A Mormon's Lament: Church Is On the Wrong Side of History Again With Proposition 8

In late 2002, as President George W. Bush began building his case for preemptive war in Iraq, a remarkable thing happened. In contrast to the general timidity of American churches in response to the conflict in Vietnam, leaders of faith were speaking out. Observed the Reverend Jim Wallis at the time:

Opposition to war with Iraq has come from a wide spectrum of the churches - Roman Catholic, Protestant denominations, Evangelical, Pentecostal, black churches, Orthodox. All of the statements, letters, and resolutions from church leaders and bodies take the threat posed by Saddam Hussein seriously, but they refuse war as the best response.

Importantly, these church leaders are not making their decision based on whether or not they approve of President George W. Bush - some do and some don't. Rather, they are doing so on the basis of Christian theology and moral teaching.

One notable exception to this dissent: the Mormon Church.

The LDS Church's cautious official response to the war (one of the most consequential decisions in recent American history) and near-unconditional subsequent support for the Bush Administration (in 2005, Dick Cheney was awarded an honorary doctorate and invited as the commencement speaker at BYU, the Church's flagship institution), raise important questions about the Church's involvement in political affairs, particularly when an issue has moral/ethical implications. When should it speak out? When should it stay neutral? And how does it treat its members with minority views?

Nearly six years and thousands of lost lives since the war began, Mormon authorities still haven't weighed in on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, or Guantanomo Bay. Neither have they directed semi-annual Conference addresses to the genocide in Sudan, human rights violations caused by multi-national corporations, or climate change that could have devastating effects on future generations. Instead, in the past few months they have decided to take action on a "moral issue" of a different sort: denying gay couples the constitutional right to get married in California.

In support of California's Proposition 8, the Mormon Church has gone into political overdrive. Under the direction of Church leaders' admonition over the pulpit, they have formed a formidable grassroots machine, providing boots on the ground, making phone calls, writing letters, forwarding emails, while donating an astounding $19 million to the cause.

"What we're about is the work of the Lord, and He will bless you for your involvement," apostle M. Russell Ballard proclaimed in a broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho.

This stand, sadly, follows a disturbing trend of being on the wrong side of history on issues of social justice and equality for the LDS Church.

For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church stubbornly held to a racist policy that refused all members of African descent the privilege of entering temples or receiving the Priesthood. Even as slavery, segregation, and Jim Crowe receded into the American past, the Mormon Church still treated its own black members as second-class citizens. The practice was justified as the plan of God. Apostles and prophets, the highest authorities in the Church, rationalized the continued discrimination by pointing to the "curse of Cain" and disobedience in the pre-existence. Other leaders said they simply didn't know but were sure God had some mysterious reason for keeping the full blessings of the Gospel from black people. Only a rare few leaders, including apostle Hugh B. Brown (and many more grassroots members), spoke out on behalf of civil rights. So the infamous ban lived on until 1978.

This blatant institutional racism is perhaps the most regrettable scar in Mormon history. Though progress has been made, race remains a taboo subject to this day for most Mormons, shrouded in shame and myth. It hasn't helped that the Church still hasn't publicly acknowledged or apologized for its racist past.

Yet sadly this is not the only example of the Mormon Church attempting to stifle progress and equality. In the 1970s the Church went to great efforts to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Much like Proposition 8, they argued that it undermined the traditional structure of the family. Church leaders called it "a moral issue with many disturbing ramifications for women and for the family as individual members and as a whole." President Spencer W. Kimball said it "would strike at the family, humankind's basic institution."

Sound familiar?

So here we are, in 2008, and now the threat is gay people who are already gay, who love each other and in many cases live together, and want to get married. How does this hurt the average Mormon family?

If the concern really was the practical welfare of the family, perhaps the Church could instead invest its vast resources into making healthcare universal and affordable, expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act, cracking down on child predators, and improving the quality of our educational system. All of these issues have a direct impact on my family and millions of others.

