To: my friend who supported Prop 8 but won't actually allow others to talk with her about it

[jan_andrea]

Honey, I'm sorry you're feeling persecuted. I really am. I think hatred or vitriol towards any individuals involved in the situation is wrong.

HOWEVER.

Posting links to Mormon sites that moan, "Oh, we're so persecuted! People are picketing our churches!" is a non-sequitur. The LDS church bankrolled a hell of a lot of negative advertising that *truly did* make misleading claims in order to scare the uninformed into voting for Prop 8. They tried to -- and in many cases, succeeded in -- using pressure tactics to force their members into voting for it (which you well know).

Those are facts. "Oh, we're so persecuted!" does not change the FACT that they FIRST persecuted others in a very legitimate sense (i.e. not merely picketing and protesting, but actually removing rights!) who are simply trying to have a normal life. IT IS WRONG TO TAKE AWAY CIVIL RIGHTS. PERIOD. Two consenting adults who want to become a family and are not otherwise legally barred from doing so (i.e. siblings, whatever) should not be forced to separate by a religious group or a group of religions; religion DOES NOT belong in legislation. If the Mormons or the Catholics or whoever doesn't want to marry gays and lesbians in their churches, that's fine! Nothing in CA state law was going to force them to! All these people want is to have families like heterosexual families have them, with the rights and responsibilities that go with them. Just because your Prophet says no doesn't mean that people *not even in your church* have to abide by his rules.

Personally, I don't care if Joseph Smith appeared to you in a rain of gold and said unto you, "Vote YES on Prop 8 or face immortal hellfire!" It's still not right for your religion (and others like it, lest it be said that I am singling out Mormons; Catholic hierarchy is just as guilty) to force that decision on an entire state.

I need to know that you understand this. You voted to take away another person's rights based solely on what you were told by your church, as far as I can tell. That's what I can see.  If you didn't vote for it, GREAT! Keep me as a friend and I will put it behind me. But if you did vote for it, I really want you to take me off your friends list. I genuinely do. I think that (if you voted for it) what you did was incredibly wrong. Amazingly so. I can't live with that. I'm not going to defriend you until I know for sure what actually happened. If you don't defriend me, I will assume that you voted against it, and YAY! that would be great and I won't say another word about it. But I expect you to be honest about this; if you can't stand by your vote, how much *worse* is that than the actual vote itself?

Comments

[redemptionsongs.livejournal.com]

I am not who you are referring to and I generally keep quiet on these things, but I do understand where she is coming from, just as I understand your position. I did not vote for 8, but I did vote for 102 here in Arizona. I did not vote that way out of hate or bigotry, I voted that way because marriage between a man and a woman is an important part of my faith and like it or not, my faith and the way I operate on a daily basis and vote are intertwined. FWIW, I would not have an issue with voting for an initiative that made *all* unions done by the state civil unions with the benefits of traditional marriage and left marriage entirely up to religious institutions, but that is not what I was asked to vote on and I do not feel bad for using my right as a voter to vote the way I felt was right.

I think the point of the blog entry that she posted was to show that people of our faith are being singled out as terrible bigots who hate people, but that the reverse is acting pretty hypocritical. The hate for the LDS church is *blatant*, whereas (at least here) ads supporting the initiative were not hateful. I did not see one single piece of hate propaganda against homosexuals, but it is okay to mark the outside walls of our temple? No way, not okay at all.

My faith is very important to me. I have numerous ancestors who gave up everything they had, even their lives because they felt so strongly about their beliefs and if the hardest thing that I have to do for those same beliefs is vote in a way that makes some people angry then I am okay with that.

Again, put an initiative in front of me that abolishes marriage by the state, replaces it with a legal contract (civil union) and leaves it up to churches to marry someone and I'll vote for it, not before then.(and I completely understand if you feel the need to unfriend me because of my position, fair enough.)

