California's Proposition 8

This is something I wrote a while ago and posted on my family blog. I moved it to this one because it's more in line with what this blog is about. Besides that, it is pretty controversial and won't win me many friends, so in the spirit of philosophical honesty, I thought it would be a good start.

California's Proposition 8

The protests that have been taking place all around the country regarding the passing of Proposition 8 (limiting the definition of marriage to include only one man and one woman) have caused me quite a bit of concern. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

Since so many of my dear friends are very involved in (and very angry about) the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, and since so much of that anger is directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(of which I am a devout member) for supporting it, let me just present another side that you may not have considered...First, contrary to what many would like you to believe, this issue has NOTHING to do with hatred or bigotry, at least not from those who have a real grasp of what this issue is about. Anyone who claims to be a devout Christian cannot at the same time promote hatred towards their fellow man(or woman). It would be in direct conflict with one of the most important doctrines of Christ. And the majority of the people who support this amendment are devoutly religious, mostly Christian. The ONLY logical reason to support this amendment is religious, so those who aren't that devout in a specific faith shouldn't particularly care one way or another how marriage is defined.

This issue has everything to do with protection of religious freedom. Marriage is not, and has never been, a state institution. it is a religious ceremony that is only truly significant because it was instituted by God. It has been "adopted" by most governments of the world, over time, as the most efficient way to regulate it's citizens for the purposes of taxes, record keeping, etc. Additionally, in the middle ages in Europe, the church and the state virtually became one, causing the religious ceremony of marriage to be completely intertwined with the function of the State.

Until now, that hasn't been a problem for the majority, because most people agreed on the definition of marriage. And because such attitudes have been held in common for so long, there was no need to address this issue in the law. However, over the past 10 plus years, that status quo has begun to change. Obviously, attitudes have changed on the morality of homosexuality. Because of that, there have been cases in which people who hold a religious belief about a particular issue are being forced, by virtue of anti-discrimination law and the courts, to act in ways that are in direct conflict with what they believe.

If marriage can be defined as two men or two women, how do certain religious leaders avoid being sued for discrimination for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? How do individuals avoid certain professional situations that violate their religious beliefs about marriage? What about the fertility doctor who doesn't want to assist a gay couple in having a child because she believes that it is wrong? What about a photographer who would be uncomfortable photographing a wedding between two men?

These situations are becoming more common as the moral status quo changes in our country. This amendment is an attempt to address this issue before it gets to be a terrible, hateful conflict. Unfortunately, because of our inability to be collectively reasonable in our dialogue with each other, that is happening anyway. Right now we are without precedent and are feeling our way in the dark as to how to handle these issues. This amendment is designed to protect people who hold strong religious views about marriage from being forced to do things that go against that belief.

Now, I know that some of you are thinking - So what? That belief is wrong. But before you jump on that bandwagon, stop and think. The whole point of freedom of religion is to protect everyone's right to practice what they believe, even if others don't agree with it. Let's not forget the Salem witch trials. Remember, marriage is, first and foremost, a religious ceremony. Until now, it has been allowed to exist as a state institution for the convenience of the government and the populace. But now that the commonly held beliefs on marriage are being challenged, we have to take it out and examine it and see it for what it really is in order to keep from violating freedom of religion.

You may not understand why people like me feel so strongly about marriage, but the fact that it is such a central part of my religion makes it imperative that my rights to practice that belief the way I see fit are protected.

I know that many of you who read this will probably be angry that I hold this view, and I'm sorry for that. It is not my intention to offend anyone, and the thought of creating a rift between myself and friends who I love and care for deeply causes me great heartache. But I have to be true to what I believe, even if that belief isn't very popular. Let me assure you again - this issue is NOT about hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc., at least not from my end. It pains me that this issue has become about that instead of being an opportunity to have an intelligent, respectful conversation about how to deal with our differences. Here's hoping that someday we will get to that point...