The Mormon Church is asking its members to get involved in the upcoming fight in California to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage:
SALT LAKE CITY - Mormon church leaders will ask California members to join the effort to amend that state's constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.A June 20 letter sent to Mormon congregation bishops and signed by church president Thomas S. Monson and his two top counselors calls upon Mormons to donate "means and time" to the ballot measure. A note on the letter says it should be read during church services June 29, but it was published on several Internet Web sites Saturday.
Scott Trotter, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said today that the letter is authentic. Trotter declined to comment further, saying the letter states the church's reasons for getting involved.
The church will work with a coalition of churches and other conservative groups that put the California Marriage Protection Act on the Nov. 4 ballot to assure its passage, the letter states.
According to the Mormons, there are at least 750,000 Mormons in California. As a percentage of registered voters--there are nearly sixteen million, according to data from last year--this is a small number. But the Mormon Church has a history of being active in the fight against gay marriage, and of getting their members involved in states where the opportunity to pass laws against it exists.
A group of gay and lesbian Mormons and their supporters disagree with the Mormon Church's decision to get involved. On their website, Jeffrey S. Nielsen writes:
I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we've made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.
What I don't understand about Mr. Nielsen's argument is this: should religious people disenfranchise themselves every time a law on which their religion has some opinion comes up for a vote? Should religious citizens be disqualified--even voluntarily--from participation in these decisions, simply because they have religious views or opinions?
If so, then we're taking separation of Church and State to a whole new level, one which excludes religious believers in an unprecedented way. It's one thing to say that our nation shouldn't be guided by a single religion--it's another thing altogether to say that people whose consciences are formed by their religious beliefs shouldn't come together with others who share their conclusions, if not necessarily their faith, to build a political consensus and work for the achievement of their political goals--just like any other group of people in America.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
kursten,
" By allowing gay marriage marriage is forever altered for those who “had it first”"
Ya mean like whites only marryin' whites? Or do ya mean for King Solomon and his hundreds of wives (not to mention concubines)? I'm pretty sure both of those examples "had it" way before you got married to 1 man of the same (or another?) colour.
"one might even say that this alteration is forced upon them"
If one did, one would not be telling the truth.
"Once marriage is redefined in this way it must be addressed at every level, everything’s up for grabs."
Ya mean like once blacks were allowed to marry whites, America was inundated with marriages to animals, children, plants, desks, multiple partners? Those would be examples of 'everything being up for grabs once marriage was redefined' - and they aren't true or real either.
"From the education of our children regarding literature with heterosexual themes, (ie fairytales), to separate sex bathrooms everything will be challenged."
Speaking of fairytales ...
"What I can’t understand is how the right to make your sex life public became equated with the right to the pursuit of happiness."
Is your sex life "public" when you admit to being heterosexually married?
"I am not being crude."
True. You're just being non-sequiturish.
"why is having a public thumbs up to your sex life so important?"
I ask the exact same thing of anyone who is heterosexualy married.
"Religion as a whole is not suppressing gays in America."
Demonstrably false. Do you not read newspapers? Watch TV/Internet news?
"ALL religions have a right to hold to their tenants"
Tenets, shurely. But again, you have typed a falsehood. Those religions that do wish to marry same-sex couples are prevented - by law - from holding to their tenets.
"both “parties” have a right and perhaps an obligation to stand up for what they believe."
People sure do seem to get upset when I stand up for what I believe.
"But to say that not being allowed to take what has belonged to others for all of history"
It hasn't "belonged" to heterosexuals; only heterosexuals were allowed to partake. That is simply unjust. As for "all of history", you haven't shown much awareness of it.
"simply because you want it"
No. Simply because the constitution says all citizens are to be treated equally before the law.
"is unfair and suppressive"
You don't seem to know much about unfairness OR suppression.
"Gay people should take a page from the religious right's play book. Since religion is a choice, and has demonstratable harmful effects, they should campaign to prevent the legal recognition of marriages that aren't carried out in a secular fashion."
But Jay, we aren't out to deny anyone the right (or the rite) to marry. And you seem to forget that there are lots of gay people of faith (between 6-7 out of 10 of us are members of a faith community), and some of us (me, for instance, and a lot of others) are getting married in our churches and synagogues and temples. And the 'religious' 'right' just hate that.
"The Church frames this in terms of the natural law ..."
Perhaps your
"Same-sex marriage, which is never “necessary”"
If you could please delineate under what circumstances heterosexual marriage is "necessary", you might have a modicum of believability.
Perhaps your church does. I assure you that in many, many Churches, the phrase "natural law" is never uttered.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.