Breaking the blogging rules by dragging out the politics

It's about that pesky proposition 8. Which I am now decidedly FOR, by the way. Yes, I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I want to see this amendment pass. (Though I still say there are worse things in the world than homosexuals wanting to be in commited and monogamous relationships.)

But what I get all riled up about are some of the techniques my fellow prop8 proponents are using to make our argument. I think there a lot of sensationalist and misleading propaganda out there which really weakens our argument. And as we all know, nothing bugs me more than viral internet myths:



There is a very interesting article I found yesterday that turns out to be written by an LDS lawyer from Kenny's home ward dealing with the 6 most common "facts" being used by proponents of prop 8. You can see the whole article here. As he states:

Most of the arguments contained in “Six Consequences” (the document that seems to be the source for a lot of the rumors) are either untrue or misleading. .. My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. I do not believe these so-called “consequences” have originated at or been approved by Church headquarters; rather, I suspect they are the result of overzealous volunteers who have misinterpreted California law and the legal cases on which the supposed consequences depend. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.

Morris Thurston (the author) received his undergraduate degree in political science from BYU and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He recently retired as a senior partner with a global law firm, where he specialized in litigation and intellectual property law. He is an active member of the LDS Church.

For instance, the "fact" most of us have probably heard is that if prop 8 fails, we may be forced to hold same-sex marriages in religious sanctuaries such as LDS temples. This is really quite ridiculous when you think about it. The first amendment does still exist and is not yet threatened. If we've always been allowed to discriminate based on worthiness according to our own standards, that isn't going to change. I'm not saying it will never happen, nor that prop8 failing won't be a small sad step in that direction, but there's a lot in the world that would have to go wrong first- things already in the works that we won't have a lot of control over. Since an opponent of prop8 could easily shoot this argument down by bringing in the first amendment, we need to be very careful how we present it, if we present it at all.
Another one is the common-cited "Catholic Charities have closed their doors in Massachussets because of their refusal to adopt to same-sex couples." Then we all go "oh no! How will that affect LDS Family Services and other religious services?" (I know I did until I researched it.) Here's the thing: that rumor tells a very small part of the story. Catholic Charities of Boston is still up and running. And their struggles with same-sex couple adoption started decades ago, when anti-discrimination laws came into play, long before gay marriage was legalized in MA. Their ceasing to do adoptions has more to do with internal disagreements (the diocese disagreed with the Vatican on the matter) and the possibility of losing funding and contracts from the government and United Way (see this article for the full story.) LDSFS still functions in Massachussetts and has yet to have any problems with not adopting to same-sex couples. Unless LDS family services decides to start doling out state-mandated adoptions rather than doing voluntary adoptions here the birth mother gets to choose the family for her baby, and taking state and public funds, it won't be threatened.

While many of the rumors dealing with being "forced to tolerate" homosexuals are indeed true, few of them take place in states with legalized gay marriage. They have more to do with anti-discrimination laws than they do with marriage laws ... anti-discrimination laws that already exist in CA and in most states and aren't about to go away.

My point is not that this is a battle we shouldn't be fighting. I do suspect that, as Lori put it, prop 8 failing would "put the nail on the coffin" for a lot of other battles we're fighting (or at least A nail on the coffin, if not the final one). I think it would be a sad indicator of the state of the world, but gay marriage strikes me as a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. If we can get the amendment to pass, then we can show the world that the "silent majority" that believes in traditional family marriages does exist, and that would be a great thing.

Some other important things to remember:
-Prop 8 will bring California back to what it already had decided in 2000: that marriage is between a man and a women. This was wrongly overturned 8 years later by 4 of the 7 members of the California Supreme Court who decided their opinion superseded the will of the people. Judges are there to uphold the law, not to rewrite it.
-Prop 8 passing will not prevent homosexuals from practicing their lifestyle as they choose, just as it failing will not make us change our heterosexual lifestyle. Same-sex civil rights will not change in any way. All the proposition will do is prevent the definition of the word "Marriage" from being changed.
-Prop 8 passing may help in some legal cases regarding "intolerance" and "anti-discrimination". Not directly, but by showing that the majority does still support traditional marriage. It will not change anti-discrimination laws, which are still open to interpretation (dumb lawsuits will still happen as long as there are people in the nation who interpret anti-discrimination laws as being more important than religious rights).

Lastly, I do just want to say, I know many non-member homosexuals and many LDS young men struggling with same-sex attraction (you'd be surprised how many there are at BYU). The ones I know are genuinely good people battling something I can't begin to understand. The fact that the authorities of the Mormon church have asked us to help prop8 pass does not mean we have been given free range to judge, estrange, accuse or all-out lie about homosexuals and their agenda. Showing compassion and setting a standard for happy eternal families will do much more to further our cause than getting ourselves labeled "bigoted" or "homophobes" and therefore irrelevant or fringe.

K, off my soapbox. And to reward you for reading this far, here's a sneak peak at Daniel's halloween costume.

From October 08