Cake: Have it or Eat it?
Posted 10th November, 2008 in by Sam
It is amazing to me how many people misunderstand national doctrines like the first amendment and the separation of church and state.
Roseanne bar (who actually used to be a Mormon herself, believe it or not) recently posted on her blog:
we citizens gay and straight pay for the police and the firemen that protect the property of the mormon church, which spans entire blocks of los angeles and orange county. let's stop doing this until this backward hateful racist and homophobic organization which allows child and plural marriage organization called the mormon church steps up and becomes american, and starts to respect the laws of freedom that this country was based on!!! the church is going down over prop 8..this is my prophecy!!! [sic]
Ignoring for a moment her poor writing skills (I would think her shift key is broken except she does sprinkle capital letters every once in a while throughout her blog) and misunderstanding of the LDS church, let's focus on her claim that the church is not respecting the "laws of freedom that this country was based on." I saw this claim echoed elsewhere, such as on Daily Kos:
It seems the LDS does [sic] not understand there is a separation between church and state (and they well should given their history).
Does anyone really believe that an organization should not have a right to weigh in on a political position simply because they have tax exempt status as a faith-based organization? The first amendment is granted to all Americans and protects either side of the debate. In this case, both sides felt very strongly that they were in the right and that the other side wanted to trample on their rights.
Should we limit free speech based on how offensive some people might find it? While Hollywood and the media in general push more and more increasingly perverse material, they yell at others whose political ideas differ from theirs and claim that their opinions are offensive.
Maybe they are offensive, but a country which would silence people who come in strongly on one side of a controversial issue may not have allowed the discussion on gay marriage in the first place.
Let me say it again: such a place may not have allowed arguments in favor of gay marriage to begin with.
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people whose opinions we despise, then we do not believe in the freedom of expression.
The people of California already made their voices heard on this subject and said that they did not want gay marriage in their state. Then, four judges decided that they were smarter than the people and that they should allow gay marriage after all. The will of four people outweighed the majority of the entire state of California.
Nobody can claim gay marriage was intended as a guarantee under California's constitution. It wasn't written that way and it had never even been a serious question until recent history!
So four judges usurp control of California law. This is not a democracy. A democracy is a place where majority rules. A place where minority rules is called an Oligarchy. It is counter to everything this country was founded on. If you want a place where minority rules, you would do better in some other country. To reverse the decision of California's Oligarchy will require a democratic process. Seems a bit unfair, right?
Now we have people picketing outside of places of worship in California because they supported proposition 8. The fact that this is their right does not erase the fact that they appear to be completely blind to their own hypocrisy. They are crying for investigations into the tax exempt status of the LDS church while ignoring the many faith based organizations that supported their side of the argument.
The protestors want their cake and to eat it too - they say any faith based organizations that supported prop 8 should have their tax exempt statuses stripped while nobody complained when they were getting money from churches on the other side of the fence.
If you don't believe me, look at these tons of churches listed as supporting opposition to proposition 8 on the noonprop8.com website.
So I guess a church is only acting illegally if their opinion isn't the same as mine?
This is nothing short of a direct and disgusting abuse of speech rights. You cannot enjoy the umbrella of the first amendment while denying it to others. Anyone who reads the first amendment and thinks it should not apply to faith based organizations needs to learn how to read. Imagine where we'd be if the government were to step in and start telling church leaders of any religion what they can and can't preach to their people. We fought wars over this. It's not a complicated thing.
These protestors want religion out of public discourse. They want separation of faith from influencing state matters. Yet they want the state to come in and dictate what they're allowed to believe in. It's really despicable when you think about it. A perversion imagined by those attacking the very thing that allows them to sit in luxury and attack things.
Think about this: should state employees be entitled to religious opinions when the state is paying their wage? Under the protestors inane re-imagining of the separation of church and state doctrine, the answer seems to be no.
Please, before commenting remember that this article is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage. It is about the horrible and hypocritical way in which gay marriage's supporters have gone about promoting it.
28 comments so far:
Shep (not verified) says: You hit the nail on the head
You hit the nail on the head man. I'm glad you had the words to call the shots as you see them.