You hear of marriages ruined all the time because of abuse, neglect, or stress over finances. But I have personally never heard of a divorce caused by another gay couple getting married.

Yet instead of focusing on issues that can really help nourish our families we obsess over a word. A word we refuse to share. A word that has never been perfectly fixed. There was a time, after all, when inter-racial marriage was just as taboo and illegal as gay marriage. Marriage has been many things, but the common ideal has been and should continue to be a relationship built on love and commitment.

So to my fellow Mormons: I ask you to please re-consider. Take the time you would spend fighting this errant cause with your family. Go to a movie. Take a drive together. Watch the World Series.

Maybe you don't completely understand homosexuality. Maybe you think it's a sin. But shouldn't we leave that to God and allow others to be who they are and make their own choices? As followers of Christ, isn't it always better to err on the side of compassion and love?

Martin Luther King once lamented in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail:

So often the contemporary Church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch-defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the Church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the Church's silent---and often even vocal---sanction of things as they are.

In case after case when the moral chips have been on the table, I have hoped for my Church what Dr. King prayed for in his time: that "the Church as a whole will meet the challenge of [the] decisive hour." But sadly, so often on the issues of peace, equality and social justice, it has failed, whether by silence or misguided support.

With Proposition 8 it is time to stand for justice, not discrimination. It is time to stand for equality. It is time to be on the right side of history. Regardless of race, gender, or sexuality human beings are human beings and deserve to be treated as such. Today I voice my public support in favor of treating my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as equals, and ask my fellow Mormons to do the same.

UPDATE: To clarify, I commend all the good, charitable work the LDS Church does and have written about it in the past. The purpose of this article is specifically on the Church's response to political issues with moral implications.

UPDATE 2: To those publishing hateful words in the comments towards Mormons, I ask you to re-consider. I'm with MLK: we should strive for moral ends by moral means. Healthy criticism is fine. Hate and intolerance perpetuates hate and intolerance whether it is directed at gays or Mormons.

 

Comments

[petey007]

The facts are not correct on the LDS Church inviting Cheney to speak. They invited President Bush and when Bush could not come, Cheney volunteered and the Church did not snub him, but in fact simply agreed to have him come in place of President Bush.

[wrylass]

It's good to hear your dissenting voice--thanks for speaking out.

[Rawkcuf]

Wrylass, you'll be interested to know that Joe was the student to invite Michael Moore to Utah Valley State College! I was sure that wouldn't be the last we'd hear from him. Good going Joe!

[1moreQuestion]

An interesting article on NPR.org which addresses what could be a core issue behind the Mormon church's support of Prop 8.

There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

Could it be that the bigger, "telestial" issue is the can of worms that would burst open if the Mormon church could be sued for not performing gay marriages? Could not the church be challenged in their stance not to accept gay students at Brigham Young University? For not allowing gay scout leaders, etc? Perhaps this is why there is such a huge movement to support Prop 8?

Just a thought. Yours?

[JedediahBigelow]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Any member of the church who claims to be a member and be in suport of this article should be ashamed.
The truth of the matter is this. The LDS church believes that there is a prophet of God on the earth today. Members do not blindly lead this prophet. They are given the oppurtunity by a loving heavenly father to learn through prayer wether or not that is true. Once a personal testimony is gained from God that there is a prophet today, it is not blindy following it is living by faith. just as it is written in the Bible. The book of James comes to mind, faith with out works is dead. If you truly believe in a prophet of God and you have a testimony, it is not blind. It is based off of a personal witness from God. the thing i find interesting is that in the bible, the prophets spoke out against imoral action. that was their job. they always warned kings and rulers of the consequences of there actions. if there is a modern prophet today would he not be obliged to fulfill the same role? The issue is not the church's stance, it is wether or not you truly have a testimony.
To the mormons, this is no time for spiritual weakilings, be strong and act on your faith and personal testimony.
Jedediah Bigelow
Age: 21

[JedediahBigelow]

Correction - i said blindly lead, i meant "Members do not blindly follow this prophet",

[califbrett]

Then perhaps you should realize some of us have pondered and prayed and have come to the conclusion that Proposition 8 is wrong and discriminatory and that the Church has no business pushing its membership so hard to fight against it. Richard Peterson, the Pepperdine law professor who appears in the Yes on 8 ads is the one who should be ashamed. He's publicly misstating the facts and giving half truths -- last time I checked, being honest in your dealings with your fellowman was required for a temple recommend.

