I thought I might discuss the recent turnover of Proposition 8 in California since I was one of the participators and promoters of the proposition. I'm from San Diego, California and though I don't remember the exact wording of the letter, I distinctly remember when our Stake President read a letter encouraging us to support Proposition 8 from the First Presidency. I was initially surprised that the leaders of the Church were speaking out on a political issue, and I admit I was eager to join the united forces of my ward and stake to support them. On the other hand, I knew several members of our ward alone disagreed with the proposition and would not participate.
While this divide did not cause undue contention, that I was aware of, it was a source of conflict.
But the true opposition came from neighbors, friends at school, even my high school teachers. I had to know exactly what I was supporting and fighting for: to protect the sanctity of the family. I've always had a strong testimony of this most sacred part of the gospel plan, and I was sure that something so sacred as marriage must be a religious and not a political issue. Yes, I'm well aware of things like tax breaks and other benefits of marriage for homosexual couples, but then why not extend those benefits to civil unions and leave marriage where it belongs? In the hands of religious leaders. We were never hostile in our roadside protests, or on the day we wore the t-shirts to school. But the whispers and offensive language and great hostility thrown at us were enough to confirm my decision.
Now, most of this hostility centered around the sensitive issue of discrimination. Contrary to popular belief, I do not support the Mormon culture distaste and discriminatory attitude towards homosexuals. My favorite supervisor and good friend at the grocery store I worked at was, in fact, homosexual. And I absolutely loved the guy, nor did I judge him for his sexual orientation and decisions regarding it. I only sought to stand up for my own religious beliefs and ensure the freedom of religion by separation of church and state. Our intent was never to separate or discriminate or control homosexuals. They are children of God and I've always treated them accordingly. So, be careful before assigning the heavy terms of discrimination or bigotry to Proposition 8 supporters.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree about marriage being a religious ceremony that should be only between a man and women. I also agree that gay couples should have equal rights, but, their partnership shouldn’t be able to become a marriage. I have found that some people/organizations feel that same sex marriages aren’t allowed to happen because of discrimination. Although I believe in respect and tolerance for those who believe differently, I think using discrimination for argument is a weakness. My definition of marriage includes only a man and a women, this doesn’t mean that I dislike those who choose to be with someone of the same sex. I’m glad the LDS church has a position on Prop 8. I also like that the LDS church advocates respect and love for those who hold different views.
ReplyDelete-JoAnna Ward
Because I do not have the code to add post to the blog I will connect this by allowing the views of what should be done between religion and government?
ReplyDeleteI was reading the local news and came across this article:
DUCHESNE — A one-day jury trial has been scheduled for an LDS Church bishop accused of telling a teenage girl not to seek a protective order and failing to report the girl's disclosure that she had been sexually abused by a relative.
Bishop Gordon Moon is charged in 8th District Court with witness tampering, a third-degree felony, and failure to report abuse, a class B misdemeanor. Moon was arraigned on the charges Thursday, entering not guilty pleas to both counts.
His trial is set for June 1.
But Moon's attorney, David Leavitt, said Thursday that he intends to challenge the constitutionality of the witness tampering charge prior to trial.
"Charging an LDS bishop for counsel that he may or may not have given in an interview, in an attempt to counsel a member, is something that the Constitution of the United States should forbid," Leavitt told the Deseret News.
Moon, 43, is accused of failing to notify police about a 17-year-old girl's disclosure that she had been sexually abused by a teenage relative. The bishop also told the girl not to seek a protective order against the teenage boy and the boy's mother when the girl came to him for counsel, according to Duchesne County prosecutors.
"...He said that I need to think about what (the boy) is going through, and I don't need to start telling the cops or anything because he's already going to have to go through a bunch of repentance."
–- Victim
The girl's father, a member of Moon's congregation, told investigators he asked the bishop to meet with his daughter in his ecclesiastical role because she had disclosed an incident of sexual abuse, court records state. The disclosure was causing conflict between family members, the man told investigators.
During her interview with a sheriff's investigator, the girl said she told the bishop she wanted to obtain a protective order against her abuser and his mother so she wouldn't be "terrorized," according to the interview transcript. The teen boy was no longer living in the community, however, and Moon questioned whether a protective order was necessary, the girl said.
continued...
