to contribute financially. I was living in California at that time, and there were no requests for donations at that time that I can recall.

I'm glad Lavish concludes with "It’s unfortunate too because, once you know about Prop 8 and why it’s so important to the state, the Church, your family, you, your kids, etc., you’re more willing to help." I agree with that.

[Unit of Energy]

I know that a member of the stake presidency approached my mom to head up the prop 8 efforts in my home stake. But he did it at a function that was not church related and specifically told her that it was not church business. And with prop 22 I remember all of our efforts took place in the homes of people, never at the church. Distribution of materials took place at my house and the house of another sister in my ward.

[Wisteria]

On a related note as to what the Church *has* officially done, you can see the statement they released last week : http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... f-marriage
And as an interesting follow up, there's this article from yesterday's Daily Universe addressing the Mormon gay and lesbian community's response: http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/69456

[vorpal blade]

I'm going to have to modify something I said.

I just came across a form letter my stake presidency sent to every member of the stake. In that letter the stake presidency explained why Proposition 8 is so important. They said that as a Stake Presidency they established a goal for our Stake of $50,000 in donations to go to the coalition. They urged us to give all that we can; enough that it requires you to forgo something valuable. And to reach the stake goal they say that each family in the Stake will need to contribute about $100.

As far as I know no individuals have been approached for a specific donation, and no pressure has been applied. Just a general request with a suggested donation amount, and a plea to give much much more if you are in a position to do so.

Sorry if I mislead anyone.

[Portia]

Side note, only tangentially related:

I saw a sign for "YES ON PROP 8" (in Utah . . .), and it mentioned our "childrens future." Note to all, whatever your beliefs: please use apostrophes correctly. Thank you.

(But no, I am not silly enough to let this sway my opinions. :P )


_____


"'VOTE YES ON PROP 9. OUR CHILDREN'S LITERACY IS AT STAKE!"

[Quiet Lamb]

I am surprised how far-reached the activism on this has gone... today my Relief Society president at BYU-I came around wondering if we would be willing to volunteer for a call center to voters in California.

I may seem uninformed, but what is so bad as classifying homosexual civil unions as marriages? Doesn't it involve the same rights? Does it really matter if the marriage/civil union is not eternal anyway?

I am not saying I would vote against the proposition because I do have a testimony of the church and the prophets and apostles giving us guidance, but I am having a hard time gaining testimony of why, other than faith, it is right to do so. As a person applying to the social work program, I try to abide by NASW's code of conduct. This involves obtaining education about and seeking to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to sexual orientation and preventing and eliminating domination, exploitation, or discrimination of any person, group, or class on the basis of sexual orientation. I am just trying to be fair, can someone help me understand?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

If I am not mistaken, it is a fight over the word of marriage.

Before the California Supreme Court overturned the gay marriage ban, there was already civil unions in place that granted the same rights as marriage. (I think!) You can read about it in that url. From what it seems, even though the domestic partnerships had the same rights as marriages, being labeled domestic partnerships gives the view of heterosexual couples being second class citizens. So it is the label of marriage that all this fighting is over, nothing more.

At least, that is how I see it.

Edit: The only thing I can find is that the Supreme court ruling that makes discrimination of sexuality illegal. As for the other rights, the wiki linked to a newspaper that said this:

They cited state laws that provide marital benefits such as inheritance, hospital visitation, community property and child support to registered domestic partners, most of them same-sex couples. The state is unable to provide federal marital benefits, such as joint federal income tax filing and Social Security survivors' rights, because those are governed by federal law.

For more info, look at the wiki on proposition 8

So it appears to me that all the rights that they want already belonged to them and they just want the same label that the rest of enjoy.

[Quiet Lamb]

So, why does it matter?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

So, why does it matter?

I think the point is to keep the ideology separated, to keep the institution of marriage pure. All the other things like hospital visitation, taxes and the like are just perks and benefits added by the government.

I think that is what matters. At keeping the two distinct. If we have come to associate marriage with all the tax breaks and other stuff that come with it as part of the definition of marriage, then that is only the fault of our society and government. Back in old testament times, there wasn't much of that, that I am aware of. So it doesn't matter if they have the same rights and all, but that their relationship is classified differently; because it is different.

I think I am finally understanding it, because it is inherently different, it is more than just a label, it is a distinction. Sure it can be viewed as just a name change, but the word and institution of marriage mean so much more than the phrase civil or domestic partnership. That is why it is important, because it is important, because there is distinction, because there is so much more that comes to mind when you think of marriage than domestic partnership.

I think.

Please feel free to correct me.

