Flutterby™! : Proposition (H)8 2008-10-27 15:16:23.852709+00

Proposition (H)8

2008-10-27 15:16:23.852709+00 by Dan Lyke 10 comments

Mormons face flak for backing Proposition 8:

"Don't think they're all against you," said Alonso, 27, explaining that she was Mormon and that despite her religious leaders' support of a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, she was actively opposed.

As she walked away, she said, "I'm afraid that a gay or lesbian friend might hear that I'm Mormon and think that I want to tear their marriage apart."

The story points out that there's a web site, MormonsFor8.com, that's tracking Mormon donors to the pro Prop 8 campaigns.

This weekend, Charlene and I went to the wedding of a relative. The wedding was completely appropriate to their cultural identity and belief system, but as the minister talked about the concept of marriage within their church I was shuddering and thinking "holy crap, I hope they have a safe word." I doubt they do.

If churches want to define marriage in that way, that's fine, but the government has no place being involved in a religious institution that's that narrow. Were these various factions calling for a constitutional amendment to remove any sanction of marriage by the state, despite my use of that short-hand to make some contract agreements easier, I'd vote for it. However, the campaign against Proposition 8 is based on building a more restrictive culture with less options, and it scares the hell out of me.

So if pressure is being put on the believers in a church to filter up and change the organization higher up, so be it.

Another argument pro-Obama - the Democrats favor maintaining the barrier between church and state whereas the Republicans seem fine blurring the line.

The whole Gay Marriage debate was used by the Republicans in 2004 to help win the White House. The irony is that the President has almost nothing to do with the definition of marriage. But Bush has shown, through his broad exercise of executive privilege, that the Constitution can be side-stepped.

I don't think we should be able to make laws defining marriage if marriage is considered a religious institution. Isn't there something about separation of church and state somewhere, or am I hallucinating?

I think there should be equal rights for all citizens. Marriage, civil union, goony-gu-gu, whatever you want to call it... everyone should share rights. After all, blacks can own property, women can vote, gays should be given the same rights as everyone else.

Seems to me we have to decide whether marriage is a religious institution or a secular one. It can't be neither and it can't be both.

If it's religious, the First Amendment applies, and any church which wants to consecrate same-sex marriage is free to do so.

If it's secular, the Fourteenth Amendment applies, and we can marry anybody we damn well want to.

#Comment Re: made made: 2008-10-31 23:11:10.944065+00 by: Tony De Leon

In Massachusetts parents have no right to object about public schools teaching same sex marriage. Courts said that parents have no right to object or pull their children out of class because teaching gay marriage was mandtory.

I don't want any court telling me that my children have to be taught about gay marriage. I want marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman. That's the way it has always been and always should be.

Let gays have their civil domestic partnerships. They want to impose their will on everyone and make a mockery of marriage. (Yes on prop 8)

Well Tony, that's the point. Regardless of what it's called, it's a question of rights. If a civil domestic partnership had the same rights as a marriage, it would be a non-issue.

Delineate the "rights" granted by the state and ensure that all people get those rights whether or not the church sanctions the marriage.

Tony: Do you have a reference to a case where parents have been told they can't pull their children out of class? Or that teaching gay marriage was mandatory? All I can find is cases where teachers have shared stories including gay marriage and have been supported by their administrators when parents have protested.

I've seen this before and even asked my kids about it. They have never been taught anything about marriage in the california public school system. I also have a friend who is a teacher and my girlfriend's niece who is finishing up her degree in elementary education, both have told me that in california schools (unlike maryland) you are allowed to remove your children from classes and even can tell teachers what not to teach them. If you don't want your children to be taught about other heathen topics, such as evolution, you can tell the school not to teach your children these things and they will notify you where you can remove them from school during these classes so they won't be taught what you don't want them to be taught. Gay marriage would fall under the same umbrella, however since they don't teach about marriage anyway, the whole point is FUD... er, I mean moot.

Yep. California explicitly allows parents to withdraw their children for the portions of the curriculum with which they disagree, so Tony is tossing up a straw-man here. That brings me to:

stevesh, present me with a proposition that provides that marriage is strictly a religious institution, and will not be recognized at all by the state, and that the functions formerly performed by the recognition of marriage by the state will henceforth be dealt with as a standard matter of contract between individuals, and I'll vote for it in a heartbeat. That's not what the religious side of this argument is trying to do, at all.

All of these arguments would be moot if the proposition proposed to abolish state recognition of marriage. Note the crickets, and note that, therefore, it's obvious that's not what the Prop 8 proponents want.

The other religious site that brought me to research this was mormonsfor8.com From the FAQ.

It seems if it's the christian thing to do according to someone's opinion, why wouldn't you want to make your work and donations public?