As some of you are aware, half of my family are Latter-Day Saints and active in their church. Currently I too am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Now from time to time I will get emails from members of the church either in my ward or family pertaining to a number of things from church activities, inspirational phrases, thoughts, talks from church leaders or whatever. Recently we have been bombarded by a number of emails pertaining to California Proposition 8 which the church is fervently working to pass along with other churches.
Those of you who know me know that I have often labeled myself as bi-curious or at the very least heterosexual with some leanings. My wife is bisexual and may even label herself homo-curious in that she is far more homosexual but being married and enjoying a heterosexual relationship, she is not fully homosexual. So, you can probably gather where our opinions lie in relation to the church’s opposition to homosexuality. Three times the church has valiantly fought same-sex marriage and same-sex rights in general and three times I’ve dropped away from activity in the church for this very reason. I believe I might just be coming to the end of the line here. Today we received the following list from a ward member forwarded by President Sabin. Here is the list and my rebuttal to the list:
Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified If Proposition 8 Fails
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
But a court ruling has stated: “…current state law does not require school districts to teach anything about marriage or same-sex marriage at any grade level. Moreover, for those school districts that choose to include instruction about marriage as part of a health education curriculum, Education Code § 51240 requires that they allow parents to excuse their children from any such instruction conflicting with the parents’ religious or moral convictions.“
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
The implication that the courts will soon start mandating homosexual ceremonies in all churches is fear mongering and flat out lies. There has always been a separation of church and state for a reason. It protects both the religious and anti-religious alike from the “tyrannical judiciary” (yes that’s what they called this). This stupid deception by the Protect Marriage Morons just emphasizes to me that like in anything else in life, if you have to mislead others in order to convert them to see things your way, then you must be either wrong or you don’t truly believe in whatever it is you’re trying to convert someone else into believing.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
Yet again refer to the separation between church and state. It’s funny how you use this to your advantage when it’s for your convenience but the moment you have an agenda like this, all of a sudden it doesn’t exist. Also, you may want to check your sources. The Catholic Charities still has SEVEN offices open in Boston and another 16 throughout Eastern Mass.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Yet again I have to bring in separation of church and state. The only ones who are at risk of a separation of church and state breach are those who do not belong to a church. One such breach would be this very proposition where religious morals are being made law and churches preaching FREE WILL are attempting to deceive others into voting on a proposition that will force their doctrine on the populous of the state whether they believe in these morals or not.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
If you’re going to state such things, be sure to come with sources. Canada’s Hate Code specifically targeting speech is held in section 318 (which deals with advocating genocide) and section 319 (which deals with the rest) and it states precisely as this:
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
The crime of “publicly inciting hatred” has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:
- communicate statements,
- in a public place,
- incite hatred against an identifiable group,
- in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
Under section 319, “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a “public place” is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and “statements” means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.
All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty of either:
- an indictable offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
- an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.
Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:
- are established to be true
- were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
- were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
- were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada
So as you can see, there is no basis whatsoever for the prosecution or liability by any clergy of any church or religion to face hate speech lawsuits in Canada and Canada’s hate crimes laws are far stricter than anything seen in the American Judicial System.
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
This one strikes me personally. Let me address all three parts to this separately. First, the lawsuit between Vanessa Willock and Elane Photography in New Mexico (not CA mind you) is still in appeals. Second, if there is no legitimate business reason behind refusing service to a client, then it is both illegal and immoral to refuse said service to them.
Concerning the case of the lesbian couple who sued a clinic surrounding being refused for artificial insemination, I agree with the courts decision because while neither woman was sick and neither would have died or become sick as a direct result of being refused this treatment, it’s the refusal of treatment that violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and the fact that the decision by the court was unanimous should be a testament to this fact. Did they not swear to the Hippocratic Oath? Did they not swear to protect their patients privacy? To as the oath states, “remember that I am a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings?” Not just those whose lifestyle he or she agrees with but ALL, “whether of sound mind and body or the infirm.” Not to say homosexuals are infirm but when I read infirm I basically read that as being anyone that we find offensive. Would a black doctor treat a white nationalist? Would a jewish doctor treat a nazi sympathizer? Would a Christian doctor treat a Pagan? Would an LDS doctor treat a homosexual? They all should because it is their duty as medical practitioners.
Talking about these lawsuits costing the taxpayers a ton of money due to lawsuits surrounding this issue I say GOOD. There are so many things our money is being spent on that we would be angry to find out about including a number of frivolous lawuits. Can you itemize where every tax dollar you pay goes? No? Then how much do you really care?
And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
Oh how many times have I heard this fear mongering rhetoric? “Next thing we know it’ll be legal to marry your dog or your lamp or your car! Where will it end?!” It pretty well ends with this. So long as homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, then there’s no need for further legislation to protect them further. The reason they are added onto hate crime laws (which I disagree with btw…all crimes come from hate of some sort) is because of the continued discrimination they face in the very basic facets of life. As a Christian, I don’t expect to be accepted into a muslim mosque or a Jewish temple. Many of them do open their doors to non-believers but many times they don’t. Just as well, homosexuals will NOT be forced to be allowed inside LDS temples. Hell, a good percentage of LDS MEMBERS aren’t allowed inside and you haven’t seen any discrimination lawsuits yet, have you?
It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.
It’s theirs as well
Lets work together to protect them.
Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.
Those who are against same-sex marriage often site this as a protection of marriage? From what? All that has been done to it by the heterosexuals? Two out of every three marriages end in divorce. Spousal abuse in many forms, infidelity, and other evils have been done to marriage by bonds between men and women for centuries. Some of the biggest proponents for this proposition is the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Utah has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. This in a church who’s idea of a traditional marriage is meeting someone, getting married a few weeks later and then reproducing as often as possible for the rest of your life. Boys and girls (because they’re often nowhere near men and women at the time of marriage) who barely know each other bind themselves together for time and all eternity and then begin to procreate at a rate that would make rabbits blush. The pressure in the church for large families is fierce. So these two people who barely knew each other when they got married now have 6-10 kids who’s lives are being scarred by the troubles that these two “adults” face when they start to realize how incompatible they are. What worse could be done to this fractured institution called marriage that hasn’t already been done?
The ballot summary for Proposition 8 starts with “Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle.” Yes, except in the part where it is a direct attack on the gay lifestyle.California. They say that Proposition 8 would not take away any of the rights and privileges already afforded to homosexuals. If this were truly the case there would be no need for the proposition. This proposition actually intends to take away the right of homosexuals to marry as is currently held in the state of California.
I want to urge all of you to look at this proposition and look at the impact it would have on the structure of society and how it would affect the lives of people you may or may not agree with. Make the choice that your heart pulls you towards but for me, I’m voting against this and I pray the rest of you come to the same conclusion.
For the meantime, I have no place in my life for a church that claims to be “of God” or “the one true church of Jesus Christ” and yet feels the need to lie and deceive the public in order to push their political agenda. I understand that the church is run and attended by mortal men prone to mistakes but this is the third time the church has taken this stand and coming from the leaders who we have been taught would never lead us astray and yet who lie and mislead even their own members turns me off totally from wanting to associate myself with such an organization. This is NOT of God.
I'm gonna put you to bed 