I would just like to get my two cents out there on this topic.When I first heard that the LDS Church had come out with an official letter asking members in California to donate of their time and means to get Proposition 8 passed I was a little taken back. In my mind, as Americans, people have the right to marry llamas if they want. Personally I don't see either humans marrying llamas or same gender humans marrying each other as a good thing. If they want to do these things then that is their business. Just like it's my business if I want to go on a mission for two years or do temple work for those who have already passed on. However, it wasn't until I read the report on the meeting that LDS leaders had with California church members that I realized what Proposition 8 was actually fighting.
If Proposition 8 isn't passed gay marriage will become a public issue. Schools will have to teach kids about gay marriage, and churches and other organizations that do not support gay marriage could loose their tax free status and other rights. I am in favor of gay couples having the same legal rights as traditional married couples: hospital visitation, tax benefits, life insurance, etc. Nonetheless, I do not think that means that children should be taught in school that gay marriage is just the same as traditional marriage any more than I think that schools should teach kids that marrying a llama is something they should look into when they grow up. This kind of issue is not in the government's scope of work.
In my mind the issue here is whether or not gay marriage is a public issue or a private issue, and in my mind it is strictly a private issue. What other people choose to do in their lives, homes, and/or llama pastures is their business and in no way does it or should it diminish my home or my relationship with my family. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it is my duty to be an example of Christ-like living. The LDS Church has nothing against people who profess to be gay. It just is not a lifestyle we think is good for the people who choose to live it nor does it provide a good environment for the rearing of children. It is a shame that the government of California has backed both parties of this debate into a situation where the exercising of one group's rights will infringe on the rights the other. In my opinion the fewest rights will be infringed if Proposition 8 passes.
5 comments:
I went to the broadcast Wednesday night about Prop 8, and E. Ballard specifically asked us to use our blogs to discuss it.
So. Yeah.
We should talk more about this some time. For now I have some secret work to do in my llama pasture.
Nathan Robertson I love you.You have a way saying things just the way they ought to be said. :)
Since I was actually solicited in church on a political matter, I figure I can put my two cents in as well. Ahem.
http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Thurston-Memo.pdf
Both parties to this argument (in addition to almost every other political argument) are using highly skewed propaganda in their respective arguments. My point is that this issue is really a non-issue and a compromised is needed (something the paid lobbyists and politicians in this country have forgotten how to do).
ABSOLUTELY! This is an argument over semantics, period. Personally, they should take the word "marriage" out of it completely. Call all of them a civil union and leave the word "marriage" to the churches for whatever private ceremonies the churches wish to have. Then nobody's rights are infringed, and nobody feels like they are destroying America or whatever stuff and nonsense propaganda they're shrieking over now. KILLIN' me.
Post a Comment