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

I am sad to hear that you voted to deny same-sex couples the same legal rights that heterosexual couples have. In all honesty, I think that doing so based on the word that's used is pretty lame. Right now, we don't have an alternative to marriage that makes all unions the same, legally; it's marriage or nothing (since in most places, civil unions are the separate-but-unequal choice). I think it's dishonest to claim that the word alone was the clincher. Separate but equal is never equal.

I don't think it's right for people to vandalize buildings, and I think I've made it pretty clear that while I think protest is fine, one has to draw the line and respect personal or religious property no matter what side one is on.

Personally, I think that singling out a group and telling them their families are not as good as others' families is pretty hateful, even if it doesn't say "I hate your family". They don't have to say that for that to be the intention. No one who really loved or cared about another person would deny them the right to be a true, legal family. I just don't buy that as an excuse.

I have to say that it baffles me that someone from an oppressed religion -- and I am aware of how the LDS church was oppressed -- would turn around and do the same thing to another oppressed group. The people of Utah effectively forced the LDS church to go against its polygamist roots; if that had been up for popular vote, it would have gone the same way. Yet that group now feels it's fine to dictate other people's marriages in the same way? I think that's awfully hypocritical. Same deal with Catholics. For a long time, being the minority, they had fewer legal rights in this country and elsewhere. Now that they have numbers, it's okay for them to take away others' rights? I don't think so, and it really disappoints me when other people think that majority = overlord of everything.

No one in numbers is going to get behind a no-state-marriage initiative. It's just not going to happen; we've called the state-sanctioned union a marriage since the state got involved. In the meantime, all that gay people wanted was the same rights as heterosexuals, and they got pissed on because of the name? I honestly think that's stupid. When you voted on 102, you voted against everything that would legally allow two loving men or women to have an equal relationship. Should it really matter whether it was called marriage or a civil union or a rose or a warthog? Your spiritual marriage was in no way denigrated by another couple's legal marriage, no matter what it's called.

Hypocrisy. That's all I see. Divorce is a far larger threat to "marriage" as a concept than gay marriage is, but I don't see the major religions queuing up to ban divorce. That's because it could impact them personally, instead of just offending their sensibilities. Hypocrisy.

[redemptionsongs.livejournal.com]

I understand your position and I respect it. I know that nothing I say will change your mind, just as nothing you can say would change my mind. Our beliefs are a part of us, I know that it is probably impossible to see things from my POV because it is so different and I can honestly say that it would be impossible for me to see things from an atheist POV (not trying to say that your POV is uniquely atheist in this instance). I understand that,I accept it, I am at peace with that. This isn't something that I've wanted to debate with anyone, but you asked in your post if she would own up to her vote and I am owning up to mine with no shame.

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

Well, you've put me in a quandry. I respect that you will at least own up to your vote, but I completely disagree with it and it's one of the things that I just can't abide -- taking civil rights from groups just because they're a minority.

Hypothetical question: if the vote had been 50 years ago and it was to ban interracial marriage (which so many, 50 years ago, felt was a threat to "traditional" marriage), and the Church came out and said, "The Prophet does not approve of interracial marriage and you need to vote against its availability", where would your vote have been? I want to hear a sincere answer, not a politically-correct one. If the vote was now and was to keep atheist couples from marrying (since, after all, we don't hold traditional Judeo-Christian values and don't see marriage as a sacred institution, since nothing is literally sacred to an atheist) and the Church said, "Atheists should not be allowed to marry because their definition of marriage disagrees with our teachings", how would you vote? If, 150 years ago, there were a measure to allow polygamy and the church had not yet banned it, where would your vote be... and where would your neighbors' vote be?

If you can honestly answer me that your vote in the first two cases would be different from your current vote... I don't know what to say, other than you would seriously be cherry-picking your religion and even more hypocritical.

I like you as a person, but I think I am going to have to keep to my word and end this relationship. I can't abide by anyone blithely removing others' civil rights based on what I see as amazing hypocrisy. Let he who is without sin, etc.

[redemptionsongs.livejournal.com]

I understand, I know that I would most likely be unfriended when I responded.

As to your question about interracial marriages and marriages between atheists- I would vote my conscience (which would be to allow) because there is not specific doctrine that addresses either of those things. IMO, support for 8 and 102 were upholding the Family Proclamation which was given to us in 1995 through the Prophet and First Presidency as a result of modern day revelation. I understand that this proclamation doesn't mean anything to you, but to me it is important and should be upheld by members who believe that it is. For reference, the text can be read here: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html

I wish you the best! See you around :)

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the good wishes. Likewise :)

And, I hope you're never in a position to have your rights taken away by a majority that doesn't agree with you ;)

[mercy-rain.livejournal.com]

upheld by members who believe that it is and forced by them upon others who don't...

[artemis-rich.livejournal.com]

Marriage in this country is a civil institution. Though for many people it is also a religious one, in the context of Proposition 8, it is a civil right. The right to marry unites couples legally in the way other contracts cannot, and do not confuse any of this with a Victorian ideal of romantic love: marriage is a contract. What you are proposing is denying this basic right to a large group of taxpaying citizens, simply because of an antiquated notion of a dual-gendered union.

What gives you the right to dictate who can and who cannot benefit by such a union?



Not everyone follows your belief that marriage is an important part of faith. If that were so, then only members of the clergy could perform weddings and that is not the case in this country. If an issue is put before voters, then it is a secular and not a religious one.

And just so everyone is clear, what happened with Proposition 8 is that the right for same-sex couples to marry was TAKEN AWAY by the "voters," the majority of which, I believe, were led astray by deliberately misleading ads placed by out of state religious groups touting their own agenda.

We will overturn this unconstitutional amendment. We will fight.

[artemis-rich.livejournal.com]

My daughter hit "reply" before I was finished.

The only thing I really have to add is that I fail to understand why some of those in "religious" and "spiritual" marriages are so threatened by same-sex marriages.

Also, Jan, I applaud your stance. I did this same thing on Tribe blog at the beginning of the month (the day before the vote, actually). It is an important dividing line.

Separate but equal is not equal. Didn't MLK teach us that?

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

You said it much more coherently than I did. I'm so mad about it (still) that I could spit, and that's affecting my word-putting-together skills :lol:

[artemis-rich.livejournal.com]

Oh, you have *no* idea how mad I am about this and have been for a long time. But this is an argument I've been having with Prop 8 supporters for weeks now, so I've honed my skills.

The one that is getting to me now is that members of the LDS and other religious supporters are saying it wasn't them, but African-American families who swayed the vote in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

*headdesk*

Want to hear about the sanctity of marriage? Let me introduce you to my friends Annye and Jane. I've known Jane for 20 years, now. She and Annye have been together for at least 10. They had their first holy union in 2001. Another the following year. And when it became legal for same sex couples to marry in California, they wed legally this past October.

Think about all the heterosexual couples who get married without knowing each other and then annul or divorce after a couple of days. Think of the current heterosexual divorce rate (currently at 51%). Then look at my friend Jane, marrying the same woman over and over again.

Want to know what love is? That's it.

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

What a lovely story :) My best wishes to Annye and Jane -- I hope their legal marriage is still honored despite the vote!

[redemptionsongs.livejournal.com]

Like I said in my comment to Jan, I understand and respect your viewpoint, I am not going to debate mine (would that really benefit anyone?).

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

It would help me clarify where you've coming from -- whether it's obedience to the church and to hell with all else, or a genuine personal desire to limit marriage to people like you. Neither is great, but I'd love an answer to those hypotheticals.

Edit: what it comes down to is, I don't want to defriend you because I like you as a person, but I'm just baffled by what makes people vote to take away others' rights.

Edit again: whoops, posted this at the same time you were posting. Thank you for answering.

[artemis-rich.livejournal.com]

I'm not asking for a debate. Just a clarification on your stance in light of the points that I made.

