Let's have a worldwide walk for families - what do you say?

As excited as I am for a Barack Obama presidency, a significant part of me is sad for the political marginalization of the evangelical, Christian right. There's no doubt in my mind that they did it to themselves (I jumped ship as soon as they got too crazy, although I really sympathized with them through the 1990's).

One of the big problems in this world is that we're going around demonizing the wrong thing.

This Book of Mormon scripture, Moroni 7: 12-15 I love, here's the quote:


12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is bevil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.


So, in my view, we are completely missing the boat in acting like Democrats are evil or Republicans are evil (granted much of that talk is hyperbole, but just work with me a little bit).

So, in light of today's worldwide prop 8 protests this strikes me as a classic case of one side calling (or at least implying) a group of generally good people evil. I'm not saying that it doesn't strike both ways on this issue, it does. But this blog is only focused on today's protest and the general backlash to prop 8.

This article makes me particularly sad and a bit angry. While I'm not opposed to peaceful protests, fine. But I only wish there was a little more engagement and dialogue between the two sides. It makes me sad and angry that there isn't. And it makes me even more sad and more angry that people have been singled out and punished for putting their support behind proposition 8. That an opposing point of view on a complex issue is not tolerated.

One of the primary arguments made by the church for prop 8 is that it was really not an anti-gay point of view but a pro-family point of view. Well, why not have a little thoughtful discussion on this to find common ground? Why try to ramrod opposing point of views on each other.

Surely, can't we all agree that we need a society with strong families. Surely, most people would accept the notion that children raised by both biological parents who love them are better off. I realize this is not always possible, and that step-parents can fill in and do a wonderful job when necessary, but isn't it obvious that that is second best, not first.

To hit this point home even better, listen to this excellent podcast from "This American Life" entitled "Switched At Birth". In the show it describes a scenario in which two baby girls are switched in the hospital by accident, only find out what happened well into their adult lives.

The two families involved in the switch are extremely different from each other, and as a result the two girls switched really struggle in a family not truly their own. When they do find out, its interesting to see how the dynamics change. I can't summarize it well, and this issue is complicated, so you really have to listen to it for yourself.

But at a deep level, I just get the sense that my kids, my wife's kids are ours, and we are theirs. Their DNA runs through us, and ours through them. They look like us, they act like us, and we them. Assuming we are capable, loving, and caring parents we are, by far, the most qualified to raise our own kids.

But obviously, we live in a messy world, and it's getting messier all the time. Its harder and harder for families to stay in tact. And its because the traditional heterosexual family is in such bad shape that other types of family situations have a stronger place in our society. In fact, we need other family situations to step in where parents have completely dropped the ball. We need good and effective step-parents to step in an fill a role where one parent left his (or less commonly hers), we need grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, to step in and help a single mother raise a child, and yes, we need more people adopting children, providing stability and nurturing. There are too many kids in foster care.

But ideally, we also need more heterosexual couples to come together in a bond of matrimony, love, and commitment. And when they commit to sex with each other, when they commit to an act that can bring life into this world, they also commit (as they do) to raise, nurture and love those same children and each other until the bitter end, no matter what the trial or struggle.

I believe the reason the Mormon church has come out so strongly in favor of proposition 8 is because of the notion that the way children are brought into this world matters. In fact the act of creating life is central to our religion. Families matter. Children matter. Parents matter. To them, to me, this is not an anti-gay belief, its a pro-family belief.

Isn't there room for common ground in this framework of belief? I'm open to discuss legal policy that will work for you and for me, are you?

Obama and Homosexual Marriage Part II

Ok, I got some feedback through my wife that my previous post was confusing. Just where did I stand? And I admit that I probably did not state my position clearly enough. One, homosexual marriage is a divisive, touchy issue, there are strong, probably irreconcilable differences that exist between the extremes on both sides.

But let me reiterate the point I was trying to make:

The Stake President said two basic things (in my interpretation) on Sunday.

1) Vote yes on the proposition to amend the Arizona Constitution to limit the legal definition of marriage between one male and one female.

2) Show an increase in love and tolerance for all people including the homosexual community.

Obviously, point one was emphasized on Sunday, but point two was just as, if not more important than point one. In fact what are the two great commandments anyway? To love: love God and love our neighbors.

The primary point of my first post was that Barack Obama more than anyone one on the Republican ticket supports the spirit of both points in this way:

1) He supports limiting the legal definition of marriage between a man and a woman. I heard him make this exact point in the primary debates hosted by the Gay and Lesbian community. I am not sure he would go so far as supporting a constitutional amendment, but he supports the underlying issue all the same.

2) He supports any action that will enhance equal opportunity for all people which include allowing gay couples to enjoy some of the same legal benefits that married people receive. I am not sure what the specifics are, but he laid out two specific points in his acceptance speech, that gay couples should be allowed hospital rights for their partner, and that they should be able to live lives free of discrimination. I support both of these positions.

But in my view, those two points essentially follow the basic points made by the Stake President.

I think Barak Obama and Joe Biden are by far the better alternatives in this presidential election. And this issue is just one example.

The extreme right of the political party, which in many symbolic ways Sarah Palin represents (and by the way, all Sarah Palin is to anyone right now is a symbol, since nobody really knows anything substantive about her), have adopted a marginally (and not so marginal) hateful politics toward the homosexual community.