At least there are a few other voices of reason -- Steve Young and his wife have given $50,000 to No on 8 and have more than a few No on 8 signs in their yard.

I am acting on my faith and exercising something called free agency. I find it insulting that the church would try to dictate my behavior and rights or that of anyone else -- ESPECIALLY people who aren't even LDS.

[JedediahBigelow]

Free Agency is a wonderful thing. An absolutely essential part of this life. That is why you can choose to not follow the guidance of a living prophet. I think it is interesting to note that the prophets and the church in ancient times was not killed by God, but by people using their free agency to disobey the prophets and council of God. Either you support the prophet on all issues and stand strong, or you lose sight of your testimony and the safety and blessings that God has promised for obedience. You have your choice and no one will force you to do one or the other, but i know there are blessings in obedience because i have experienced it first hand time and time again.

[Rawkcuf]

Sorry Jed, but President Monson isn't my prophet when it comes to temporal matters.

[JedediahBigelow]

Just wondering, could you separate temporal and spiritual matters for me?

[califbrett]

For Mormons to vote for something that restricts marriage to being between one man and ONE woman is contrary to their theology. Although not a part of current Mormon practice, it hasn't gone away. Why is it that following a divorce from a temple marriage, an LDS woman is required to get a "temple divorce" that would allow her to be sealed to another man, while an LDS man is not? It's Mormon doctrine that polygamy will be restored to the righteous in the celestial kingdom following this life -- and that's why men can remain sealed to more than one woman -- it's setting them up for their eternal progression with multiple wives. The Church has been acting like a PAC on this issue. Bishops are required to meet "quotas" in terms of asking their members to contribute to "Yes on 8." Manning the phone trees is just short of a church calling -- 30 members per ward committing to 4 hours per week. My conscience and every fiber of my being is offended by this.

If any group should understand discrimination and wanting to be left alone based on marital relationships, it ought to be the LDS Church. For them to support a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that writes discrimination into California law is highly hypocritical -- particularly when the money they're contributing pays for commercials that contain outright lies. I cannot believe this is something Christ would choose to promote. I'm voting No on 8.

[HazelRa]

There's an element of built-up kinetic energy to all of this. The general membership of the LDS church spends every Sunday learning how important it is to follow the prophet, yet rarely are members asked to do much of anything outside their weekly routines.

Suddenly when there IS something asked of them they LEAP into action: calling trees to California, raking the student lists of BYU to get as many California residents working to convince their friends and family, etc. Oh how lovely the machinery of the church moves.

Little to no thought is spent asking if the cause is just. The prophet asked us = The Lord asked us. Members are looking for opportunities to serve; and they are confident that when all is said and done BECAUSE they sided with the brethren, everything will be better - Better for them. Better for the world...and if not better for the world, better for them at least.

[Rawkcuf]

I just got a call from a mormon friend who lives in California, who was asked to man a phone bank organized to advocate support of Prop 8.

He said the script was given him by mormon church leadership, and that it specifically mentioned the fact that if Prop 8 fails, God will cause calamities to hit the US as retribution. (??!!!)

I'm embarrassed to find my church (I'm an 8th generation mormon) on the same side as Fred Phelps.

[socalscott818]

Either your "friend" is a Liar or you are Sir,

1) I have read the scripts from the phone calls and NONE of them state that God is going to cause calamities

2) If you really were a Mormon, you would realize that being an 8th generation would be relatively impossible. The Church was restored in 1830, which means you have 180 years for 8 Generations? 22 years a generation?? So either you are Under the age of 22, and your forefather was born in 1830 or you are mislead on your "8th-Generation" claim.