ReplyDelete"And then he said that I need to think about what (the boy) is going through, and I don't need to start telling the cops or anything because he's already going to have to go through a bunch of repentance and all that stuff," the girl told the investigator.
Leavitt, during an earlier hearing, argued that the girl never clearly told Moon she had been sexually abused. She only told the bishop that "something had happened" between herself and the boy, Leavitt said.
He also pointed out that his client was at least the sixth person to know about the abuse before police were contacted, but is the only person charged with a crime.
Prosecutor Grant Charles said Moon is charged because he's "the only one who did something to try to prevent" the girl from going to the authorities. The other people who knew of the abuse were working with the girl, encouraging her to contact detectives, Charles said.
On Thursday, Leavitt told Judge Lyle Anderson that — in addition to challenging the witness tampering charge — he intends to challenge the failure to report charge on the basis that it is "overly broad," and is still considering whether to file a motion arguing that Moon is the victim of selective prosecution.
"I'm not going to delude myself that I'll be the last one to rule on those issues," the judge replied, adding that he expects the Utah Supreme Court "will probably be the last word on this."
The girl's abuse allegations were turned over to authorities in Kane County, where the alleged assault is said to have occurred. The teenage boy was referred to 6th District Juvenile Court for unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old as a result of the investigation. The charge would be a second-degree felony, if the teen were an adult.
Utah law requires anyone who “has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or who observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect” to report that information immediately to the nearest law enforcement officer or to the state Division of Child and Family Services."
Members of the clergy are exempt from the reporting requirement only if they learn about abuse through a confession from the abuser, unless that person grants them consent to disclose the information.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides training for its lay clergy on how to handle disclosures of abuse, said LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter. It also maintains a hotline that clergy members can call for legal advice.
Moon continues to serve as an LDS bishop, and as vice president of the Duchesne County School Board. Because of his position in the community, the judge doubled the size of the jury pool for Moon's trial.
I am wondering what everyone thinks the solution is to these religious views conflicting with government??
"Hate the sin; Love the sinner." This seems to be the premise of what the author of this post is saying. They felt that they were doing this, but felt personally attacked by those against the proposition.
ReplyDeleteBut separating the hate for the sin from the love for the sinner isn't as clear-cut as the catch phrase makes it sound. Exactly how does one support an individual but not their behavior when the two are inseparably connected? It's like saying "I love and support black people, but have an ideological opposition to them drinking from my water fountains."
The author said, "I absolutely loved the guy, nor did I judge him for his sexual orientation and decisions regarding it. I only sought to stand up for my own religious beliefs and ensure the freedom of religion by separation of church and state." Does she not realize that her religious beliefs do exactly that: judge his sexual orientation and decisions?
The author complained about "Whispers and hostile language" directed a them. But I find it audacious that they would take so much offense after publicly supporting "separate but equal" legislation. You don't get to discriminate and expect fair treatment in return.
If it weren't for the dogmatic beliefs of the religion, one would think LDS people would be particularly sensitive to the legal interferences of government in marriage. When they were practicing polygamy, they complained that the government tried to redefine THEIR concept of marriage to include "one man and ONE woman." Now that the church is more powerful, how can it be perceived as doing anything other than what it complained about 150 years earlier?
In regards to the Bishops trial: hmm...there is a fine line. What do you keep secret and what should you disclose. If you think its clear cut matter take a Psychology of Ethics class or Abnormal Psychology class. There are laws that I think are fair (ie: disclosing thoughts of suicide, homocide, etc.)but when you have confidential policies (HIPPA,FERPA, etc.) things get a little sticky. People deserve their privacy but where do you draw the line? On top of that, do you regard LDS bishops to be protected under these HIPPA type laws?