Brikon (not verified) says: Good call. I think it's
Good call. I think it's funny that these people only targeted the Mormons when there was a whole slew of other religions that were donating money. I guess it was the easiest target. These people are just upset that the law went through. I guess they had to take their anger out on someone.
Dan (not verified) says: Its ironic that more money
Its ironic that more money was donated from outside of California against prop 8 then money that was for prop 8. The anti-8ers point out that the church is messing in Californian politics and its not fair. All the while they receive more money form outside of california.
Ezra (not verified) says: While I don't agree with
While I don't agree with those who are complaining about the LDS church, you can't deny that any church encouraging their people to vote for something does blur the lines between the separation of church and state when the primary argument against this (that they are restoring traditional marriage) is based upon Judeo-Christian values. Even though they completely ignore the huge number of divorces in this country and that many leaders in the Bible had multiple wives. If they really want to restore traditional marriage, they should at least make divorce only possible according to the traditional rules.
By the way, when you say the majority are against Prop 8, I just wanted to point out that the results were 52.3% vs. 47.7%. That is a very slim majority. And by passing this the opinion of 5,193,623 people who do not want it banned is being ignored. That's over 5 million people who are against it; that's more people than the population of 29 states, enough people for them to be the 112th largest country. That's quite a lot of people to be a minority.
R (not verified) says: Uh, Ezra do you know the
Uh, Ezra do you know the meaning of the word "majority"? Do you understand the concept of "majority rule"? Approx 59,003,085 people voted for someone other than Obama in the presidential election, following your logic that is almost 60 million people that did not want Obama to be the president. Because the number is so large does that mean that he shouldn't be the president? 60 MILLION people in this country are being IGNORED! What would you like to do about that?
(Ezra's comment perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy Sam wrote about. Well done Ezra!)
P.S. Ezra, as far as voting results go, in a vote the size of prop8 a 5% point spread isn't really considered a "slim" margin. Also, you might want to review the first amendment as well as the supreme court case that actually established the "separation of church and state" language because it is clear you don't understand it. Best of luck!
Ezra (not verified) says: I don't know what you're
I don't know what you're going on about. I didn't say it wasn't a majority. I said it's a very slim majority. I just wanted to point out how close it is. And this is nothing like voting for Obama or not for Obama. This is something defining a moral issue. This is more akin of having a pro-life vs pro-choice vote than a vote for a person to represent you. I didn't even say whether I was for or against it. I didn't say that the church couldn't say anything. All I said was it blurred the line. So get off your high horse and realise that you are just as much a part of the problem as those who are protesting against the LDS church. I think you completely missed the point of this sentence: "Maybe they are offensive, but a country which would silence people who come in strongly on one side of a controversial issue may not have allowed the discussion on gay marriage in the first place." This goes both ways, both sides have to be able to rationally discuss this. And that's all that I was trying to do.
Brad Riching (not verified) says: You are absolutely right. A
You are absolutely right. A good quote comes to my mind about how hypocrytical the far left can be as they claim to preach tolerance, yet demand their own voice be continually heard while they seek to supress the opinions of others. It is becoming more evident that these people are reacting rather than responding. Their reply is driven by rage rather than an unequivocating thought process. It really is sad.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Soren Aabye Kierkeggard
Sam says: Wow - love that quote!
Wow - love that quote!
Skiv (not verified) says: Agreed.
Agreed.
Bags (not verified) says: Ezra- When moral beliefs are
Ezra-
When moral beliefs are questioned in a political sphere, any religion (or other morally based organization) has a right to voice their opinion in this fuzzy church/state sphere. That's what the 1st amendment is all about. That's the point of this post. That's how our country is run...
Also, 53% > 47%. Approximately 6% greater.
