As I write with my Polygamy Porter in Hand...

...I will try and give all my thoughts that are Prop 8. Well, maybe. This might only be some of what I think. I haven't decided how long this will be. But if it becomes too long and you don't feel like reading it all, please just scroll to the bottom and hear what Keith Olberman has to say. He certainly does it better than I can.

Over the last few days, I have received a lot of varied responses to my initial question. Some pertaining to the questions, other discussions evolving into their own. I guess to start, let me post a few interesting links I have since come across. Or rather, Facebook notes folks have written about their views.

First, Cole Hanson's note, who was written quite a bit on the issue on my Facebook note. Here are some thoughts on the issue:

-"I have 3 reasons against gay marriage that are non-biblical that I will start with.

1) thousands of years of traditional, male-female marriage, across numerous cultures and religions.

2) The public health catastrophe among homosexual men.

3) Numerous studies showing the importance to children of a father and a mother."

-"This has become a political issue to the ideological left to help undermine the biblical concept of marriage."

-"It comes down to the separation of Church and State. If we start allowing the government to decide what is "sacred" and what is "right" in this "Christian nation" (what a joke), then what is next?"

-"God gives us freedom. He gives us the freedom to accept his ways, or deny them. If God has given freedom, how can we deny others that same freedom?"

-"All we're asking is that What we've held to be sacred (marriage) not to be used as a political tool by the gay community to make a point or to "win" their own personal battle against Christianity, which if you've read all materials behind prop.8 you would see and maybe come closer to understanding that this is voting for those who believe marriage to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman. It's about keeping my right to believe this way...not a fight against the gay community as they would lead you to believe."

-"as religious as I am I find this proposition disgusting. If we believe God's law we don't need to make a law of men to enforce it, preach your values, don't legislate them."

Cole's post is certainly an interesting read, and contains many viewpoints including Christian pastors, parents, and students. It also runs into a lot of issues, including the origins of scripture

The next note I didn't get to until today. I thank my friend Joshua Edwards for really beginning to look legally at what is going on, citing some great references in his Facebook note. He does present the legal issue, as well as his personal beliefs in a delicate manner and I commend him for his approach. What follows is basically a debate between two individuals I do not know personally, Rick Goodwin (possibly from Goodwin hall?) and Tobin Huff. Not all quotes are necessarily theirs though:

-"we do not have the right to take away an individual's right to choose between a life of sin and a life committed to God."

-(response to previous quote)
"That does not mean we should not create laws that protect people from their carnal selves. This is not making a choice for them. God gave us the responsibility to create laws that protect, respect and honor Him and that which He created. We create laws against speeding so that people don't kill themselves. We can't choose for them to stop speeding... but it doesn't make the speed limit a bad law and doesn't take away our responsibility to set such boundaries."

-"What I'm not comfortable with is opening a door to in future years being put in a position where I am legally obligated to tell my students that a gay marriage is the exact same thing. I don't believe it is.
THUS: putting a teacher (or a minister or justice of the peace) in a position where they must say or do something or be breaking the law by being discriminatory forces that teacher (or whatever other public official/state employee this affects) to act against conscience. Forcing someone to act against conscience violates their civil liberties."

The last note I want to quickly reference is my friend Caleb Niemetscheck's take, which basically looks at the briefly at the "separate but equal" issue of domestic partnership. Check it out, a simple but poignant perspective I think everyone should consider.

And now how I have grown to feel about the whole issue. I think I must first clarify that I come from the school of thought of separation of church and state. I do not believe all the hype that our country was founded upon "Christian Principles." I believe this was the exact idea they were fleeing from, that being a nation which government leaders rule from a "divine authority." The ole' King of England ruled from a throne of divine right. Take this idea far enough and you begin to deify a leader such as the Romans would claim divinity in Caesar. It makes me a little upset to hear people talk about a certain government official put into office by the will of God. It is these exact ideas the founding fathers were afraid of. They had seen what can happen when religion is mixed with governmental authority. If you want to explore this idea further, I suggest checking out a This American Life episode entitled "Godless America." I really recommend you give it a listen and consider whether the ol' US of A was founded on Christian Principles.

Coming from this perspective of separation of Church and State, I set out to ask and search and try to find a legitimate secular argument as to why same-sex marriages should be banned and who exactly was out there pushing for a pass on Prop 8. I think a lot of the arguments that you will find in response to my initial question slowly take a religious path, basically tumbling into a comparison of verses, how involved God is in the inspiration of scripture, etc. This has only furthered my belief that defending a "yes on Prop 8" cannot be done without a religiously founded moral argument and no secular argument can exist.

So here I choose to address one of the more frustrating points about Prop 8 and rights of individuals at large. First, the concept of "domestic partnership." If you refer to Caleb Niemetschek's note, mentioned above, he makes a very good argument referencing Brown v. Board of Education, which essentially concluded "separate but equal" is inherently unequal, that is, if you all remember that little thing we call the civil rights movement. And with that, I think it becomes clear how much this dilemma of same-sex marriages is nothing more than an issue of civil rights. The Civil Rights issue for this century.

Implied discrimination aside, even the blatant ramifications of Prop 8 immediately becomes apparent. True, "legally" same-sex domestic partnerships will have the same state rights as a legal marriage, but my understanding is those same rights will not necessarily be guaranteed under federal circumstances. If anyone has any information that could perhaps further my understanding about state rights vs. federal rights, I would love to hear it. This obviously is the first issue, the issue of what this would look like on a federal scale, with creating a California state designation of domestic partnership. It leads me to wonder, what would that look like in a state like Utah? But I am getting ahead of myself...

