As election day nears (thankfully) several issues have been weighing heavily on my mind. One of them is California's proposition 8.
I am not a resident of California. Some people say Prop 8 - a proposal to amend California's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman - does not affect me. I believe it does. Deeply.
Unfortunately we live in a world where some claim that if you stand up for any belief - if you assert that there is such a thing as right and wrong - you must be intolerant and hateful. For some, there is no tolerance for morals. There is no tolerance for religious beliefs. There is no tolerance for those who believe there are still some sacred things in this world. I have found that those most loudly shouting for tolerance have very little of it to give.
Tolerance is not the acceptance of another persons beliefs or conduct. Tolerance does not condone or support another persons actions. Rather, tolerance is a love for the individual, despite differences. I have friends whose beliefs differ greatly from my own, and yet we remain friends because of our love for one another. I do not compromise my views and they do not compromise theirs, but we are still friends. That is tolerance. That is love.
On the issue of Prop 8, those opposed to it suggest that anyone who seeks to protect that which they hold sacred, those who won't compromise on what they see to be a fundamental institution of our society, must be hateful, intolerant, homophobics. The labels are ugly and untrue. I do not wish to deny civil liberties to anyone. In the state of California homosexual couples are granted the same civil rights and privileges as married couples. Then Prop 8 is not about rights, it is about redefining marriage. It is not about being "homophobic". It is about protecting a time-honored institution.
I have often thought that it is like a group insisting that they have the "right" to paint on the Mona Lisa. "No!" others insist, "It is beautiful, one of a kind, irreplaceable. There are many other canvases on which to paint. We would never deny you your right to paint. But please not on this canvas that we hold sacred!" "Ah-ha!", the opposition screams, "You want to deny us our right to do as we please. Da Vinci had the right to paint on that canvas. Why not us? You must hate us. You must be afraid of us. You are intolerant of us!" And so the arguments go until they are granted them the right to paint on the Mona Lisa and that masterpiece is changed forever.
Prop 8 is not about denying homosexual couples their rights. But to say that one group has a right to redefine an institution that has existed since the beginning of recorded history is to suggest that any group has the right to redefine the definition of any institution if it does not meet their desired specifications.
Furthermore, in the state of Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been legislated as legal, students are now taught this concept in schools - and it is deemed mandatory curriculum that parents do not need to be informed of prior to their children's instruction and that the children may not be exempt from. That state government has seen fit to regulate the moral education of its students with complete disregard to parental consent is both infuriating and frightening. Often when we speak of separation of church and state it is in reference to churches not being involved with state affairs. But as we have seen in Massachusetts with the closing of Catholic adoptions since they would not support same-sex couples, the state has decided that it has the right to regulate the churches.
Where do we cross the line? How far will this go?
What are the rights for those who wish to protect marriage? Must we watch everything we hold dear be changed in the name of tolerance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Excellent Post!! Thank you for putting into words the thoughts of my heart.
SPH-1
I have had many ofthe same ideas but you write it so beautifully. Thank you for your support of this very inportant issue.
Very well said, Christine. I really appreciate your thoughts.
Very good post. Thank you.
You are so awesome! I agree with you. This may actually help me in one of the seminary lessons coming up that will be on tolerance. Thank you for your insight.
Great post. My in laws have been fighting hard for Prop 8 in San Diego, and the I can't believe the hateful things they've had to deal with because of it.
Marilee
Well Said! I love your comparison to the painting on the mona lisa. It's so true. Let's hope things go well on Tuesday.
I love it! Thanks for your post. I have also felt the need to put those same thoughts to words. I hope you don't mind but I will quote you.
May I link to your blog from my blog, and maybe myspace and facebook? Let me know! Thansk!!
Well, I guess I will have to have tolerance on this issue. The last comment about adoptions really touches me. There are thousands of children needing loving homes. (I was one of those)I can't help but wonder how diffrent life would be if a child had a warm bed, food, and loving parents , no matter their sexual identity in our society. Rather than going from one home to another. Not to mention, This is the land of the free. I personaly don't agree with the decisions of same- sex partnerships, but I'm not going to fight them either.
Yes, we may have to agree to disagree, and that's ok.
While I do not want to get into a discussion about same-sex homes and adoptions at this time (a whole other can of worms) that's not the point I was making in this post. The point I was making is while you noted that we call America "the land of the free", who is it free for? Apparently not the more then 100+ year old Catholic charity. They were not free to operate according to their religious beliefs. And while I could understand a state adoption agency being legally bound by the same-sex marriage laws, to suggest that a religious organization must go against their teachings or be shut down (they chose to shut down) seems to me an infringement on the separation of church and state. And it makes me wonder what other religious organizations are going to be under fire for not compromising on their beliefs. What does freedom really mean?
Thank you for this post! I, too, have had many of the same thoughts. You write beautifully!
Thank you for your thoughtful, insightful comments Woodine. This is a complicated issue, and in all honesty I'm glad I don't live in CA or AZ so I still have time to mull it over. For example, I think your analogy of the Mona Lisa is an excellent summation of the "no on 8" point of view. This is something you hold dear. It's priceless, and it's in jeopardy. I can relate.