Ezra (not verified) says: As I said to "R", I did not
As I said to "R", I did not say anything about limiting people's freedom of speech. I said I did not condone those protesting the church. I didn't say they couldn't. And I didn't say the church didn't have a right to come out with their opinion. I'm sure every religious group, not just the LDS, did that. All I said is that when a law is being passed solely on religious morals that blurs the line of separation of church and state. That doesn't mean it can't happen, because it has many times in the past and it will continue in the future. But by enforcing religious beliefs on those without them does blur the line. As a hypothetical situation, say this country had a majority of Jewish people and a minority of Christians. And the majority wanted every male to be required to be circumcised or required to wear a Yamaka or have a beard or only eat Kosher. Now if it were passed as a law we'd all have to follow it. And that certainly allowable according to the constitution. But would that be fair to non-Jews? That's all I'm pointing out. Sometimes you have to look beyond your views to see what those others are in order to have a rational and fair discussion. And that's all I'm trying to do. Which as I said to "R", was also one of the comments that Sam had made.
Also, the results have updated and now it's 52.2% vs 47.8%. If you're going to round it would be approximately 5% greater.
Britton (not verified) says: I really appreciate what you
I really appreciate what you have written, I've been thinking about the hypocrisy in what some have been saying over prop 8. It was nice to have read an article by someone who already has articulated it well.
Erin The Great (not verified) says: Well said Sam! I have a lot
Well said Sam! I have a lot of gay friends who aren't exactly talking to me at the moment because I am LDS. It's sad but hopefully everything will settle down. Your post was well articulated and I think people would have a hard time trying to pick it apart.... unless they wanted to sound like bigger hypocrites of course
Brent (not verified) says: Very well said. Solid
Very well said. Solid thinking. The constitution states that the federal government shall neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. Also, the federal government is not to abridge free speech. As you point out, the argument made by those seeking to punish the LDS Church is solely designed to punish an organization which supports marriage between a man and a woman and teaches this principle to its members. This involves both the exercise of religion and free speech. It is totally misquided and anti-constitutional to argue as some are doing. Very proud of your writing and thinking. Good going!
Fad23 (not verified) says: There is enough anger on
There is enough anger on both sides of this issue to make a lot of people act very stupidly.
I for one support the notion that two adults of consenting age should be able to enjoy some kind of holy sacrament and live monogamously and while reaping the legal benefits (tax, estate & child-rearing, hospital visitation, etc.) given to married couples. I also do not understand why those who supported prop 8 really felt it necessary.
However, I also know the anger of nearly fifty percent of the voting populace. As a hardcore atheist, I'm perhaps especially susceptible to the idea of attacking "the church." I generally believe that organized religion is a form of mind control. That being said I also understand that religion has always been a part of the American body politic.
While I can say that I don't support all of the statements made by some of the protesters, I generally am on their side.
On the other hand, should we turn this topic around and consider the disgusting behavior of my opposition? Even if you agree with their position, it seems from my point of view that the "Yes on 8" campaign was full of lies and misrepresentations. It seemed to me to be fueled by hatred and even if some of its supporters are level-headed folks who are listening to their faith, there are others who wouldn't hesitate to admit that they hated gays.
As I said when I began, there's a lot of anger and it's bringing out the stupid in everyone. Ugliness begets ugliness.
If there is any alternative, I believe it's in the more moderate action of outreach. I think both sides need to discuss this calmly and reasonably until some compromise is reached.
Fad23 (not verified) says: I also believe there is a
I also believe there is a line between "freedom of speech" and imposing one's will. The idea of suggesting that male-female marriage is the only be considered is quite different from creating a legal situation that can be enforced. In the former others may agree to disagree or may be persuaded. In the latter any who oppose are subject to the law.
Those who supported Proposition 8 had every right to put their money and time on the line. Of course now is the time for them to see the repercussions of their actions. A different way to interpret the protests around the LDS church is to consider that the church (and its fellow supporters) worked to impose its views on a minority and that minority is really angry.
Fredrick (not verified) says: The problem is that the
The problem is that the pro-gay marriage debate was not about rights. Most people would not care if gay people enjoyed the same (or most of the same) rights as straight people. In fact, most of those rights are already granted under civil unions in a lot of states.
The gay marriage movement is more about acceptance. Gay couples want to be seen as exactly the same as heterosexual couples and be accepted by all facets of society including religion (which is the traditional institution that promotes and enacts marriages). This moves from the realm of "gaining rights" to the realm of teaching gay marriage in schools, closing down adoption agencies that "discriminate" against gay couples, and a lot of other social changes.