The Republican party has exploited that by getting votes for this and other "moral" issues, then proceed to run the government without lifting a finger to really move the law in any significant ways to address these issues, but then are given a virtual free pass by this same Republican base to run a largely corrupt government where the interests of the few are catered to at the expense of the many.

Quite simply, the Republican part has been in power too long, it has done too much damage, and change is needed. And I'm sorry, but John McCain is not change. Sarah Palin is definitely not change.

Regarding my view on this issue. Quite simply, I will vote yes for proposition 102 and I will cast an emphatic vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for president. I encourage you to do the same.

Obama and Homosexual Marriage

Last Sunday, our Stake President came for a visit. In Sacrament meeting he encouraged all adults possible to meet for the first fifteen minutes of Sunday school so he could make an announcement. So, needless to say, I was anxious to see what he would have to say.

So, here it goes: he announced that the church was taking a stand in favor for a proposition that will be on the Arizona state ballot this November involving adding an Arizona state constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The Stake President was careful to say that our church does not usually get involved in political issues, but with this issue there was a compelling reason for it. He didn't spend time making the case, but just encouraged people to study up on the issue and to get behind the proposition. He did carefully caution that we should be loving and tolerant (I'm paraphrasing) to all people, but that this amendment was needed to protect the family. He vaguely referenced some data he studied regarding the consequences of the legalization in other states and in other countries.

There was a similar proposition in 2006 which actually went further than this one, removing some number of benefits from unmarried couples, gay or straight, which went too far for too many people and was defeated.

In regards to the data referenced by our Stake President, I'm not sure what it was, but this post seemed to make a pretty compelling summary of some of the most poignant consequences. The case is not so much that legalizing homosexual marriage destroys heterosexual families, which argument seems hard to defend, but that, depending how the law is applied, can infringe upon the rights of religions to worship how they please.

I don't have my mind wrapped around this issue completely yet, but definitely marriage is something where religious views and legal definitions are very tightly coupled. In our church, one of the most important laws is the law of chastity, where sexual relations are confined between a couple legally and lawfully married. So a religious commandment is tied directly to a legal definition.

And that's significant when you consider some of the examples sited in the article:

Example One: The Methodist church loses their tax exempt status for a worship space they owned where a lesbian couple wanted to get married but were refused to do so by the Methodist church. The couple sued and the state ruled in favor for the lesbian couple.

Other Examples:
"Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its dormitory for married couples. A Lutheran school has been sued for expelling two lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned adoptions services in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case and a doctor who refused to provide in vitro fertilization to a lesbian in California is likely to lose his case before the California Supreme Court."

Another Example:
A Christian photographer who refused to photograph a lesbian wedding is sued and loses because of discrimination.

Now, how does Barack Obama's position relate to this? Well, he said it quite nicely in his acceptance speech, thus:

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

That simple phrase in bold aligns quite nicely with my own views. I have also heard Obama state that he is against the legalization of homosexual marriage but for legal provisions for those couples to receive many if not all of the same legal benefits that married couples receive.

I don't believe this statement is a capitulation one bit, but fits in perfectly with my religious leaders assessment that we should protect the traditional definition of marriage, while at the same time we need to be compassionate and loving to everyone.

I realize that a many gay couples would take extreme offense to this compromise, that to not enjoy the same marital status as a heterosexual couple would be considered extremely prejudicial. I also know that many if not most people use these sorts of statutes and propositions and amendments to justify hateful and hurtful feelings to groups of people they don't know at all. Also, I know the Republican party has used this issue as well as abortion to manipulate their base for votes, even as they drive our government straight into the ground.

I hope those Mormon voters of Arizona, even as they will vote yes for this proposition, will also remember that Barack Obama more so than the Republican party, more so than especially the likes of Sarah Palin (McCain voted against a recent attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban homosexual marriage) believe in and understand the deep feelings of both sides of this very divisive issue.

The middle ground (and the right ground) is compassion, constraint, and respect, knowing that there are differences on homosexual marriage and that surely we all can agree that our gay friends and neighbors should be able to live lives free of discrimination. But also, that same homosexual community should also respect the fact that there are many people with legitimate and deeply held religious convictions about marriage, sexuality, and family that may preclude the inclusion of homosexual relationships. That our laws should respect and protect someone against discrimination, but at the same time, respect and honor a person's right to worship and behave according to their own faith.

The interesting thing about this issue and abortion is that they both involve our ability to produce children. And that reproduction has both deeply held religious connotations and legal consequences. A society simply cannot separate the two cleanly in a way that is satisfying for everyone.

On abortion, when does life exist, or to put the matter more succinctly, when does the fetus have a soul? Or more legally, when does the fetus become a baby with rights to life and liberty?

On homosexual marriage, I think many of our marriage laws involve the recognition that strong societies have to be made up of strong families, where the majority of children are brought into the world and loved and raised by the same parents that share their DNA.

So for many religions, the case for marriage and family is not meant to be an anti-gay statement, merely a pro-family one.

But the bottom line is that religious freedom and individual civil liberties are both involved, and that it is Barack Obama who has most eloquently expressed and seems to believe the important balance that must be gained on both sides of this divisive issue.