But I can also relate to the other side, and I'd like to suggest another analogy.
Suppose, instead of painting on the Mona Lisa, the other side wants to hang something else, perhaps one of Picasso's portraits of Dora Maar on the wall right next to the Mona Lisa. (I picked Dora Maar because she seemed to have the same stance and expression as Ms. Mona. But the choice of artwork/artist doesn't really matter. Take your pick.) Further, these Picasso advocates want to have Dora Maar declared a masterpiece with all the rights and privileges that come with such a designation. Just like the Mona Lisa.
In this analogy, then, proponents of gay marriage aren't nefarious vandals out to destroy everything you hold priceless and dear. They just want to be able to hang what they hold priceless and dear on the wall next to what you hold priceless and dear, in the gallery we all share.
Are there special rights and privileges that come with the "masterpiece" designation? Does Dora Maar deserve that rank? What are the boundaries of "the gallery" -- society, government, church? Will society/government/church soon be overrun with cubists? What will happen to Renoir, Monet, and Vermeer? Will we have to take them down?
OK, now I'm getting carried away. Obviously, this analogy is incomplete and imperfect. So I'll skip to the point:
Beneath it all, on both sides, are decent human beings struggling to protect the ideals and the people they love.
I truly do appreciate the kind and even-handed manner with which you've approached this topic. I've seen spite and ill-will on both sides, along with gross miss-characterizations, exaggerations, and all manner of illogical arguments. It's refreshing not to find those here.
So really, it's your own fault that I'm voicing my ambivalent dissent here. You're so darn nice and reasonable, I finally got up the guts.
The beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder. But we are not the curators for the museum. We are at most assistants to the curator. We may think we have the power to put up what ever paintings we want when we think He is not around, but at the end of the day, the Curator will say what is or isn't a masterpiece.
Boss, I appreciate your thoughts because they make me think, so I hope you don't mind two more of my cents. I can see your point - and I honestly don't think that many people on both sides of the arguments are malicious, but trying to protect what is important to them.
That being said, a Picasso is already hung up in California. In the Civil rights available, homosexual couples they have "hung up their painting" so to speak. So to me they are not hanging up something new, but changing something old.
My beef with this push for the redefinition of marriage and other complaints that the homosexual community has raised is that they are asking for tolerance uni-directionally. And all I have seen is destruction, not hanging up of another masterpiece. Like the Boy Scouts of America losing their venue in California because they would not compromise their moral standards. Or the Catholic church closing the adoption agency. Or parents losing the ability to be informed of the moral instruction of their children in public schools. None of that seems good. None of that seems like a positive outcome, another masterpiece, so to speak. And the problem with this movement is, unlike the civil rights movement in the 60's that related to a person's skin color, this is about sexual preference, and while there always should be tolerance and love, for the government to "legislate and legalize immorality" and impose that legislation on other people and organizations who believe differently seems to be nothing but destructive. They want to chose how they will live morally and then insist that no one can publicly disagree without lawsuits and more legislation. It is a uni-directional tolerance that is stripping the freedoms from people with a different set of morals. I have not seen anything positive come from the same-sex marriage legislation in Mass.
When Wood was in India he visited a temple there where they asked him not to take pictures to preserve what was sacred to them. He didn't tell them, "I'm sorry, it's not sacred to me and it would mean so much to me to take pictures here so I'm going to ignore your beliefs since they don't align with mine." Instead he recognized the significance of that temple to those people and respected that. That is what those for Prop 8 are asking for. Again, not denying civil rights (already granted), but protecting something sacred instead.
**This got really long, so if I'm not making much sense, please forgive me!
Boss, you are quite probably the most articulate and empathetic person ever. And that's just one of the reasons I love your guts so much.
Woodine mentioned: "So to me they are not hanging up something new, but changing something old." Cougarg also responded that "the Curator will say what is or isn't a masterpiece." These are completely legitimate points of view that I happen to agree with, but Boss' comment is intended to extend some empathy for those who approach the issue as incompatible with a governmentally recognized curator, and who do not agree that the definition of marriage is being changed. Boss points out that where you come down on the issue depends largely on the assumptions you carry into the discussion--assumptions that very well may not be shared by everyone.
To be sure, there are folks on both sides of this issue who do deserve the designation of "intolerant," and I believe there are those on both sides who in good faith believe the other side's best intentions will harm them. We each have a belief of which group is trying to "legislate and legalize [im]morality and impose that legislation on other people and organizations who believe differently." To the gay couples out there, it's the Mormons who are taking pictures in their temple.
It hurts my feelings to be called intolerant for my religious views, and it's a tragedy that religious freedoms are being sacrificed as a result of this issue. But not all gay marriage supporters are wagging their fingers at me or trying to take away those religious freedoms. I think it's important that folks on both sides of the issue avoid ascribing ill intent categorically on those with whom they have a disagreement.
I don't know who you are, but I sure do like you already. I'm late to the party on commenting on this, since the elections have come and gone and prop 8 passed, but I want to thank you for your eloquence in expressing that which I'm sure many of us find so infuriating. This was so very well expressed and written. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Post a Comment