Lily
Doctor Jane
Lotus
Joseph
chanson
Jacob
Tom Sawyer
Moriah JovanCalifornia Mormon Bigotry (or Prop 22 Redux)
Posted by Lily on June 21, 2008
The following letter is to be read in California Sacrament Meetings on June 29th:
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008 Californians will vote on a propsed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.
The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between and man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.
A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
Sincerely Yours,
The First Presidency
Joe Too said
From a purely religious perspective, I have no problem with the LDS church taking a stance on this issue. I do have a problem with the inevitable strong arm tactics from overzealous local church leaders and the tacit discrimination that this political activity will promote.
My preference is to have the state create legal unions and let churches or whatever do “marriages”. When a couple of any variety wants to marry or join together or whatever they choose to call it, have them go to city hall and sign a contract, and then head off and do all the whoopla however they please, calling it whatever they want.
On the other hand; I find the judicial action and the tactics of gay activists quite annoying.
Jonathan Blake said
I agree that our government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. Just let them record and enforce contracts between individuals.
To be fair to the judges, the law was unconstitutional. If judges can’t rule that a law is unconstitutional, then what are they good for?
buffy said
What continues to disappoint me about this stuff, is that the church is so organized and passionate about “saving the family” as a justification for their political zealousness and involvement. However if you look at the reasons for marital and family failure (can get stats from family law assn. and state Bar websites etc.) other people’s gayness just ain’t the cause of our troubles. I guess focusing on a mythical bugaboo lets the church avoid thier failures in upholding the family in other areas…I’m thinking save families= work on financial irresponsibility, bad/no sex marraiges, abuse, porn addiction, and all that other crap cited as reasons for divorce. Throw a little LDS political clout and mind control thataway if you want to do something useful eh. Also, I dearly wish someone would make mormons stop dropping the most overused word of the decade “unequivocal”
Elaine Frei said
I would sure love to know what part of this letter does not violate laws that prohibit churches, as tax-exempt organizations, from advocating politically from the pulpit.
They can preach their beliefs in a general way all they want, but when they instruct their members to donate their “means and time” for a particular candidate or position on a proposition such as this, they’ve stepped over the line and should lose their tax-exempt status.
Joe Too said
Were it up to me, there would be no such thing as tax-exempt status.
Lily said
I am continually confused by why attacking gay marriage “saves” families. My marriage isn’t affected by the secular marriage choices of others–so why direct so much effort (and “means”) to this campaign? Poverty, crime, and lack of healthcare affect families much more deeply than whether gays marry legally.
The last time this issue came up the letter suggested that we contact our lawmakers to express our opinions on the issue. This time the 1st Pres is explicitly telling members how to vote. I can’t see how as anything but overtly political.
Lily said
PS: smiley not intended
chandelle said
i have to say, whenever something like this comes up, i feel so relieved that i’m not in the church anymore. i really don’t need any more angst in my life about doing what’s right against the mainstream. geez louise.
Joe Too said
Marriage between [a] man and a woman is ordained of God
I suppose it’s pointless to observe that this is a total lie according to Mormon scripture and doctrine.
Joe said
Joe Too – this is a huge issue I have with the Proclamation. What does this say about the various marital models Mormons have tried over the years? I’m concerned that the Church is legislating moral agency. Is there no remembrance of our history and others forcing us to comply with their morals?
xJane said
Lily hit the nail on the head: how do the rights of homosexuals to live with & love whom they want infringe on the rights of homophobes? It’s like that bumpersticker: “Against abortion? Don’t have one.” Except that it should be “Don’t like who I married? Don’t marry him!” (Or her, I suppose).
I also wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Blake: let religions have their marriages (however they choose to define & solemnize them) and let city hall issue union licenses without discrimination. Everyone wins. Catholics can continue to deny “mixed” marriage rights (btwn a Catholic & a non), Unitarians can continue to solemnize gay & straight unions alike, and atheists can continue not to care…
Jim Swarthout said
I live in the San Diego area and this announcement was not read in sacrament meeting today. Any Californians out there who heard it?
mormonzero said
Elaine Frei said…”I would sure love to know what part of this letter does not violate laws that prohibit churches, as tax-exempt organizations, from advocating politically from the pulpit.”
The following answer comes from a thread on New Order Mormon that I have been following but I thought it could answer your question.
“Well here’s what the rules say…
Quote:
‘In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.’
Quote:
‘Political and Lobbying Activities
Political activities and legislative activities (commonly referred to as lobbying) are two different things and are subject to two different sets of rules. The rules depend on several issues:
*The type of tax-exempt organization (different rules apply to private foundations than to other section 501(c)(3) organizations),
*The type of activity (political or lobbying) at issue,
*The scope or amount of the activity conducted, and
*The consequences of exceeding the given set of limitations.
Updated: May 14, 2008′
Taken from LDS.org
‘The Church does not:
* Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
The Church does:
* Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.”
mormonzero said
It is clear what the church finds to be of interest. Of all the problems in the world their interests lie in preventing men marrying men and women marrying women.
Joe said
Jim – this is going to be read on the 29th.
Elaine Frei said
Wow…they’ve got lawyers who like to play the semantics game. “You call it politics, we call it lobbying.” That doesn’t surprise me at all.
Bunch of BS, as far as I’m concerned. What they are engaging in is trying to limit the civil and human rights of a minority group they don’t approve of. That’s political. Period.
