"In the days following the national election, there continued to be some dust stirred... but this time in California -- over a proposition to amend said state's Constitution, in this case to prohibit marriage of homosexual partners. The passage of that bill was, and apparently still is, hotly contested... and the protests by the "anti prop-8" groups have continued even AFTER the votes have been tallied. They've been disenfranchised, they say. Stripped of their rights, they claim. Anyone who supported the Proposition, or indeed anyone who didn't vote against it is immediately in danger of being labeled a bigot and homophobe. This baffles me.
Since when is marriage a "right?" Even as a heterosexual, I guess I've never considered it a "right." If I had to categorize it under one of the 10 amendments (the "Bill of Rights"), for me it would fit best as a privilege that is enjoyed incidentally as the Freedom of Religion. Even fitting into that category, it would do so as a privilege, like driving a car or flying a plane, voting (for which the privilege can be revoked), owning and operating your own business, etc.
For many of us who supported Prop 8, we supported it with an eye to the future, of the ramifications it would have as touching our religious practices. We'd rather keep marriage primarily a religious institution -- and making it constitutionally permissible to perform same-sex marriages would be one step closer to making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". I feel it would be akin to opening a Pandora's box of very American-style law-suits.
For those who say that the Constitution is not a framework through which the majority can force their opinion on the minority, do you also realize that it is even LESS of a framework for the minority to impose ITS opinion on the majority?
This issue has two main components to it for me. The first is constitutional, the second, social, and at the base of them both is Morality.
First - the matter of marriage has historically been an institution of religion and particularly that of Christianity. The governance of that institution has also been primarily that of religion, including Christianity. From a religious perspective, this was the way that it was designed to be. It was instituted and governed by that same religious authority when this country was founded. Speaking of the Founding, there were provisions made and included in the Constitution of the United States which served as the architecture for the many freedoms which we now enjoy, among those being the freedom of religion. In the first amendment, where it begins to delineate those rights, it mentions that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". I'm very well aware that the meaning of this sentence depends on how one reads it, but any way you cut the cake, its effect will still be taking one step closer to making religious matters subject to state 'supervision'. As a Mormon, I'm also well aware that this is not the first time that it has happened. As a church we practiced polygamy, something that was condemned by the United States government at the time. We suffered persecution as a church for many reasons, of which polygamy was only a part. We have seen first hand what happens when the state delves into religious matters. We were refused protection even when the President of the United States personally admitted to church leaders that our cause was just, and we were in the right. At one point in Missouri there was a law passed which condoned the "extermination" of all Mormons inside the state. History, alone, could justify our concern as to the involvement of government in spiritual and religious matters. If the people choose to open up this can of worms again, they should be prepared to accept the consequences -- the re-examination of what marriage is, and the decisions about who is allowed to marry who (based on age, race, sexual orientation, closely-related individuals, etc.). Before the critics of the LDS church (or any Christian church who vocally and financially supported the passage of Proposition 8) get up in arms, they should realize that the LDS church did what it could before Polygamy was made illegal by the voice of the people, and yet we have willingly complied with the resulting legislation. For over 100 years. I shouldn't think it would come as a surprise that we would not stand by and watch as another attempt was made to involve the state in religious matters. Yes we DO have business getting involved, since so much is (again) at stake for us.
The second, the social matter, is also of paramount importance. Societies are at their very base founded on social units -- and the disintegration of those units will ultimately result in the disintegration of that society. Not just in the United States, but world wide, that social unit has again and again proven to be the family. That's why it has been a reliable barometer for the health of a society for hundreds of years. The health of the family affects ALL facets of societal life. Communities, businesses, governments, and entire countries all feel the effects of an unhealthy family life. Witness South Africa -- the social fabric of South Africa was in shambles by the late 1980s' - so strained by the social pathogens that spread like spores when the family unit was left defenseless. It's recognition of the importance of the family in maintaining healthy communities, businesses, and government was merely an echo among so many voices declaring the very same. Now the family is under threat again. This time by redefining the cornerstone of it - the marital relationship from which families stem. You cannot alter or redefine the cornerstone of the family without affecting the health of the family organization. If you remove it altogether, or profane it, it will result in a terminally ill family structure. Such a change would bode ill for an entire nation.
Third, I believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. Please don't confuse this with any kind of hatred. The behavior is immoral, but this does NOT mean that I hate homosexuals, or the fact that they choose to live together. My objection is with the behavior alone, and especially when homosexual couples want to do it under the banner of marriage. I believe that marriage should be a symbol of morality, and all the good that moral living represents. If homosexual behavior was to become a "constitutionally permissible" practice in a newly defined arrangement of marriage -- then the basic unit of society we have known and upon which our social framework finds its base will begin to crumble. Oh, it might take a while, but it will crumble. That's a line I don't dare cross, and countryside that I would prefer to leave undiscovered.
In a nutshell that's why I supported, and continue to support that initiative. Those who oppose it are welcome to their own opinions, and to pursue their goals through legal and socially responsible avenues -- but knock off the protests outside Churches, Temples, Synagogues, Cathedrals and Chapels. When you target Churches, and especially people (even individuals!) of that church, you epitomize the bigotry of which you would accuse others. I hear that 70% of blacks in California voted in favor of the proposition -- and yet I don't see a website like blacksstoleourrights.com -- or jewsstoleourrights.com, or catholicsstoleourrights.com. Somehow it's still permissible to single out Mormons in a time when you are calling out for tolerance. If you don't accept the outcome of the election, fine. That doesn't mean you are excused from abiding by it.
If you ask me why I feel threatened, or if I feel threatened, by the prospect of marriage being open to homosexuals, my reply is "Yes, because it attacks and profanes an institution which has taught me the good principles and values that I now have, and that is the origin of America's values and strength. In trying to make it into something it is not, you will eventually watch as 'Rome burns down around you.'" It's not about civil rights, its about right and wrong. At the core it's not an issue of liberty, it's an issue of morality.
In expecting the opponents of Proposition 8 to abide by the law, the outcome of fair elections, and both state and national constitutions, I don't except myself from the same standard. I'll do the very same, and I'll do it without picketing the homes or gathering places of homosexual individuals and shouting out politically charged phrases at the top of my lungs. I'll do it without accusing the other side of sticking their nose into places where they have no business. I'll do it without attempting to punish the other side with a boycott of the state where that organization has its headquarters, boycotting businesses from which that organization derives no direct benefit or income. I'll do it without trying to defame the other side without slanted statistics, sensationalized ad hominem commercials, and negative publicity. I'll do it the right way, by standing up for what I believe in, by standing for something, not by attacking the other side - and if I still feel that the outcome isn't in the best interest of my community, I'll pursue redress through the court system, and leave voters, religion, and any other classifying factor out of it.
I love this country very much, even more so after having lived in the third world for two years, looking at the US through the lens of a foreign country. I love it enough to make sacrifices on it's behalf, enough to shoulder responsibility for it's future, and enough to protect it from influences that would destroy it, and enough to speak out when I believe that we are on the wrong track. I believe that we are still a great nation, and will continue to be so long as we continue to embrace the values and ideals and morals which made us great, and I echo the sentiment of George Washington in his writings: "I consider it an indispensable duty to ... commend[] the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God and those who have the superintendence of them into His holy keeping."
No comments:
Post a Comment