It was with great interest that I read the Guest View Friday
Jan. 15;
”
Proposition 8 is back, again.
”
I was wondering if we would finally hear a well reasoned
argument regarding the LDS’ position regarding the
”
defense of marriage.
”
I was not impressed.
Not impressed with Guest View’s ‘defense of marriage’ column
To the Editor,
It was with great interest that I read the Guest View Friday Jan. 15; “Proposition 8 is back, again.” I was wondering if we would finally hear a well reasoned argument regarding the LDS’ position regarding the “defense of marriage.” I was not impressed. That Ms. Faulk is concerned about lawsuits against photographers as a central argument against same sex marriage is just plain silly and probably disingenuous. Pretending that parents somehow lose the right to pull their kids away from curricula that they find offensive in the public schools is equally silly. Parents always have the right to be involved with their children’s education to virtually any degree they choose.
However, what I find most disturbing about the piece is her apparent misunderstanding of the constitutional phrase: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” She makes a common mistake in misunderstanding the use of the word “respecting.” “Respecting” here doesn’t mean we are forced to “respect” another spiritual/religious orientation. Rather “respecting” means: “having to do with.” In other words, it is unconstitutional to make laws that create favored religions or spiritual status. This is what the Founding Fathers were concerned with. They were not concerned with protecting religion from the people, they were greatly concerned with protecting the people from the tyranny of religion; this being the basis of much suffering in historical Europe. However, it is the “Tyranny of Religion” that the author advocates when she, and those agreeing with her, attempts to the seal the legal status of “marriage” to the providence of only certain “approved” consenting couples. And, please remember that marriage involves legal “consent.” Consent can only be given by those with legal status to enter into contracts (animals and children need not apply, with all due respect to former Sen. Rick Santorum).
Ms. Faulk says that she (and LDS, one assumes) “respects each other’s morals and values,” but in the same breath would legislate against the rights of literally millions of Americans to exercise their personal and/or religious desires should they wish to marry. Once again reasoning, by analogy, that the issue for her is that houses of worship, like wedding photographers, would somehow be forced to participate in nuptial events against their wills. This is nonsense. Does anyone really believe that a church would be forced to perform a ceremony at odds with the tenets of its religious views? Will Catholics be required to perform Jewish weddings and Mormons be forced to perform Muslim weddings in this strange new world from which she wishes to be protected?
I say let’s keep it real. I think most people who believe as Ms. Faulk does generally view homosexuality as a sin. Plain and simple. All these arguments are just an attempt to obfuscate the simple truth that you find homosexual behavior immoral and believe that God does not approve of same-sex unions. That is fine with me if you believe that. However, our Constitution is here to protect us from this tyranny of religion. No one gets to impose their religious views on others without permission to do so; and especially not the government.
David Schnittman, Morgan Hill
Guest columnist has respect, but her conclusions are faulty
Dear Editor,
Christine, I thank you for expressing your opinions on the subject of Proposition 8. I disagree with your conclusions completely though. You seem to be a very accomplished young lady and I wish you the greatest success in the future. I hope that as you gain life experience that you will be able to see this issue from another perspective though.
I am a 47-year-old disabled woman who has been with the same amazing woman for nine years now. Like so many in this country, we are a blended family. Between us we have five children and six grandchildren. We are far from the only gay or lesbian couple with children in this state. I promise you that trying to explain to a little girl why her grandmas are not allowed to get married is a difficult and painful thing. I too am trying to protect children and grandchildren, mine as well as the children of others whose right to marriage was taken away.
You discussed the predicament of the LDS church. Nothing has been taken away from you though. Just as nothing was taken away from you in the brief time that gays and lesbians were allowed to marry. Nothing is taken away from you by the thousands whose same-sex marriage still stands. You still had all the same rights you enjoy today. I cannot say the same.
You talk about the church fearing being sued for not performing same-sex marriages. Even if I were to marry a man, I would not be allowed to marry in a Mormon church, as I am not a member. I also would not be allowed to marry in many other religions because I do not follow their teachings. The true difference here is that if you married in your church it would be recognized by the state, while if I married in say the Metropolitan Community Church it would not. As you stated, “Marriage licenses, allowing those of a faith to legally marry as they believe is right, are now at stake. What happened to the United States Constitution, which reads, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?’ Can one state decide that it is exempt from this unalienable right? No. No it cannot.” So, which side is truly showing religious intolerance?
You stated that the LDS church is actively trying to protect marriage. If that were truly the case I would think that they would have been spending their time and money trying to repeal no fault divorce laws. Those laws actually end marriages. If it is actually about morality, then why isn’t the church working to repeal the rights of prisoners such as murderers and pedophiles from getting married? So maybe this is more about tolerance than you realize.
You state that we have the same rights as married couples, yet you acknowledge that “unions and marriages are not and cannot be the same.” Separate but equal is only separate. All we want is marriage equality.
Susan Lucas, San Martin