People only care when they are being effected. People are not effected by gay couples gaining rights. People do, however, feel they are being effected when gay couples want to say they are just as competent as heterosexual couples (which may be true socially, but certainly not biologically). It forces the institution into the public realm where people are not comfortable with it.
You say "A different way to interpret the protests around the LDS church is to consider that the church (and its fellow supporters) worked to impose its views on a minority and that minority is really angry."
But think about who is trying to impose their views on who. There has been a precedent set for the last several thousand years and it is one group who is trying to change it. Whether or not it's right i up for debate, but you don't generally say that one party is imposing its views on another because they won't allow them to do something that is not allowed. That's an argument a teenager would use against their much wiser parent.
David (not verified) says: In general, well said. To
In general, well said.
To force acceptance in institutions whose fundamental feelings and beliefs counter that "being accepted" is illegal and is the crux of the separation of church and state issue.
The rights granted heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are the same in most states with a civil unions law with regards to everything legally granted heterosexual relationships aka medical and legal power of attorney, etc. The only thing protected is the right to deny homosexual marriages conducted in your own organization. Should Prop 8 have not passed, that right would have been taken away by the legislation of 4 justices' interpretation of the constitution (which by the way is a far smaller minority that that shown in the prop 8 results after all, 4 vs. everyone (meaning everyone is subject to their exact opinion despite different shades for or against). To deny this is simply ignorance of legal process. All it would have taken is one lawsuit of a homosexual couple wanting to have their civil union "marriage" as they viewed it to be enacted in a locality such as a specific religious building whose governing body's viewpoint and doctrine prohibit such unions to be enacted in the building, and the state would have had to force the union's acceptance or revoke the right of the organization to perform legally recognized marriages at all. Point blank.
Greg (not verified) says: I agree with the hypocrisy
I agree with the hypocrisy of the far left. I think the real problem started with the issuance of marriage certificates by states in the mid 1800's. I believe that was the move that violated the separation of church and state. This would be a non-issue if each church had the choice themselves. Back in 1850 California had a similar issue with interracial marriages; legislators passed the first legislation to control marriage which stated "all marriages of white persons with negroes or mulattoes is declared to be illegal and void." If we believe in separation of church and state, then why does the government need to be the deciding voice in whether or not someone is "married"? Legislators and Judges have seen this issue as a "basic civil rights of man" which apparently "justified" legislation.
This would be a different country if to get a marriage/divorce certificate all one had to do is fill out a form from the church you attend. Would it be better? I don't know. The problem many people see with repealing all legislation dealing with marriages is that if the churches had control over who get's married, gay people would be getting married right now in all states. Wikipedia says the central conflict of marriage lies in the "choice between potential conflict and accommodation, between assimilation and the preservation of minority rights in a diversified society." Would this be an issue if the minorities could start their own church and do as they pleased? Would this actually create more conflict between different ideologies?
Although I disagree with passing marriage legislation (because it does violate the separation of church and state), in our current legislative paradigm I am against gay-marriage, pro civil union. Even the LDS Church came out and said they were not against civil unions, only gay marriage. I agree with Fredrick's statement that "The gay marriage movement is more about acceptance." If it were about rights, they would compromise and take the equal rights under a different label.
Rachel DeVault (not verified) says: Beautifully said--perfectly
Beautifully said--perfectly thorough and diplomatic. This really gets to the heart of the matter: no matter what one believes about gay marriage, the vote was made. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed a belief (how very American!); it's a shame that the freedom of speech isn't seen to go both ways....your article is a good reminder of the true definition of that freedom.
Thank you!
Anonymous (not verified) says: This article is flawed on
This article is flawed on many levels. The most glaring is in the following paragraph:
"So four judges usurp control of California law. This is not a democracy. A democracy is a place where majority rules. A place where minority rules is called an Oligarchy. It is counter to everything this country was founded on. If you want a place where minority rules, you would do better in some other country. To reverse the decision of California's Oligarchy will require a democratic process. Seems a bit unfair, right"
The United States is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic as our forefathers intended. We are not now, nor have we ever been, a form of government where "majority rules". That is a vast oversimplification of our system, and to equate the actions of the Judicial branch as creating an Oligarchy is blatanty false. The use of our courts to ensure that the majority does not impose its beliefs on the minority is integral to our system and hardly "counter to everything this country was founded on". Indeed, it is exactly what this country was founded on.
