This blog is designed for a class at Brigham Young University. Students use this blog to discuss elements of our multicultural society that we learn about in class. Due to the limit in the number of authors allowed, only students will be able to make posts on this blog. We welcome comments to the posts. Our hope is that this blog will foster dialogue about a number of difficult issues regarding diversity, which in turn will help us to better understand other people's diverse perspectives.
Proposition 8 is not a discrimination against homosexuals. It is upholding the constitution and protecting families. The judge who overruled Prop 8 ignored the voices of the people and their basic rights. Proposition 8 was supported by the people and passed because of the people. By overruling Prop 8 they are discriminating against those who support it.
The arguments for and against Proposition 8 are extremely interesting, and there are parts that I agree with on both sides. However, I think that by declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, you declare that the people who vote on it don't really know what is best for themselves. This goes against everything that our country was founded upon. Our government is designed to hear the voice of the people. Regardless of the law, if the majority of people vote for something then it should be respected. If this trend of shutting down the people's view continued we could possibly end up in anarchy with a nation of people that don't support or respect the laws made by the government and vice versa. I know that sounds like an extreme, but if the courts can't respect the views of the people then it undermines the whole system. Anyways, this is an extremely interesting topic, and I am sure it will only become more interesting as this battle is nowhere near from being settled.
this battle is very difficult. i dont see a solution that wont end badly. Either way people are going to get mad, get violent, and get over it. I believe that if the institution of gay marriage is considered lawful then people will get hurt physically and emotionally. Optimistically I think people will get over it sooner or later. On the other hand, if prop 8 continues to be unconstitutional than there will be very angry Gays that still aren't accepted into society. So bottom line is, not matter what people will get hurt, the question is, which choice will produce more harm and damage????
I would just like to make the comment that just being in the majority does not automatically make your position the correct one. This becomes one of the great dangers of democracy. Should the majority be allowed to infringe upon the rights of minority groups just because they have more "votes"? I believe that this is why the supreme court was set up in the first place: to judge whether or not the voice of the majority was in line with the constitution of the United States.
I am sure that Liz and John would agree, as most reasonable and educated people our age would, that there have been throughout the history of the United States many instances where the majority has made the wrong decision. If the voice of the people was to be trusted all the time, slavery would not have been abolished in the South, and women would not have been allowed to vote. Looking back on these circumstances, it is easy for us to say--in hindsight--that these issues were obvious.
My personal opinion is that in many years gay marriage will be looked at in the same way.
Without debating the "wrongness" and "rightness" of gay marriage, I do believe that the benefits of marriage(under the law) should be extended to all individuals of age who wish to be married.
There's been an interesting trend in public opinions since the issue of gay marriage has entered the public discussion, particularly once it landed on the table as an issue to be voted on.
Before this discussion hit the public sphere, surveys showed that the majority of Americans opposed gay marriage. But as happens when issues are fleshed out via public discussion, popular opinion shifted in favor of allowing gay marriage.
Why was this the case? I believe for the same reasons prop 8 was overturned... because "preserving traditional marriage" simply has no logical merit. As the issue became more popular, it became more discussed. And as happens once the arguments for both sides become more available, people become more aware of the subtleties of the discussion. I believe the shift was a result that people began to realize that discriminating against gay marriage had as much merit to the rationale as discrimination against blacks or women.
Cary Crall said it best in his Daily Universe Viewpoint (which was subsequently censored). He argued that there was no rational grounds for opposing gay marriage. For LDS members in support of the proposition, they simply have to acknowledge that they're following the counsel of their leaders because they believe they speak for God, in spite of a lack of a reasonable argument.
I believe the leaders of the LDS church are wrong, however. And I find it amusing that LDS members want both logic and faithful obedience when sometimes the two ideas are incompatible.
In this case where the two conflict, it becomes necessary to reexamine one's position on the issue from his/her viewpoint of both faith and reason. If faith is more important, than acknowledge the conflict and humbly admit the preference for submission to the church's authority. If reason is preferable, then one has to either compartmentalize the conflicting beliefs or subordinate one to the other.