[canudos]

Well, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that Rawkcuf's earliest Mormon ancestor was 40 years old in 1830 with a 20 year old daughter who had just give birth to a child. (Already, that's three generations.)

The fourth generation could have been born 20 years later, in 1850.

The fifth generation could have been born 20 years after that, in 1870.

The sixth generation could have been born 20 years after that, in 1890.

The seventh generation could have been born 25 years after that, in 1915.

The eighth generation could have been born 25 years after that, in 1940.

The ninth generation could have been born 25 years after that, in 1965.

The tenth generation could have been born 25 years after that, in 1990.

In short, Rawkcuf could be anywhere from 18 to 68 years old, depending on which generation he was born in and how accurate my generational cycles are. Honestly, I figure they're pretty accurate. The Church tends to encourage people to find their Eternal Mate as soon as possible so that they can start their family as soon as possible. My cousin married as a nineteen year old. She is now 25 and she and her husband have two lovely sons.

[Rawkcuf]

Well Scott, have you read ALL scripts of ALL phone banks?
(My friend said it was given him by his Stake President. I'm not sure where it originated...)
My friend was so upset about it, he called me. I told him there were enough disasters waiting to occur, what with drastic climate change happening, and California being on active fault lines...it sounded like what was to be expected; the emotional appeal of a superannuated homophobe.

As for my lineage, one forebearer was born 1799, converted 1833. Another was born 1804, converted 1836. (Both figure in the D+C and leadership positions in the church, as did succeeding generations...my grandmother's uncle was President, and my father served in the Second Quorum of Seventy) I'm 46.

Though I am a member in good standing, Scott, I oppose Prop 8. I don't see it as a matter which concerns my salvation. I believe in latter day scriptures which address this. D+C 134:9 states, "we do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government." And that governments are to, "administer the law in equity and justice..." In other words, we do not impose our standard on those outside the faith, we believe in equality. (The imposition of standards began trouble in Nauvoo, and by not imposing on gentiles in Utah, we could live in relative peace...) A vote against Prop8 by a Mormon, is the right vote according to scripture.

[chemuir]

Here's my question for all Mormons who support Prop. 8:

Was the U.S. government justified in the measures it took to outlaw polygamy?

If your answer is yes, then you believe that God's decrees should be subject to man's law and that the separation of church and state is so important that it must sometimes error on the side of limiting religious freedom.

If you answer is no, then you believe that the government has no right to deny a union that some citizens support- even if it is viewed by the majority as perverse.

Either way, I cannot see how the Mormon community can vote yes on 8 with a clear conscience. I am appalled that my father, who has polygamous ancestry, stood at the pulpit as a bishop in the church and urged people to support it.

Furthermore, the scare tactics being used by the "yes on 8" coalition remind me of some unfortunate messages from our Mormon past- like when Ezra Taft Benson called the U.S. civil rights movement a “Communist plot” fueled by “false stories and rumors about injustices and brutality” designed to “overthrow established government” through “widespread anarchy,” and the sparking of “a nation-wide civil war.” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception,” adaptation from address of the same title, delivered at General Conference, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, 29 September 1967).

[jobiwan]

Here's a link to that talk you mentioned: http://www.geocities.com/graymada/crtool.html

I agree that the fear mongering tactics are below the belt but I don't have a problem with any of the church's warnings including Elder Benson's remarks. He was simply erring on the side of caution in terms of how he felt the US should behave in response to some of the more EXTREME behaviors of the civil rights movement while also warning that it wasn't as simple as it appeared on the outside by pointing to white agitators as being the instigators behind the militant portions of the civil rights movement.

Here is a modern instance of white agitators using black populations as puppets for their own purposes in our country - in this case by using hip hop to create a false version of what it means to be a black man in America:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/hiphop/literacy.htm

(It's an odd and ironic parallel actually. Please feel free to look carefully at the site and film if possible. It's very interesting.)