And as far as I’m concerned, reading that letter over the pulpit does constitute using the building for partisan political purposes, in the larger meaning of partisan. But I’m sure that the church’s lawyers would argue that it isn’t “partisan” unless it has a political party’s name on it.
Well, if all that makes them feel better about what they are doing, fine. They’re still violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
Elaine Frei said
Sorry for the double post, but this thought just occurred to me:
If someone was trying to pass legislation on the state or federal level calling for only civil marriages to be considered legal, so that Mormon couples would have to go down to City Hall for a civil ceremony before going to the temple, effectively giving temple marriages no legal standing, you can sure bet that the church would label those efforts “political”.
MoJo said
Not to introduce a logical fallacy into the discussion at all, but black churches have been doing this for the Democratic party for decades and they are *only now* being taken to task by the IRS for this practice. The white evangelical churches have been doing this for the same amount of time with the Republican party. While I do NOT like that church has chosen to go this route, it’s not at all uncommon and I think the fact that it’s pushing an issue (right or wrong) is different from inviting Al Gore or George Bush to speak in your church on Sunday and/or having Jeremiah Wright or Jerry Falwell directing their constituencies toward a particular party and/or candidate. On Sunday. In church. Everybody’s tax exempt, so what’s good for one denomination should be good for the other.
They do this in England now. The law is you have to be married where anybody can walk in and witness the marriage, and the church works around that.
Now, all that said, a legal marriage is a construct of property rights which is as old as Methuselah. Nowadays there is no “giving in marriage,” “dowries,” “estate transfers,” and other monetary considerations for the act of taking Woman X to wife. Thus, I have come to the tentative opinion that a “legal” marriage is superfluous because there are these things called lawyers and contracts, not to mention “common law” marriages which are recognized after so many years of cohabitation have passed.
What burns my toast is that the people who are screaming about being allowed to marry their same-sex couple are also very anti-polgamy. So solly, but you can’t have your cake and then discriminate against it, too.
Elaine Frei said
Well, the fact that it is common doesn’t make it right, and I’m personally of the opinion that if the government is going to continue the practice of giving churches tax-exempt status (something I’m not convinced they should do, but that is a different issue and argument), then the government should come down on all sides equally when there is political advocacy going on in churches.
Oh, and for the record, my personal opinion is that if two or more women are foolish enough to want to marry the same man, and all parties are of legal age and consent to the arrangement, it should be legal, so no I’m not philosophically opposed to marriages with more than two parties to the marriage. So long as two men or more men can also marry the same woman as well (yes, such arrangements do exist). And as long as, as soon as a party wants out of the arrangement, they are able to get out.
Personally, I’ve never had any desire to marry. But that’s just me.
However, I am quite opposed to FLDS-style polygamy, where there is no consent and no freedom to leave the arrangement, and where at least sometimes a party (usually a female) is underage and legally (and probably psychologically) unable to consent.
MoJo said
Elaine, agreed on all points.
With reference to polygamy, I do know there is a large faction of the GLBT movement that vociferously opposes it.
Elaine Frei said
That’s interesting, MoJo. I didn’t know that about the GLBT community.
I do know that many in that community are politically conservative…at least many of those I know are (which could be more a function of living where I do than anything). However, I wasn’t aware that there was such vocal opposition to polygamy.
Thanks for that.
kitten said
You might like reading this:
http://www.lookydaddy.com/weblog/2008/06/listen-dammit.html
He sums it very well. Especially if you are of the opinion that we should leave 2 consenting adults alone.
And though he has a compeling way of wording things–I’m still not sure that legalizing gay marriage is the best thing for our society.
Steve EM said
The church’s stance has virtually nothing to do with gays. There will never be enough gays on the planet to warrant this level of concern and effort. It’s polygamy stupid!
Joe Too said
Steve, I think you’re giving the church leadership too much intellectual credit. I believe this is nothing more than some very big egos wanting to prove they aren’t spiritually impotent. It has the same foundation of all the silly Levitical-type laws (such as the earring and tattoo silliness.) The idea that we really are free agents drives the controlling classes insane. They lecture and lecture and we still don’t listen. But, our salvation is so important they simply must force us to do the right thing. Given a chance to extent this power beyond active members of the LDS church is just too hard to resist.
doubleL said
WARNING: Very anecdotal but my stories none the less…
I have a gay cousin who, with his partner, adopted two little babies. They couldn’t get “normal” kids, because they are gay, so they had to get crack babies. They would never say they are upset about that though. They have nurtured those two little girls and love them just as much as straight people love their kids (duh!). They have SAVED those childrens lives, yet they are destroying families?
My father told me after my mother died (my parents divorced when my mother found out she was pregnant with me) that if he hadn’t been Mormon he would’ve left my mother when they got back from the honeymoon but instead he stayed and had 5 children with her instead (don’t jump down my throat, I am not blaming the church, it’s what my father said…).
I have an ex-boyfriend who used to have his 3 year old daughter help him roll joints so he could get high. Hence why he became an ex…
My sister-in-law got knocked up by some guy and ended up marrying him so as to not shame the family and has now been left and has a baby that she is entirely incapable of taking care of (my Mother-in-law is practically raising her).
The LAST thing we need to worry about destroying families are gay people!! This has become such an issue for me that I feel my testimony suffer when I hear about the absolutely awful things the church will come out and say.
Eugene said
An interesting new study suggests that homosexuality is good for heterosexuality. The gene that makes a man gay also results in his female relatives who carry the same gene being more fecund.
Nature is willing to give up reproductive success in one category if it can reap greater benefits elsewhere.