Proposition 8 is not a discrimination against homosexuals. It is upholding the constitution and protecting families. The judge who overruled Prop 8 ignored the voices of the people and their basic rights. Proposition 8 was supported by the people and passed because of the people. By overruling Prop 8 they are discriminating against those who support it.
ReplyDeleteSorry! I forgot to put my last name. Liz Ammons
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments for and against Proposition 8 are extremely interesting, and there are parts that I agree with on both sides. However, I think that by declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, you declare that the people who vote on it don't really know what is best for themselves. This goes against everything that our country was founded upon. Our government is designed to hear the voice of the people. Regardless of the law, if the majority of people vote for something then it should be respected. If this trend of shutting down the people's view continued we could possibly end up in anarchy with a nation of people that don't support or respect the laws made by the government and vice versa. I know that sounds like an extreme, but if the courts can't respect the views of the people then it undermines the whole system.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, this is an extremely interesting topic, and I am sure it will only become more interesting as this battle is nowhere near from being settled.
John Koelliker
this battle is very difficult. i dont see a solution that wont end badly. Either way people are going to get mad, get violent, and get over it. I believe that if the institution of gay marriage is considered lawful then people will get hurt physically and emotionally. Optimistically I think people will get over it sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if prop 8 continues to be unconstitutional than there will be very angry Gays that still aren't accepted into society. So bottom line is, not matter what people will get hurt, the question is, which choice will produce more harm and damage????
Jaycob Brugman
I would just like to make the comment that just being in the majority does not automatically make your position the correct one. This becomes one of the great dangers of democracy. Should the majority be allowed to infringe upon the rights of minority groups just because they have more "votes"? I believe that this is why the supreme court was set up in the first place: to judge whether or not the voice of the majority was in line with the constitution of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that Liz and John would agree, as most reasonable and educated people our age would, that there have been throughout the history of the United States many instances where the majority has made the wrong decision. If the voice of the people was to be trusted all the time, slavery would not have been abolished in the South, and women would not have been allowed to vote. Looking back on these circumstances, it is easy for us to say--in hindsight--that these issues were obvious.
My personal opinion is that in many years gay marriage will be looked at in the same way.
Without debating the "wrongness" and "rightness" of gay marriage, I do believe that the benefits of marriage(under the law) should be extended to all individuals of age who wish to be married.
There's been an interesting trend in public opinions since the issue of gay marriage has entered the public discussion, particularly once it landed on the table as an issue to be voted on.
ReplyDeleteBefore this discussion hit the public sphere, surveys showed that the majority of Americans opposed gay marriage. But as happens when issues are fleshed out via public discussion, popular opinion shifted in favor of allowing gay marriage.
Why was this the case? I believe for the same reasons prop 8 was overturned... because "preserving traditional marriage" simply has no logical merit. As the issue became more popular, it became more discussed. And as happens once the arguments for both sides become more available, people become more aware of the subtleties of the discussion. I believe the shift was a result that people began to realize that discriminating against gay marriage had as much merit to the rationale as discrimination against blacks or women.
Cary Crall said it best in his Daily Universe Viewpoint (which was subsequently censored). He argued that there was no rational grounds for opposing gay marriage. For LDS members in support of the proposition, they simply have to acknowledge that they're following the counsel of their leaders because they believe they speak for God, in spite of a lack of a reasonable argument.
I believe the leaders of the LDS church are wrong, however. And I find it amusing that LDS members want both logic and faithful obedience when sometimes the two ideas are incompatible.
In this case where the two conflict, it becomes necessary to reexamine one's position on the issue from his/her viewpoint of both faith and reason. If faith is more important, than acknowledge the conflict and humbly admit the preference for submission to the church's authority. If reason is preferable, then one has to either compartmentalize the conflicting beliefs or subordinate one to the other.