Megans Thoughts

First of all, I want to express how proud I am of Jack (my husband for those who don’t know us personally) for expressing his views so eloquently and intelligently on such an explosive and emotional subject. I married a smart and sensitive man. I am also encouraged by the discussion and comments this blog encouraged. We must discuss and more importantly listen to what people have to say about this issue before we can even begin to understand each other and the issue. The last few posts however were not addressed and the conversation has ended. So by addressing these views I am trying to provide counter arguments in hopes of bolstering further discussion.

Everyone has a right to protect what they believe to be important and true. This is an essential tenant of America-free speech. This does not include limiting the rights of others who do not agree with your point of view. By supporting others rights, even if you do not agree with them does not limit your rights nor does it mean that your beliefs are incorrect or wrong. It means you are a big enough person to recognize that it goes both ways-if you want to be given the right of marrying whom you wish, how you wish you must allow the government to afford those same rights to others. Otherwise you risk losing your claims to those rights or in the very least you sound like a hypocrite.

I know, Theresa, that you are referring to Christians as a whole but are speaking to the LDS religion specifically when mentioning Prop8. One of your main arguments is “I think that the main reason
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and many other Christian groups were so animatedly for Proposition 8 was because if it didn't pass, churches would be forced to include homosexuals into their membership“. So as I read this I get the message that you truly believe that by going against Prop8 and similar legislation then religious groups would be “forced” to change their membership qualifications and therefore their belief system. You quote a talk on the issue by Elder Dallin H. Oaks to further your argument that by supporting gay rights and the legislation that protects it, we as a society risk the rights of religious groups. Here is part of the talk you quoted in a later post that you felt bolstered your views on the subject:

The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers.
-Elder Dallin H. Oaks

First of all the “Yogyakarta Principles” that Elder Oaks refers to is from an international human rights group. In fact, as explained on Wikipedia: “The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, intended to address documented evidence of abuse of rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.” Specifically, again according to the facts posted on Wikipedia:

It contains 29 Principles adopted unanimously by the experts, along with recommendations to governments, regional intergovernmental institutions, civil society, and the UN itself. The principles are named after Yogyakarta, the smallest province of Indonesia (excluding Jakarta) located on the island of Java. The principles are intended to be and have become a universal guide to human rights.
(see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogyakarta_Principles)

I just want to provide some context for these “principles” that are, through the opposition to Prop8, apparently going to limit the rights of religions. This is a group who is definitely a huge participant in the discussion of gay rights. However the important thing to realize is that by supporting gay rights you are not allowing government to tell religious organizations how to control their memberships and put forth their belief systems. This set of principles and this group does not in any way support big government limiting religious rights in America or elsewhere. Simply, they want to provide a voice for those who are put to death, beaten, tortured, and have their rights, among other things, taken away. Thankfully we live in a country that does not participate nor indorse the killing and torture of those of different ‘sexual orientation‘. I want to stress that this is an international organization that with the UN is setting standards for protecting the rights of everyone, specifically those who are not part of the norm in many societies.
Legislation supporting gay rights, such as the one that passed and then was taken way by Prop8, do not require that the government force religious organizations to include people of different gender/sexual identities in the membership. People don't have to join any religion if they don't want to, nor do private religious organizations have to include everyone. That is the beauty of America. There are many choices and we as sentient individuals have rights in making those decisions. The LDS Church can exclude who they want to, they've done it in the past. It is their right under the American constitution to practice how they wish. Therefore your problem with supporting gay rights, again because you believe that “churches would be forced to include homosexuals into their membership” is flawed. It is simply not true.
It is your right to believe that homosexuality is “immoral” and a “sin”. It is your right that should be respected so that you can not only believe it but express it. However, expression does not include using laws and government to limit these same rights of belief and expression for others. Our government has no right to define marriage, nor does its citizens have any right to use government as a vehicle to push their views on others. Government only recognizes civil unions, which is why so many want government to redefine “marriage” as being limited between one man and one woman. It is only within the purview of government to recognize civil unions, and it is the right of private religious organizations, such as the LDS church, to define what they ‘believe’ civil unions means within their world view and faith. This is why there has been and always has been a separation of church and state in this country: to make sure that everyone is afforded the same opportunities and rights and that people can also define and individualize their lives and decisions. Religions define civil unions as marriage, not government. The problems come in when religious groups try to use government to support their views and no one else’s and also when government uses their long arm to limit the rights of private organizations such as religious groups.
Again, it the governments duty to protect the rights of EVERYONE, and if it is legal that those of the same sex can enter into civil unions like everyone else it does not mean that traditional marriage is under threat. In fact it is my opinion that having more committed, loving relationships is essential and important to the ideals of marriage in general: love, commitment, respect, home, family, morality. I find it offensive that by limiting the rights of same sex couples who are monogamous and committed, they are being condemned to a no win situation . These individuals are condemned for not marrying and for their alternative “lifestyles” (another way of saying that they are not considered within the norm) but then are not allowed to enter into the final stages of a relationship: a public declaration of their love. So either they are sexual deviants because they won’t subscribe to the norm by getting married by other’s standards or when they try to enter into a fully committed union without sacrificing their dignity or personal beliefs, they are accused of perverting the sacredness of said union.
This really doesn’t sound like, “No one is punishing them for their immorality“, but the opposite. Thank GOD that we live in a country that does not support “incarcerating people who are homosexual” but we do live in a country where “laws are […] forcing morals on people”. Fortunately we do not yet have laws in place that specifically limit the definition of union to exclude same sex monogamous and committed relationships, despite the efforts of some to limit those rights. However same sex couples cannot get married in this country just the same.
But a man and a woman can meet and get married within hours of meeting each other, legally! I’m sure that this is looked down upon by many religious and moral people. But I wonder why this right, however dumb and shortsighted, is afforded only to a man and a woman. People get married for a variety of reasons, sometimes for love but also for comfort, company, money, children, etc. Who are you, and who are we as a country, to decide which reasons are correct and right for every person and for every situation? The answer is simple: no one has that right, especially the government and religious organizations to tell people how they conduct their personal lives. We should all be afforded those rights.
My final point is of another quote by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. You quote him: “The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.” This is not true. I could detail all of the scriptures that prove that the union of a man and a woman has not been the core marriage practice in western culture for thousands of years. But my argument is already long enough. Besides you don’t have to look to deeply to find polygamy to be the most mentioned form of union in the Christian culture, ancient and modern. Also, those who seek to open this right of marriage to everyone are not pretending that those who defend the so called ancient order are trampling on others civil rights: they are trampling on civil rights by writing and supporting legislation that limits other’s civil rights to enter into a legal civil union or marriage. I am saddened to find that you as an intelligent person would agree with this statement simply because of who said it.
I recognize that by saying “I read pretty much all of this post. I have to say that I agree with you” shows that you are an intelligent woman who recognizes that Jack’s premise is morally right: that “supporting the civil liberties of homosexual American citizens is decent, civil and Christian“. But I don’t understand how you can agree with Jack’s premise and also agree and believe that it is okay, even a duty to use legislation to keep people from entering into a sacred union and call it what they believe to be significant. Marriage is such an important part of our faith and culture in America. Just as marriage is important to you for your own personal and individual reasons, it is just as important to a couple who have been devoted to each other for decades but are considered unworthy to publicly and legally wed each other. Who are we to decide another’s religion, faith, and beliefs based on our own views on the subjects?