My nephew Randy recently had a post regarding the Proposition 8 vote in California. You can read it here. Although I don’t usually feel the need to express myself on those types of things, I did on his site. So, having taken the time to write out my comments, I figured I should post it here as well:
While it may be unfair to blame Utah for what happened in California, it is understandable. Utah cannot escape the fact that it is the home of the LDS church any more than Hawaii could escape being the land of great beaches, or Las Vegas the home of cheesy shows, or California the home of the entertainment industry. It is what it is. The question that keeps bouncing around my head is what would have been Utah’s reaction if a group of Californian’s with money and power (perhaps the entertainment industry) decided that they needed to change Utah’s liquor laws. There would indeed be an outcry.
The church does have the right to express its opinion – and it has a long history of doing so. However, in this case they did more than express their opinion, they lobbied. Even from the pulpit. In the case of Prop 8, they stopped being a church and started being a political action committee. Living as we do by the golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules) the churches ability to generate somewhere around 15 to 20 million dollars along with an equally impressive, if indefinable, amount of manpower makes them a very effective political action committee. There are a number of websites (admittedly church member websites) that are claiming the church got the proposition passed. While that may not be the case, at the very least the church’s actions had some impact on the outcome. Some of those church member websites are actually gloating in their ability to influence the results.
The church also has considerable political influence not defined by money and volunteer work. You said that you would consider yourself in favor of gay rights, but that voting on this one would have been “very difficult” for you – because your church (not just the leaders of the church – the actual church) was telling you to vote differently.
I think the church made a mistake on this one. They have a long history of trying not to be political and they should have continued that history here. Since they ignored that history and decided to take action, I wish they had chosen something different to turn political on – like reducing taxes or cancer research or something. That they choose gay rights isn’t necessarily surprising, but I think it is unfortunate. There will be consequences to having crossed the line on a proposition in California and they’re going to have to cope. Whether the backlash is too expansive is surely a matter of opinion – and there are lots of people that have the opinion that the church’s involvement in the issue was way too expansive in the first place.
I find the whole thing appalling and mind boggling. What a waste of effort and resources. They don’t consider it so, they are delighted with themselves, but how can one be proud of contributing $25,000 (several gave $100,000 or more) or even just $500 to strip people of their rights, simply because they believe something different. Disgusting is the word that keeps coming to mind.
That the church urged it (when members are approached by their stake presidents to give a specific, sizable amount, one might even consider that “commanded”) – well, I don’t have the right adjective for that.
I have a whole list of adjectives that could be appplied Kristin…. but I’ll narrow it down to short-sighted, narrow-minded and despicable. How’s that?
I have dear friends in California (original from Utah, no less) who have been together for 14 years and were just so HAPPILY married in September. It had been just for the legal benefits – but once they were there, it became a very emotional, special day for them. And they deserve it. Frankly, they are happier, more committed and a better example of what a marriage should be than 90% of the marriages of most striaght couples I know. This proposition – funded by tithes and donations from family and former friends in Utah has been very hurtful. While for now they are still legally married, the specialness of their day and union has been diminished. As Paul indicated, they’ve “been put back in their place” as 2nd class citizens.
To me it is so ironic that a church that fled to Utah to get away from persecution and restriction on it’s own marriage practices (which I still think more people in the nation would oppose than gay marriage), should bear it full weight down on persecuting another group of individuals for their right to marry. Ironic and pathetic. I don’t think the backlash can be expansive enough.
And here’s the big question… what would Jesus have done? I can’t imagine he would have sanctioned this lobbying that is so hurtful to others. I think, instead, he’d have instructed them to minister to the sick, the poor, the needy…. those millions of dollars could have done so much good… instead, they’ve cause pain and heartache. Selfish, selfish people.
I don’t think any of us (Mormon or not) have a right to define a marriage… I am sad that so many people judge others actions, rather than keep to themselvs and be happy!