Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Sundance film furthers division between gay, LDS communities

With last week’s Sundance film “8: The Mormon Proposition,” the heated and drawn out debate on gay-marriage is again in full swing. The film follows a young gay couple who are fighting for the recognition of their marriage. As usual, the LDS Church is cast as the antagonist because it urged members to donate their time and money to passing California’s Proposition 8. A yes vote reversed a court mandated law allowing gays to marry.

Ironically, many Mormons feel the same discrimination as gays. This was clearly manifest during the Prop 8 fallout when Mormons were bullied out of jobs, temple worship was postponed by obstructive protest rallies, meeting houses were vandalized and the Church was and still is the butt of late night jokes.

Even the Super Bowl has been targeted by inflammatory rhetoric. A gay-dating website wanted to air a 30-second commercial showing two men watching the game, brushing hands in the potato chip bowl and then engaging in a passionate make-out session. The company said CBS is discriminating against them by not airing the ad, when in fact the company couldn’t pay for the ad by verifying its credit status.

Often forgotten in the Prop 8 debate is that the decision was not made by the Mormons, but by California voters. In fact, every time the issue has been put to a popular vote across the country, thirty-one times in a row, same-sex marriage has been rejected.

Yet, in their persistent frustration, many pro-gay debaters continue using politically charged words like “hate,” “bigot” and “attack” to demand acceptance. This only serves to drive a deeper wedge at the expense of positive dialogue that will eventually lead to more rights.

The forthcoming 2010 US Census will provide better statistics, but the 2000 Census reported 1.5 percent of Americans consider themselves gay. Redefining the term “marriage” will open churches up to discriminatory lawsuits that will cost millions of dollars and change their protected religious practices. This not only violates the Constitution’s first amendment, but bowing to a small minority shouting over a loud media megaphone is absurd.

Most Christian, Islamic, and Jewish churches fight battles against immoral actions, not people. Churches believe that homosexuality is a choice and wrong (per God) because it is a question of morality. Marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by the US government and shouldn’t be viewed as a negotiable right. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. It also tells states they do not need to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage.

Before you type your comments calling me an intolerant bigot, let me state the position I buy into. The term ‘anti-gay’ is completely wrong and hateful. Tolerance and striving to build others who are willing to meet you halfway should always be guiding principles in our relationships.

All men and women are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This guiding creed has not been accomplished when gay people are beaten and killed for the lifestyle they’ve chosen to pursue. It hasn’t been accomplished when life has become so dark they take their life because they don’t know how to live in a society that hates them.

It should be illegal to discriminate against gay individuals in housing, employment matters and other limited rights. We shouldn’t oppose civil unions for gays, as long as those rights don't infringe on religious liberties. Giving the word ‘marriage’ to gays infringes on the religious liberties of those who practice traditional marriage.

Lines need to be drawn to protect the freedoms we all enjoy. An open mind of course is important, but not to the point where your moral compass goes out the window. If giving "equal rights" to one party infringes on the rights of another, then it's not good policy or legislation. This essentially unravels the singular purpose American colonists founded this nation and crafted the Constitution. When you change the definition of marriage, you allow lawyers and judges to begin pushing churches around.

No comments: