Responding to the SLC protests over Prop 8

Recently there has been a lot of postmortem on the two sides of the proposition 8 issue.  Most of it has been because of the reactions of the pro Same Sex Marriage (SSM) side. I hate wading into this but yet I feel like I have to because I have heard many of these arguments before.

While I may be less sure of my position now then I was a few years ago let me make some basic observations.

On balance gay marriage, regardless of the novelty, is still something done by a very few, according to stats Canada since the allowance of SSM in 2005 only 16% of Gays and Lesbians are married. 

Now, I accept that there are varying points of view in the church for or against SSM as well as the most likely, the “not really care” category. However, the church could not be more clear where it stands.

For some this maybe similar to what Eugene England called the Burden of the Cross, like blacks and the priesthood prior to 1978, which the church is asked to bear something socially out of line with the public (like polygamy).  But the relationship between Blacks and the Priesthood and SSM is very different.  To my knowledge the act of homosexual sex is still considered a sin by the church, as it was pretty much from Leviticus to now.  Just as adultery and pre-marital sex are considered sinful.

If that is the case then there is little grounds for acknowledging the need for the Church to accept SSM.  Any more than the church accepts unmarried people living together.  At the end of the day the church leadership see this backed up by thousands of years of position, add to that is the Proclamation of the Family which while not canon certainly has a canonical feel to it.

So then the church feels obligated to fight it as they did fight for prohibition, against the equal rights amendment, and against gambling in various locations.  If you disagree, that is your choice, but the church has given enough reasons why it stands for this specific position.  In my opinion that is not political advocacy but rather a choice to get involved in political process.  It is my feeling that the church would never get this hard core without a consensus among the brethren.  I would also expect that a lot of prayer when into this.

Therefore, whether I think Gays and Lesbians want to get married in our temples (some may, most won’t), or that they would not even care is no longer the point.  What is important to me is this is what our leaders see as important enough to make an unpopular stand.  If they are willing to do this I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Then I am obligated to pray about it.

If I still feel strongly against their position then that is fine, fight the proposition on its merits.  I feel strongly that the post vote protests are nothing more then a sense of people who cannot live with the results.   In Canada our leaders voted for SSM and put the legislation in place to place it along side other “rights” in our understanding of what makes marriage.  I felt it was a mistake, which inevitably must lead to the recognition of other forms of marriage, like polygamy, but what is so exclusive in the legislation now?

However, I have not been a sore loser about it.  I have accepted that I am not in step with the majority and I have left it there.  If it becomes an issue in the courts, such as a conflict between religious freedom and SSM I might get more concerned again.  We lost, they won, most got over it.  And more to the point I am just as convinced our rights were as important as theirs.

I have noticed that the left side of the spectrum do not “get over it.”  Bush’s election in 2000 was a fine example of that.  The whining about this went on for what 8 years now?  Keep in mind it was those on the left who got excited about red states verses blue, who can forget Jesusland? Or how about the general droning on and on about the Iraq war or Afghanistan.

Now with Obama’s election many on the left are asking for conservatives to accept the truth of the “shift” of the country to the left, and we want to all be friends again.  Unity on their terms.  I have seen this in Britain and Canada, so it is not an American phenomenon by any means.

Anyways, sorry for my droning on.  I just find that neither side on this discussion is realistic, it was always a cataclysm always the end of the world, or conversely always being a right being infringed on.  In order for rights to be made enforceable it needs an active support from the will of the people. I think most would recognize that the treatment of Mormons, Catholics, and Jews in the 1800s in the USA was against the rights given to them under freedom of religion.

Those against prop 8 need to realize that the time to come up with a new strategy is now.  Not throw a wobbly about the result and go on a Michael Moore rampage.  Demonizing your opponent may make great theatre and politics but is no way to really achieve the consensus they are going to need.  In that I agree with the church press releases.

I also think it is now an opportunity for the Church to meet with those groups they promised to meet this past summer.

Advertisements

9 Responses to Responding to the SLC protests over Prop 8

  1. Jon W says:

    This post was meant to be added to the BCC discussion but it just got way too big. I would also acknowledge that some on the right can be poor losers and I find their position equally as annoying, I just think their is less of them than on the left.

  2. Jeff Day says:

    You say, “So then the church feels obligated to fight it as they did fight for prohibition, equal rights amendment, and against gambling in various locations.”

    The Church was actually *against* the Equal Rights Amendment, to the point that they were sending the full time missionaries out campaigning against it, just to clarify.

  3. Jon W says:

    sorry I did mean against it… bad editing taken care of now

  4. saskia says:

    well written

  5. Sanford says:

    Jon, I take issue with one thing you wrote

    If that is the case then there is little grounds for acknowledging the need for the Church to accept SSM. Any more than the church accepts unmarried people living together.

    The church certainly doesn’t accept unmarried people living together, but it doesn’t seek to make it constitutionally impermissible either. That’s my main problem. There are a lot of things the Church doesn’t approve but doesn’t fight politically. And that is a good thing. Perhaps we should maintain our distance on this one as well.

  6. Jon W says:

    Sanford,

    I understand what you are saying. I would to an extent agree. Yet at that same time the Church has often fought things politically it saw as in its interest to do so. Be it liquor in Utah, or for Polygamy. The reasons seem to always be related because they felt they had to and that to some extent they felt impressed to do it.

    I know from talking to people who were close to the fight up here that part of the issue was freedom of religion. Concerns had been expressed because ancillary units tied to the churches were being challenged in court.

    In one case a Lesbian couple challenged their right to be able to rent a hall from the Knights of Columbus for a wedding. When the Knights argued under the freedom of religion clause they lost.

    In another case the lower court ruled that marriage commissionaires must solemnize homosexual marriages even if they disagreed. In another case a Catholic bishop was brought before the human rights tribunal for saying things considered hateful by two people. Along with that was the subtle pressure on churches to shut up or face losing tax free charity status.

    In each of the cases there was no direct challenge to a church per say but yet the feeling was that it was a matter of time before something would be taken to court over not marrying someone in their cathedral. Whether that was realistic or not that was the concern. And truthfully, there were a lot of belief that SSM was one of a number of boundaries which would be continued to be pushed. A lot of church going people across many religions were uncomfortable with that.

  7. Steve says:

    I’m fine with the church involving itself politically in this and other issues. As pointed out in the press statements, it’s our right in a democracy to do so. However, as long as they aren’t trespassing or preventing members from entering the temple, I’m fine with protesters gathering outside the temple also. It’s a free country and they have a right to be heard. Whether they are sore losers or not is up to each individual to judge. And if the church is going to involve itself in emotional issues like this in the future, we need to develop a thicker skin. I’m sorry, but the press releases sound like whining.

  8. BruceC says:

    Sure we don’t fight every battle out there in defense of moral issues. In a religion based on revelation, one expects a certain amount of discernment about which battles are worth fighting and which are not. It would have been silly for the Church to oppose the Massachusetts court ruling. There just aren’t enough Mormons there to make a difference. But California? Apparently the critcal mass was there.

  9. Ivory says:

    hey there and thank you for your information – I’ve definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this site, since I experienced to reload the website lots of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your high-quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding
    this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective exciting content.
    Ensure that you update this again very soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: