As excited as I am about President-elect Obama, I'm horribly disappointed in the outcome of CA Proposition 8. I am particularly disturbed by the amounts of money poured into the contest by the LDS and Catholic churches. I'm sure their contributions to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign were absolutely by the book and completely legal. What disturbs me, however, is the arrogant religious position that somehow their God should be the moral arbiter for the rest of us, that their God has the True position on the definition of marriage. The implication is that those of us who follow a different conception of the divine, or none at all, are somehow misguided or mislead.
Thank goodness for the judicial system. I'm sure, after all the lawsuits sort out, that the ban will be found unconstitutional. In the mean time, I have a suggestion for all churches concerning same sex marriage. Make all the frakkin policies you wish about the sacrament of marriage and leave the legal dimension of marriage to the states. I don't tell you what to do within the confines of your hallowed halls; quit trying to tell "the people," and me, that we have to live by your religious code. I have my own spiritual code and, as the sign above relates, my notion of divinity doesn't exclude anyone.
9 comments:
Go back and read my post. This is about religions trying to force their views of the world on everyone. I have absolutely no problem with the LDS and Catholic churches barring same sex marriage. That's their right as an institution. Where I have the problem is when religions try to enforce their beliefs on everyone. And that's exactly what this issue is about.
Call me hypocritical if you wish, but I'm not the one trying to tell everyone how they should live their lives. What I'm arguing for is the right of all people to make the choices for themselves.
Well, I deleted my post so as not to get into this, but....
So you think that environmental activists shouldn't try to get laws passed because they believe that is for the good - even though it takes choices away from people...
Or passing laws to tax people for research into alternate energy.
Or those that want to remove the pledge of allegiance from schools.
These are all actions that laws have been passed by - effective legislating a social or moral agenda. Passed because activists have poured money and time into doing things and changing laws they think are wrong.
That is all that the churches in question did. They think that this thing is wrong, but believing it is wrong, and not acting on that belief is just spouting slogans. The did something about their beliefs.
They did what they thought was right. It was not what you thought was right, but it is irresponsible of someone who believes that something is wrong not to act on it.
Just because it comes from a church instead of a secular organization makes no difference.
I get annoyed at the ACLU doing many of the things it does, but I respect that they put their values to work.
You and I both know there's a difference between arguments regarding environmentalism & tax policy and something like same sex marriage. People will always be opposed to one policy or another. The thing that's different about the opposition to Proposition 8 is the religious motivation behind it.
When religion starts to directly influence public policy, I think we're getting into some very dangerous territory. We can debate tax codes, environmental issues, etc. from any number perspectives (e.g. science, political philosophy). When it comes to religion, however, the argument is always the same: my God is bigger and better than yours. That's a problematic argument on so many levels. What's even more troubling to me is how all the $$$ funneled into the campaign against Proposition 8 was done covertly, so as not to look like a religious argument.
The bottom line in our differences, I suspect, is that you believe religion should play an active role in policy making. I do not. Truth be told, the religious element of this controversy makes it almost impossible to debate. Those opposing same sex marriage on religious grounds will always fall back on their belief to justify their position; I will always reject their argument for that very reason. The result is a stalemate.
Bring on the courts.
I can see your point, especially about the stalemate.
I do believe that religion and belief should play a large part in our actions.
My main point (and in reading a third time was not as big a point in your post) was..
Don't say "You/they/churches shouldn't act on their beliefs in the public sector"
But "I don't agree with those beliefs and dislike the result"
Just because a stance comes from religion makes it no less valid reason for activism than any other moral/ethical/political stance.
My main point was if someone believes in something (no matter what the source of the belief) they should act on it.
Someone made a point on a messageboard that I read that had something to point out about this particular subject -
To paraphrase, the country has two ideals/points of idenity that are in conflict.
One that the US is a Christian (or a least a socially conservative) nation, and has been for most of it's life.
The other it the idea of freedom and egalitarianism.
On this issue those points are in conflict, and most don't even see that. A major poll showed that most Americans believe that Gays should have all the rights that anyone else does. Another one showed that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage.
Those ideas in the same person show conflict. And that is being played out as the people in the nation decide whitch of the two pieces of national identity are going to be more important going forward - great social upheaval on the matter right now.
Sorta like Harrison Bergeron points out that the idea of full equality and competition (two basic ideals of the nation) are in conflict with each other.
Sorry for the acerbic tone in the first post, that is one of the reasons I deleted it.
"I suspect, is that you believe religion should play an active role in policy making. "
I don't think that religion itself should play an active role in policy making, but I do believe that the individuals with religious beliefs should act based on those beliefs. Just as I think anyone with strong moral or ethical values should act on those values.
Anything less is lazy at the least...if not downright hypocritical.
Good stuff regarding the conflicts, mhoram. No worries about the 1st post--I try not to take internet tone too seriously. You and I have debated before and I know we'll always be able to find a way to disagree amicably.
More in a bit--I'm off to teach class. I think I might do another blog post to try and articulate my thoughts on the whole religion and politics thing. I'm trying to take a step back and get into professor mode.
"What disturbs me, however, is the arrogant religious position that somehow their God should be the moral arbiter for the rest of us, that their God has the True position on the definition of marriage."
Most people do believe their religion or God is the best; otherwise, why would they believe in their entity? Anyways, great post.
Only reason I posted is because we had this same talk in our Intro class tonight. Should give you a clue as to who this is :) Hope everything is well, I'll be by again soon.
Post a Comment