My second qualm with the creation of domestic partnership is this argument, or motive I should say to keep the "sanctity of marriage." I have really been looking at what that expression means, and I am sure you have heard the attack against the "church" and divorce rates. That certainly is a legitimate point, and unfortunately with all this noise about the sanctity of marriage I had hoped I might actually hear a little more about Christian organizations would respond to the issue of divorces and broken families. But I guess they have their priorities.

In reading all these responses to these Facebook notes and thinking about this idea of sanctity, of defining marriage as holy, something really caught my eye. You can read the whole quote above, but in a response to Cole's post, an individual makes the claim that something people have held as "sacred (marriage)" is suddenly being undermined by a gay political agenda. And with that "right", the issue becomes more hazy. True, our constitutional rights protect our belief that something can be sacred. The constitutional protects a right to believe wine can actually become the Blood of Christ. But what is "sacred," or can I say "spiritual," about tax statuses? Or hospital visiting rights? With all of this, I think it is quite arrogant for someone to assume that everyone thinks the institution of marriage holds spiritual significance,. To me, that seems like someone pushing religious presuppositions on the general public. Something I think has no place in a legal discussion such as this.

I have heard some interesting solutions to this issue. One, which I thought was really interesting, was to define marriage between one human and another human. Thanks to MichaelJanczyn for his suggestion in responses to my first blog. And granted, this at first seems a simple solution, but I think the yes on Prop 8 crowd would quickly run their "what is next, father and daughter?" defense. At least it would cut animals out of the mix. Then I read a suggestion from Antony Wright at Point Loma Nazarene University. His suggestion, along with my views of separation of church and state, I quite enjoyed and think that though radical, it may be a possible solution. His suggestion was to let churches perform the sacred act of marriage. And that's just what it would be. An act of the church. A spiritual bond between two individuals that agrees with and fits both the couples and the members of the church's value system. However, no legal rights would be granted under this "bond." It would take the government's seal of a "civil union" whether heterosexual or homosexual, to ensure legal rights. I am curious then if people would feel that their "sanctity of marriage" was threatened. If you do, feel free to share your comments.

Nevertheless, this whole sacred act, this sanctity, this spiritual bond stuff got even thicker, and I think more than most see. The LDS church decided to get involved. Honestly, I can't say I researched the details of how much money they put forth, how many people they called, how much the pressed to get this vote through. And if you are interested in the issue of the LDS church's non-profit status as they became essentially a lobbying group, you can click here and read my friend Marcus's issues with this. But aside from their tax status (man we are dealing a lot with tax statuses on all sides of this issue) I find a subtle irony in the Mormon's support for the sanctity of marriage.

Let me give a little explanation, and if I am mistaken, I really would love to have an authority on Mormon theology correct me. However, I understand an LDS marriage to be an eternal spiritual bond between a man and a women, and that ceremony must take place under The Church Of Jesus Christ's authority. Basically what that means are the only marriages the LDS church sees as spiritually valid are those that take place in LDS temples, by LDS members, and under the proper authority of the one true church.

So what now about sanctity of marriage? If the LDS church believes all marriages performed by Methodists, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Presbyterians and Nazarenes (holla), not to mention those abominable ceremonies under the authority of a judge, tribal chief (for native American weddings), and even a ship's captain (apparently he/she must be a Notary Public as well), are all spiritually invalid, why aren't they pushing for legislation to ban marriages performed by even the United States Government itself? And why are they suddenly so concerned about families? Obviously two women in love who chose to raise a child is not a family, as much as a man and a women who were married in a synagogue under a rabbi and have a child are not a family. Sorry, at least not a sanctified family.

So, basically, I am really frustrated and confused by the LDS church's involvement. If you can't tell. And if I have any Mormon readers out there, please respond! Sorry, but having a sound bite from ol' Hinkley isn't doing such a good job on the nightly news here in Salt Lake City.

Lastly, I wanted to touch on an email I received from an friend of mine. Essentially, his argument was that he has a "right" to believe what he does and by allowing a same-sex marriage, this takes away his right. I wonder how many people really feel this way? When you drop the term "rights" it becomes a legal issue, a constitutional issue. But I am sorry, I can't see how allowing a same sex marriages takes away rights to think that is wrong? Is there suddenly a warrant out for your arrest because you oppose a same-sex marriage? Please, explain to me, how both sides have rights at stake? I just don't see a real risk to those who oppose same sex marriage? What "rights" would the right loose?

I have written probably far too much and have not nearly covered all that is at stake here. But I feel it appropriate to close with something I learned in a discussion of rights when i was a sophomore in high school. When discussing what one human's rights are, what a human is entitled to, I suddenly had an epiphany. I was in European History, with Miss Gobel at Juan Diego High School in Draper, Utah. I raised my hand. Tentatively, I added to the discussion. It was the first week at a new school and all....

"I think the moment a right no longer becomes a right is when it begins to impose it self on another individual's same right."

Although maybe poorly worded and inadequate, it has always seem to hold true. I can think what I want. I am entitled to that. But I am not under any authority, by God or by man to forcibly push, or legislate, what my feeble mind sees fit on anyone. Even you, the reader. So if you see fit, respond. Please, share how you feel, what you think.




(And thanks to Marcus for the link to this clip:)