Blog Design

Friday, August 15, 2008

Proposition 8



I came across an article today from lds.org that does such a wonderful job explaining why our support of time and means to this proposition is so important! It is a long article, but well worth the read as it answers so many questions that I have personally had in how to approach this subject.

Please take the time to read this and educate yourself as to why this issue is important to YOU and to your children and children's children!

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Here are some quotes from the article that really stood out to me:

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

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.[13] 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.”[14] 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.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.[15]

The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”[16]

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions.[17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.[18]

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU.[19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

11 comments:

Farrell Family said...

So, I hope this isn't weird because I don't know you. I came across your blog in trying to research Proposition 8. As a fellow Californian and supporter of Prop 8 I was looking for the same answers as you and this article was PERFECT. Thank you!
If you don't mind...I'm just curious if you've had any experience in talking with people about Prop 8. I really feel strongly about this and want to do something, I'm just not sure what. Feel free to email me sfarrell3@gmail.com. I would love to hear your (and anybody else's)perspective. Thanks. Sarah

WiseGuy said...

Thanks for posting this. We can be for traditional marriage and disagree with those with opposing views. We can passionately disagree without being disagreeable. We shouldn't tolerate everything. Intolerance of some things is a virtue.

Jen said...

I love your boldness! It if fun to keep up with your family. Thanks for all the updates on your blog.

Chino Blanco said...

I realize this is a contentious issue and don't mean to cause offense, but I think Prop 8 is a distraction from more important efforts:

Senator Barry Goldwater:

The founder of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and nominee for President in 1964 was very outspoken on civil rights. He stated, “To see the party that fought communism and big government now fighting the gays, well, that’s just plain dumb.”

Conservative activist Ward Connerly:

"For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn't about civil rights is sadly mistaken. If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people."

Oregon Republican (and Mormon) Sen. Gordon Smith:

“Part of what I fear, as you start defining marriage — we have a long history of doing that in this country, and my Mormon pioneer ancestors were the victims of that. They were literally driven from the United States in the dead of winter for following their religious beliefs. I don’t want that coming back, but there are some on the front pages of your newspapers who are trying to now.”

Denying equal protection before the law to an unpopular minority is not worthy of anyone's time or money.

Kristin said...

WOW! Thanks Tamarah! It is interesting that even here people make you feel like you are a "bad" person for not "accepting" people for who they are. I hadn't read this and it is hard to put into words my feelings on the subject. The place I work at my manager is in a same sex relationship so allot of people have very strong views and most are for it. This is what I needed to read to be able to understand better what I haven't been able to put into words yet. Thanks you Kristin

Jeff & Tamarah Bartmess said...

The follow up to Chino Blanco Quoting Sen. Gordon Smith

June 18, 2008
Sen. Gordon Smith issued a strong apology Tuesday for his remarks last week that some interpreted as a defense of polygamy, others as equating polygamy with same-sex marriage.

In an interview with The Oregonian, Smith said he regrets bringing up his Mormon past in connection with the debate over gay marriage. He said he remains staunch in his belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

"My remarks referenced a point in time when a few of my ancestors were persecuted for not adhering to that belief," Smith said. "It was an unfortunate reference, and I apologize for making it."

Read the Rest of the article HERE

Jeff & Tamarah Bartmess said...

Remember- "Marriage" is something that GOD ordained to be between a man and a woman. Who are we as mankind to change what He has declared and defined! God is still love and kind, but he would not be God if his definitions were always changing.

I personally support many of the other "rights" afforded to Gay couples and homosexuals. They are humans and should always be treated as children of God.

Chino Blanco said...

LDS ‘Yes on 8′ Game Plan

I’ve posted a letter sent from Boyd K. Packer on July 28th to the LDS stake presidents in California:

BKP July 28

Apparently, there is a plan in place to put up one million ‘Yes on 8′ yard signs at 7:00 am on September 22nd.

amanda fine said...

I know your reasons for being for prop 8 are valid to you and your faith. However, the laws of our state on not based on religion.
Also, the Yes on 8 campaign only promotes hate. And isn't hate a sin?

Jeff & Tamarah Bartmess said...

I am surprised that you would think that this Proposition promotes HATE...I have no feelings of HATE towards the homosexual community. I completely allow them the right to choose to live as they are desiring.

There are already rights given to them for the laws of the land, i.e. civil unions. Marriage on the other hand, has always been a law of God. If they don't agree to live His laws as he outlines, then just don't call it or presume it is marriage.

As a Parent, I will always teach tolerance and love as a way through differences - especially when there will be differences.

Mark and Cyndy Weiss said...

One of the commenters said: " However, the laws of our state on not based on religion. Also, the Yes on 8 campaign only promotes hate. And isn't hate a sin?"

As in many "judgments" this comment tells us more about the commenter than it does the issue. The commenter just said that in her mind, if she lives by the law Prop 8 hopes to enact, she would be hating someone by keeping the law.." Others can abide by this law and still not hate someone in the process. However, this commenter can't envision that as a possibility. How sad for the children of such a person, who cannot correct an error in judgment made by their own child without hating them. Giving in to same sex attraction is and always will be an error in judgment. I suspect a responsible parent can deal with errors in judgment without hating.

The founders said that governments exist to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is quite different from the commenters idea of the role of government which is to define and in this case redefine civil rights.

We all have the right to harbor within us tendencies. There are plenty of good people who struggle with the desire or tendency to be a pedophile, the desire to step out on their spouse, the desire even to murder someone. However, when someone acts out these fantasies or allows themselves to be overcome by such things, consequences result and in some cases the demands of the law intervene. A person can have the tendency toward same sex attraction. Kept in check, who can have a problem? Acted upon, consequences result.

While some individuals focus on the sexual perversion of such relationships, and rightly so, if I understand the purpose of Prop 8, it deals at the heart of it, with the institution of the family. The argument is sound that nature itself informs us in large measure, that same-sex marriage is not a sustainable institution. Two girls can't propagate the species and two boys can't either. The stability of the nation as a majority is better served by the traditional family model.

I am sorry for people who have same-sex attraction so strong that they can't keep it in check. On the other hand, if self control is hard for them, a living hell for them, perhaps they can find some solace knowing that all kinds of people on the planet are living every day in their own living hell and keep their tendencies in check. They love others around them enough to stay in the fight.

At some future day, those who give in will learn something quite different than those who don't. In fact, if the truth were told, they are learning it already.