Because I am truly baffled by your viewpoint, which I DO NOT understand because you refuse to elaborate on it.

Separation of church and state, anyone?

[jenrose]

If marriage by the state is abolished, then my church will STILL happily marry gay people.

My religious beliefs say that your beliefs and actions are hateful and wrong and have very little to do with actual Christian values as put forth by Jesus Christ. Why do your beliefs get to be in the legal system as law, and mine don't?

All they wanted was civil marriage. Not marriage in your church. I couldn't have gotten married to my husband in a Catholic church, even though i have the legal right to get married, because the state does not interfere with religion that way. And your religion should not interfere with the state.

My friends getting married DOES NOT HURT YOU. It does not affect your marriage or your faith or your beliefs ONE BIT. So why you want to legislate against their civil rights... why you want to make it so they cannot file their taxes together and get insurance together and introduce themselves as spouses and be legally parents of their children together.... I don't understand it.

And it makes me sad.

You can say you support "civil unions" all you want... but the fact of the matter is that right now, that is ALL legal marriage is. Even if you are religous and get married in a church, your marriage in your church and my marriage in mine and my best friend's marriage out on a cliff overlooking the ocean... the state sees them as all the same from a legal standpoint whether they are done by a minister or a justice of the peace. Holy matrimony is what the church does. Marriage is the license you sign. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[jenrose]

One more thing.

The fact that one group of people's marriages can be made "illegitimate" or "illegal" by another group?

It threatens ALL MARRIAGES.

What if someone decided that anyone who wasn't married by a justice of the peace or a judge or whoever was not legally married? It would invalitate the vast majority of marriages. But by prop 8 logic, a majority could theoretically vote that way and boom, you aren't married, I'm not married, and oh well.

[brunahildm.livejournal.com]

Did you see Keith Olbermann's piece on Prop 8 (etc)? It's quite eloquent and I totally don't understand how anyone can want to take rights away from people and NOT consider themselves bigoted. Really glad that ACLU is challenging the validity of voting on it as amendment when it is of such magnitude.

Here's the Olbermann piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

I don't get it, either.

I consider myself fairly tolerant, at least in practice, to people's religious beliefs. I mean, I have friends on this journal who are Jewish, Catholic, Pagan, and various Protestant denominations. Mostly we get along fine... because they're not trying to make me live the way they live. Once someone crosses that line -- "My god says we have to X, so you have to X, too" -- I lose that tolerance. Do whatever your religion says, as long as it doesn't impact other people's rights. That's the American way!

Yah, I saw the Olbermann piece. He's excellent :)

[rock-grrl.livejournal.com]

As a Canadian, I am appalled that your state even had a vote on allowing or disallowing people's civil rights to be taken away. Civil rights for a minority group should not be decided by the majourity simply because state or federal governments are too chicken shit to take a stand for their citizens' rights. Shame on them!

If it helps at all, legally all states must recognise marriages that take place in Canada (as far as I am aware) and in Canada (ALL of Canada), gay/lesbian people can marry.

Here is a shout out of 'FUCK YOU' to all of those who voted to take away a person's civil rights! If you're SO against same-sex marriages, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Simple as pie.

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

I Love your icon -- that's a riot!

Lucky for me, I don't live in California; I'm on the opposite coast in New Hampshire. But I am just as appalled that a ballot measure is allowed to amend the state's constitution (that's not the case in NH) and that it was applied to remove rights :( It's really a sad case. Imagine if that had been the case during the civil rights era! Constitutionally-"protected" whites-only drinking fountains? You betcha!

I miss Canada...

[rock-grrl.livejournal.com]

Thanks! ;-) It's one of my favourites.

I know that I would protest and be HELLA ANGRY if my rights were taken away by someone else simply because they thought a different way from me. What if my right to vote were taken away because I'm a woman and some religious group decided that women shouldn't vote because god told them so. I'd be fighting mad and I would protest and vandalize churches hell yes I would! What if LDS churches were banned because the majourity of Americans, who are not LDS, decided that LDS was bunk? I'm sure they'd protest and be fighting mad. And you know what? I'd be fighting mad right along with them because their rights were being taken away and that's not okay.