I understand that gay marriage may be offensive to many, but an article such as this that purposely misleads should not be allowed to go unanswered. I do believe that the LDS church, its members, and any other group, should be allowed to express their opinions and work to achieve their goals. I do not, however, believe that misinformation should ever be allowed without rebuttal.
Sam says: I think you're blowing the
I think you're blowing the statement out of proportion as the distinction between a Democracy and a Republic is lost on most. I am in favor of a republic, the way the country was founded, but we have been moving more towards a democracy all the time.
California is leading the charge. Where does sovereignty lie in California? Is it with the people? Is it with the public servants? Is it with the all wise government? The California code seems clear. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them."
That is closer to a democracy then a republic. "The People" vs "The Person."
Furthermore, the California supreme court is appointed, not elected. If they were elected they might be more like a representative republic, but since they are appointed and further separated from the decisions of the public they, at least in my mind, are more similar to an Oligarchy. Especially since they act against the will of the people.
Anonymous (not verified) says: The distinction may be blown
The distinction may be blown out of proportion but the basic premise is valid. We are not a country where the majority is allowed to rule without regard to the consequences to the minority. You can name the form of government how you wish, but we are not a simple majority rules nation and I am greatly relieved that this is the case.
Your citation of the California code is not entirely relevant here. The Supreme Court of California is not an agency and thus this section of the code is moot on the issue.
Finally, the fact that judges are appointed is highly relevant. They are appointed so that they are not subject to the whims of the majority and are in a position to base their decisions on interpretation of law and concepts of fairness and equality without fearing for their positions. We have three distinct branches of government in this country for a reason, and to suggest that our judicial branch is an elitist group basing their decisions on their own personal opinions is highly suspect. They are not specfically acting against the will of the people, but in ways that reflect interpreation of law. A majority is not automatically "right" and I'm proud to live in a country with a form of government that ensures that this will remain so.
Sam says: I appreciate your response
I appreciate your response and think you brought up a good point about the reason Judges are appointed instead of elected. This is not the case in most states, though, where Judges are actually elected.
The function of the judicial branch is to fairly interpret the law. I believe that in this case, the judicial branch over-stepped their boundaries and instead sought to make policy through their decision. I think it's a pretty big distortion of California's constitution to say than it allows for gay marriage. There is simply no precedent for this in the U.S. The decision they made relies on one of the core issues of the debate: the definition of the word marriage.
And that's the problem. One side says "Gay people can already get married, just like everyone else. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex willing to marry them." The other side says "Marriage is broken because it doesn't include us." The two definitions of marriage are mutually exclusive. Neither side is talking about the same thing at all.
I think the California code applies very much. Just because the "judicial branch" doesn't have "agency" in the name does not mean that it's not an agency of the state.
At any rate, I appreciate your input and am always interested in hearing well though out opposing viewpoints. I was careful in the article not to say which side of the debate I was on - its purpose is only to point out the irrational behavior of one side of the argument. I can be pro gay marriage and still think its supporters are acting like children or anti gay marriage and still think the same thing. I actually take a more moderate approach on the issue than either side because I realize what it's really about: acceptance.
Sam says: I am interested in hearing
I am interested in hearing on what other levels you feel this article is flawed.
Anonymous (not verified) says: I apologize for that
I apologize for that statement. The article is very well written if somewhat one sided.
Another way this article is flawed (not verified) says: So what about the 14th
So what about the 14th amendment? Equal protection under the law? Also I thought monogamy was the biggest threat to marriage according to mormons.
http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/homosexual_ruin.htm
Sam says: I think you missed the point
I think you missed the point of the article. It isn't about the validity of gay marriage, it is about the immature and nonsensical actions that one side of the argument has taken.
Post new comment