ReplyDeleteRobert Mena
I think the best solution to both protect the sanctity of the family, and yet promote the rights of committed gay couples in issues such as tax filing and health care lies in civil union. However, I would like to address a related issue that I feel very strongly about. Very recently, February 9, 2012, the Virginia Senate passed a law allowing private adoption and foster care agencies to deny placement of children based on religious or moral beliefs, including disapproval of homosexuality. To me, this is absolutely outrageous. No family can be considered ideal, and all families are littered with their own problems. Its so unfortunate to me that some people would prefer to allow children to stay in abusive households or to be thrown through foster care homes, rather than be adopted by a gay couple where they would have a stable home. I believe a committed gay couple can provide just as much kindness, love, and good teaching to a child as any heterosexual parents. I think problems such as these will not be resolved until issues of marriage are resolved, and for that reason, I hope controversies can be sorted out as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Bulloch
I must say I completely agree with what Rachel has said. I too am from California and supported Prop 8 in the same ways. It has caused incredible strife within the church and I feel Mormon culture takes a huge part in situations like these.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel as if being a Mormon means that we automatically judge those who are homosexual and condemn them. I do not agree that the religious beliefs of Mormons make it so. And on the contrary, the doctrine and principles supported and taught through the LDS religion are that of not judging one another. It is not our place as mortals/human beings to judge others. We are not taught to judge, we are taught to become more Christ-like and to love others and it is wrong to say that Mormon beliefs are made to judge others. I do understand, however, that Mormon culture suggests otherwise, that Mormon culture and many Mormons do judge homosexuals explicitly.
Mormon culture does not represent the views of the church, or of God, so why attack the religion? People are imperfect and their views tint everything they, personally, see, people are the ones who judge, not the doctrine or principles. Hold PEOPLE accountable for their views and actions.
-Ciera Laws
I believe that marriage is between a man and a women. We need to be loving and tolerant with those that suffer from same sex attraction, but that does not mean we have to be accepting. Accepting in the way that they get to be married, I do believe that they should have the same rights as married couples, because they are still people but should not have the title of married. That does not mean that me or anyone else that believes that is prejudice against homosexuals but rather believe that marriage is a divine ceremony with god, and is the basis of family, and family can only be created through man and women.
ReplyDelete-Michael Shreeve
This country is founded on upholding the Constitution. Without the consensus to obey this document, our country would fall into chaos and mayhem. The Constitution clearly states under the Fourteenth amendment that it is illegal to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This does not mean that the country has the right to deny citizens’ certain rights if any religion decides that it is immoral. It means that every person within jurisdiction has a right to equality, and it is the United States’ duty to protect these rights. Yes, this includes the rights of those who we do not completely understand, and even disagree with on certain issues. Yes, this does include the rights of homosexuals, and yes, it includes the right for them to be married.
ReplyDeleteThe Church is in no way under attack if homosexuals have the right to get married. We need to stop living in fear that homosexuals will soon dominate our Church and take away freedom of religion. The Church still has every right to preach what it condones as immoral, and can still control who enters the gates of the temple. That is what the Constitution protects. What the Constitution does not protect is the inflicting of one’s religious views onto someone else who does not necessarily share the same belief.
In fact, the LDS religion requires members to “obey, honor, and sustain the law.” Even if personally we disagree with an issue, we need to uphold this standard of law. Part of this is acknowledging other people believe differently than we do, and allowing them to do so, just as we have the freedom to do. We benefit from freedom of religion, but we are not the only ones. We are no longer the Puritans, who refuse to worship alongside anyone who has a different viewpoint than them. We are a country founded on freedom, and part of that freedom is the freedom to allow others to worship as they want. We have no right to take away anyone’s right and enforce our views of morality on them. So let’s keep our religious views within our religion, and stop trying to control aspects of people’s lives where we have no right imposing our views on.
Jenna Jackson
In my opinion, the overturn of prop 8 demonstrates the direction our society is going. I believe that is was great that the church had a position in regards to prop 8, but I also believe marriage should be controlled through religion. As a member of the LDS church, I believe marriage should be between a man and women, but I also know that not everyone shares this belief. This is why I also believe that gay couples should be allowed the same privileges, including marriage. Obviously, if religion was controlled through religion, then the LDS would not have to allow the practice of gay marriages. It is as simple as that. People can make the choice between religion, and being married to a same sex partner. I think it is important to remember that everyone has their agency, so we should not try to control their choices.
ReplyDeleteKelby Gummersall