It's never been about who's right and who's wrong. It's about WHAT is right and HOW should people in this society be treated? Would YOU want you civil rights taken away simply because you were a minority?

I have been appalled by so many things your country's government has done in the last few years to be honest. I feel so sorry for all of you who rally and protest and yet are not being heard. Sucks donkey balls fo sur!

Here's another icon just for you. ;-P

[artemis-rich.livejournal.com]

Icon love!

[cad-red-ducati.livejournal.com]

I want to be very clear about something, the whole "I voted for Prop 8 (or whatever nasty thing) becouse of my religous views" is fucking stupid. for the record, um, Jesus didn't say a freaken thing about homosexuals, but he talked a lot about helping the poor (wow, what could have the LSD chruch done in that regard with 20 million $?) and he talked about love and people not being shitty to each other. oh, and not bearing flase witness against your neighbor? those LSD sponsered ads did just that!!

I think that if you voted for prop 8 or anything like it, becouse of the whiny excuse that it is your religon, then hell, you need to keep your kitchen Kosher and not wear clothes of mixed fibers, etc. if you are going to be all hard core about it, then really do it, OK?

I belive in God, and the God I belive in is about LOVE, not HATE.

[cad-red-ducati.livejournal.com]

um, pregnant lady brain doesn't put words together very well, does it. it's not LSD, it's LDS?

[rock-grrl.livejournal.com]

Word to both of your comments! I am pregnant-lady-brain spelling impaired myself I think!

I think using one's religion as an excuse for ANYTHING is horrid personally! If I believe something, I will think about those beliefs and stand up for them and take responsibility for them. If I believe in rights for some and not others, I'll blame myself and not my "loving" religion.

And you're damn right about what Jesus stood for. He taught love and tolerance and loving your enemy ... not gaining power over them to crush their freedoms and then bitching about how you're being "prosecuted".

[pudgybudgie.livejournal.com]

Just a note, LDS is considered around here (deep south--Memphis area) to be a cult by some of the major denominations. You'd think the fact that they're looked down upon by a big chunk of the religious community would make them rethink looking down on anyone.

[tahoebean.livejournal.com]

I fucking love you, Jan. ;)

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

Likewise, Bean! :D

[justsurvive.livejournal.com]

can i just clear one thing up? its not the church that donated whatever amount of money for ads and whatnot. it was the people in the church. very different.

[jan-andrea.livejournal.com]

I don't know; I hear people going on all the time about how the people *are* the church. If higher-ups encouraged "the people" to donate, then to me, it boils down to the same thing. Maybe even worse, from a social perspective.

[justsurvive.livejournal.com]

the higher ups didnt even encourage voting one way or the other. they just reminded of the doctorine that marriage should be between a man and a woman, they never said "VOTE NO" or "vote yes". but some members took it that way and it all spiraled out of control. the church would never donate money to politics. the weathier members might of. but its not the church that told them to do so. especially not the prophet. in washington(where i live) we got the same exact message that the californians did. it just happens that some members took it upon themselves (im quoting that friend i mentioned in my anti prop 8 entry)"fight for religious freedom and traditional marriage".
i hope you know me enough by now that i am for gay marriage. im personally ashamed on how californians reacted to it all. im ashamed that the californian mormons reacted that wAy because now all mormons are getting a bad rap. this is why churches should stick out of politics. it just leaves a bad image when its all over

[mercy-rain.livejournal.com]

Oh, please. "We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman." - HOW is that not a clear and overt request from the First Presidency to vote a certain way?

[justsurvive.livejournal.com]

that was not the message we recieved from the first presidency. it may have been a misguided message from the pulpit from some other leader, but not from the prophet.
im lds, i never received that message.

[mercy-rain.livejournal.com]

The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008