Back to the talk by Elder Benson, these are the words he uses before directing his remarks in the direction of the civil rights connection to communism: "Now there is nothing wrong with civil rights--it is what's being done in the name of civil rights that is alarming." I think that's a pretty key concept to emphasize.

[chemuir]

It certainly doesn't sound like he's just talking about the "extreme" or "militant" portions of the civil rights movement: "...the aggressive revolutionary force can be broadened to include, not only the minority of Negores, but migratory farm laborers, the poor, the unemployed, those on welfare, other minority groups, students, the so-called "peace movements," and anyone who can be propagandized into mob action against established government."

And I'd say that language like this is much more than "erring on the side of caution:"

"With fires raging in every conceivable part of town, with wanton looting going on in the darkness of a big city, without routine police protection, without water to drink, without electrical refrigeration, without transporation or radio or TV, the public will panic, lock its door in trembling fear, and make it much easier for the small but well-led and fully disciplined guerrilla bands to capture the power-centers of each community."

It seems to me that while we are always supposed to treat the leaders of the Church as inspiring visionaries, looking at their record often reveals their statements on social issues to be near-sighted and reactionary.

So why should we trust them now?

[MeritRs]

As the core social institution of our society, marriage in the United States should be defined as it has been in every civilization around the world for thousands of years: marriage is the union between a man and a woman. People of faith who believe in God also know this is stated in the Old Testament to the New Testament. Recently reported a San Francisco elementary school took first or second graders to see a gay marriage. This is desensitizing our youth to grow up and think that this is acceptable, children should not be exposed to that, I am shocked that was allowed, and if I was a parent of that child I would sue the school, those children’s right’s were violated! As long as society allows this, this will continue to spread into every area of life. Look what as happened to abortions, now woman use abortions as a form of birth control. Marriage is protected by our Constitution and for the minority that decides to be liberal and live that kind of life, they should not be trying to force the rest of us to accept it. Celebrity role models, movies and TV have played a huge part in desensitizing our youth with corruption. What does God want from you? To be Just, have Mercy and Walk humbly with your God. Micah 1-7.

[Rawkcuf]

Well, MeritRs, Its a beautiful thought, but it just isn't true. The 'core intstitution of society' has been defined quite differently in different times and places. It hasn't always been 'one man one woman' Your Bible gives many examples of polygamy (and thats by the good guys too!) We also see Islam and Hinduism condoning other examples of polygamy. (Lets not forget those 19th century mormons either!) Japan had a long history of 'we'll be lovers until I find someone I like better' marriages. And then lets not start on the Greeks and Romans. (Caesar was hailed as "Every man's wife and every woman's husband.") Plato was homosexual, so actually, a platonic relationship ought to be gay? Hmmm... Whatever....

I'm just not sure about your assertion that the concept of marriage has been eternally fixed, never wavering. My understanding of history and sociology informs me that there is a great variety of definitions, and permutations, and that each society and time period experiences something quite unique. (The concept of marrying for love is anathema to a majority of the world even in our day and age...) My marriage is inter-racial, and I'm glad that I didn't live in the US 60 years ago (when it was illegal), or I'd have been lynched! Don't forget that it wasn't very long ago that the laws defined marriage as one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman. (Ne'er the twain shall meet....)

[7thgenerationsanity]

Hi Joe ~
Your article was thoughtful and smart. I enjoyed it. I'm a 7th generation member of the LDS church and a very painful journey over the past three years finally led me to the most amazing clarity and peace: JOE, THE CHURCH ISN'T TRUE. You might want to consider not trying to resolve conflicts in your heart and mind with what many of us were taught from birth. I'm 57, the mother of four, married to an active member, and finally for the first time in my life I'm not angry anymore. Consider the possibility that everything inaugurated by one solitary man in the 1820's was just inside of him and not meant to be created into a world institution. I belive the church actually causes more emotional and mental pain than could ever be balanced by their good works. I can recommend some amazing authors that helped with my previous pain: H. L. Mencken, Thomas Paine, Robert G. Ingersoll.
You received lots of comments so I hope you have the time to read mine. I wish you all the best in your life. I admire your courage.