[habiba]

This may entirely be hearsay, as I have done literally ZERO research to back this up, but the word on the street (from my Californian roommate) is that there are a number of states that are waiting to jump on the bandwagon if homosexual marriage becomes fully legalized in California. The "so what" comes in if it becomes illegal to deny gay and lesbian couples a marriage...which obviously creates problems with temple marriages. Supposedly, it will become legal in other states, and if it's legal in enough states it will become federal law, in which case none of the U.S. temples would able to perform marriages, and we'd have to go to Mexico or Canada to get sealed.

Like I said, probably hearsay. There's some gaping logical holes (and by some I mean a lot). However, my roommate and I have had some fun conversations about slipping across the border to get married.

[Fredjikrang]

Actually, it wouldn't make it impossible to be sealed in the temple in the US. There are several countries in the world that don't recognize church marriages, and so the couple is first married civily, and then sealed in the temple.

The same solution would work in the US.

[Quiet Lamb]

How would not passing a law that says that a marriage is only between a man and a woman make that happen? It is not passing a law that says religious organizations cannot believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman... Aren't churches like businesses in the fact that they can refuse their services?

[Unit of Energy]

I think so, but that won't stop some people.

When gay marriage became legal in California my county stopped performing marriages altogether because the person in charge refused to perform gay marriages. But this was a government thing, not a privately owned church thing. Nonetheless, many people seem to have trouble recognizing the difference.

[Unit of Energy]

A large part of the problem isn't that we wouldn't be allowed to refuse them, but that the refusal could be deem as discrimination. Refusing someone because of discrimination is illegal (to my understanding) and could cause problems. I think that our church would be fine, we've gotten through other difficulties relating to discrimination before (Segregated housing at BYU, and I'm sure there are others) but smaller churches would not have the resources to fight such lawsuits.

[bismark]

is it illegal for the church to not marry homosexuals in the european countries where homosexual marriage is recognized?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

is it illegal for the church to not marry homosexuals in the european countries where homosexual marriage is recognized?

But this is America, where everyone is entitled to all the rights they can get their hands on and fight for them. I don't think the government would do anything to us, but that won't stop critics and gay activists from trying.

[bismark]

perhaps, i am just wondering if there is an precedence for this claim that is made that it will end up being used against the church.

[Imogen]

A large part of the problem isn't that we wouldn't be allowed to refuse them, but that the refusal could be deem as discrimination. Refusing someone because of discrimination is illegal (to my understanding) and could cause problems. I think that our church would be fine, we've gotten through other difficulties relating to discrimination before (Segregated housing at BYU, and I'm sure there are others) but smaller churches would not have the resources to fight such lawsuits.

if the catholic church can refuse to marry a heterosexual couple because one partner is not catholic (which happened to my best friend recently and is perfectly legal), than i'm sure that any church would be allowed to turn away a homosexual couple if that religion does not support it.

[361]

perhaps, i am just wondering if there is an precedence for this claim that is made that it will end up being used against the church.

What would happen is we would perform civil marriages like we do in South America...

and then perform the sealing later in the Temple.

But you can't force someone to marry a gay couple on private property. Even if gay marriage is legalized...

[vorpal blade]

I may seem uninformed, but what is so bad as classifying homosexual civil unions as marriages? Doesn't it involve the same rights? Does it really matter if the marriage/civil union is not eternal anyway?

The problem, as I see it, is what redefining marriage would do to our society. I think there would be widespread impact, some of which might not be too hard to see, but it could adversely affect us in ways that only a prophet can see.

In the year 2000 Californians voted on a proposition which put into family law the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This year 4 of 7 State Supreme Court justices decided that this law was unconstitutional. Proposition 8 would put those same words into the California Constitution. If Proposition 8 fails then the State Supreme Court decision will be the defacto law in California.

If Proposition 8 fails I think we will see some erosion of religious freedom. It is hard to say whether this might lead to the Church being sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, or if we would lose our status as a charitable organization and have to pay all kinds of taxes, and our church buildings would be threatened with closure because we were seen as practicing illegal discrimination. I think it is possible, but that would probably not be an immediate effect on the failure of Proposition 8 to pass.

There appears to me to be a number of ways marriage in general would be undermined if same-sex unions were included in the definition of marriage. I think it is fairly certain that our children in school would be adversely affected. If same-sex marriage is legally the same as traditional marriage, then beginning in elementary school children will be taught that homosexual intimacy is equal to heterosexual relations. Consensual sexual relations will be taught as morally neutral. The schools will be charged with changing attitudes towards homosexual relations to ensure that same-sex marriages are just as publically acceptable as traditional marriages. The right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality will be seriously challenged by the secular schools.