[KaiRoland]

I too am a former LDS member living in the heart of "Mormon Country". I don't begrudge the faith and have come to find it's not for me. The Church isn't true for us, but it may be for him, and we should respect his choices. He doesn't have a problem with the tenants, but the way the leaders of the faith are going about things.

Religion is a highly personal choice, a choice each individual must make for themselves, which is why I resent them pushing legislation to make choices for the entire nation. It's wrong and highly unethical. It makes the LDS and Catholics special interest groups and should therefore now in return be effected by legislation and should no longer be tax exempt.

If they want separation of church and state, not having the government tell them how to worship, then they should stay out of politics, which the LDS have failed to do time and time again.

[BobInSantaMonica]

I have to disagree with one point. The author cites the denial of equality to African Americans, along with polygamy, as "perhaps the the most regrettable scar in Mormon history." My candidate for that honor dates to the same period, and provides an ominous example of what can happen when Mormons confuse the teachings of their leaders with the law of the land. Anyone not familiar with what happened in Utah when church and state were one need only Wiki the term Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Considering their lousy track record when they had their own government to run (not to mention their difficulties figuring out what the boundaries of "Traditional Marriage" might be), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be thinking long and hard when it meddles with constitutional rights of non-Mormons. Churches depend on the tolerance of the whole community for the special tax deals they get. Their interference in civil affairs is an open invitation to yet another legislative initiative: an end to their tax exemption.

[LightningJoe]

...And when, oh when, will people start using some sense, about which church's teachings they credit? If they shopped churches like they do gas prices, they'd be looking at extreme positions like the LDS's on gay marriage, and say, "Intolerant, paranoid, dishonest, and uncharitable: Not for me"

But they don't do that. Instead, they go on their initial decision to believe the church's teachings, and they
try their damndest to adjust their own best judgement, to fit whatever nonsense the church is selling that day. This is like sticking with a particular gas station that increases their price to $10.00 a gallon, when across the street it's selling for $3.00.

Churches work best (or at all), when they uphold and support the morals and ethics that their congregants hold valid -- not when they assume a fascist fall-in-li­ne-with-th­e-doctrine sway over their congregant's opinions and morality.

Such tactics may indeed lead to short-sighted "success" in efforts such as the current Prop 8 push, but in the long run they contribute to member dissatisfaction.

[PaganAngl]

Just had a huge argument..­.um...disc­ussion...a­mongst my co-workers in the little town of Alpine, Utah. I asked these truly lovely, friendly people--all LDS members--how marrying my girlfriend would undermine their marriage. The gist of their answer was I will never understand because they hold a fundamental belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. They were fine with giving me the same rights, as long as it isn't called marriage. It's stupid semantics, but fine, we'll agree to disagree. Then another co-worker popped up with a comment that chilled me to the bone...She would rather have a country full of drunks than a country full of gays. She believes that gays do more damage to our nation than drunks. These people have known me--and my girlfriend--for almost a year now. And while a couple of them agree that I should be able to marry my gal, the others would apparently rather deal with people who are addicted to a physically and emotionally damaging drug.

Is it even possible to make people like that see reason and know true equality? I'm beginning to think no. You can't use facts--or even apparently other reasonable LDS church members--to sway such deeply held dogma. Nevertheless, I'll keep trying. And when we finally see that federal law that protects our rights to be equal in all ways--I'll resist the urge to flip them off before we head to the altar.

[TheManhattanProject]

There is no logical or rational basis for opposing gay marriage.

All opposition falls into the following catagories.

1- Religious/­Supernatur­al (Someone please explain to me why the laws of a constituti­onally-sec­ular western democracy should conform to 2000 year old Middle Eastern religious mythology).

2- Slippery Slope Fallacies ("If gays marry, people will be marrying animals/ch­ildren/cor­pses/inani­mate objects next". This of course can be avoided by creating a law limiting marriage to consenting adults).

3- Unsupported Claims (Such as "gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage". Yet they never explain HOW it will undermine it, since straight marriages have been collapsing for centuries, even without gay involvement).

4- Disasterous Tolerance. (Some opponents actually fear that if gay marriage is legalised, their children will think that they should tolerate those who are different. My goodness....what a disaster that would be!!! Next, those liberal elites will be telling our kids that black people are.....normal human beings!!!)

[KaiRoland]

It should be a part of your constitutional right to worship your God as you see fit, and all of these people opposing Proposition 8 (myself included) would also fight for your constitutional rights. Why is FEAR the ONLY reason these religious institutions have decided to get involved? The United States went into Iraq because of FEAR of weapons of mass destruction and what a debacle that is. Fear responses are the most illogical and often the most dangerous.

Christ's two commandments are as follows:
"...and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might."
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

As the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints, I would figure that these two commandments would override insensible fear. The shame and internal conflict in which gay and lesbians suffer is something you will never understand and thank the Lord you worship that you will never have to. Those who have denied their true selves even force themselves into heterosexual marriages that almost always bitterly end. No one should have to suffer that kind of shame and guilt for something they can not control and quite frankly never asked for.

I plead with all of those in support of this Proposition to not react out of fear and find for themselves their answers no matter what it is. I commend you Joe for speaking out.

[FredrickB]

So often people of opposing views will not take the time to consider "the opposing view." However, there is an interesting book entitled "What's the Harm?: Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Families or Society?" by Lynn D. Wardle that contains both opposing and supportive views of legalizing same-sex marriage. The tone of the book is very scholarly from both sides and most articles generally support the claim that same-sex marriages do harm society (have I scared you away yet from some reading?) and give specifics as to how that happens. Is anyone out there willing to be a serious learner in this arena and not just a name caller--on either side of the issue?

The other much more brief reading (an 8 page article) is the LDS Church's explanation as to why church leaders have chosen to strongly step forward on this issue. If any of you are serious about understanding why the LDS Church would do this, you can find the article at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

As Joe said, let us speak civilly, even about difficult issues that matter greatly to each of us.

FredrickB

[KaiRoland]

I'll read it. It may take a week or so for it to get to my house. I have one for you too Frederick, "America's War on Sex: The Attack on Law, Lust, and Liberty" by Marty Klein, Ph.D.

The question I suppose is why are we going off of the Christian view of what a "traditional" marriage is? For centuries the traditional view was polygamy, practiced all over the world and even within the LDS faith at one point. It had practical applications since the mortality rate for women during childbirth before modern medical practices was so high. In order to ensure that the man's genetics and name lived on he had several wives. Concerning the history of the world, one man to one woman is actually rather new.

“The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.” - Brigham Young

In my previous post, all I have done is asked everyone to "find for themselves their answers no matter what it is". If you feel that Proposition 8 is right and just then vote how your heart dictates - but many leaders of the church throughout time have asked their members to search for the truth themselves. My heart dictates no. My marriage is in no harm from same-sex marriage.

[FredrickB]

So often people of opposing views will not take the time to consider "the opposing view." However, there is an interesting book entitled "What's the Harm?: Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Families or Society?" by Lynn D. Wardle that contains both opposing and supportive views of legalizing same-sex marriage. The tone of the book is very scholarly from both sides and most articles generally support the claim that same-sex marriages do harm society (have I scared you away yet from some reading?) and give specifics as to how that happens. Is anyone out there willing to be a serious learner in this arena and not just a name caller--on either side of the issue?

The other much more brief reading (an 8 page article) is the LDS Church's explanation as to why church leaders have chosen to strongly step forward on this issue. If any of you are serious about understanding why the LDS Church would do this, you can find the article at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

As Joe said, let us speak civilly, even about difficult issues that matter greatly to each of us.

FredrickB