Friday, November 14, 2008

In the Face of Hatred

Editor's Note: As some of you know, Meridian was hacked into last week, apparently by Prop 8 opponents, and in the place of our content was placed a homosexual pornographic film. It has been an interesting week.
asdf asdf asdf sdaaaaa
The Chinese homily, "May you live in interesting times," has its roots in a curse, not a blessing.
As I said, it has been an interesting week.


The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 (the proposed amendment to the California constitution defining marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman) built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday's election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8's slim passage into law.

I am a Los Angeles Police Department detective supervisor running a sex crimes unit covering the western quarter of the city, which also includes the area where the Los Angeles temple is located. I have a fantastic crew of 20 detectives who are an amazing mixture of races and sexes. I have several detectives who are openly gay or lesbian. This orientation has nothing to do with their efficiency as investigators. I deeply respect and like these individuals. I enjoy working with them. My life is often in their hands when we serve high risk search or arrest warrants. I trust them implicitly.

Obviously, the types of crimes we investigate bring us into regular contact with victims who are of an alternative lifestyle orientation. It is incumbent upon us that our compassion for these victims be no less than for victims who are heterosexual.

Hard Choices

Working in such an environment, I found taking a position on Proposition 8 to be difficult. Even though I chose to follow the direction of our Church leaders in my voting decision, it was extremely hard for me to place myself on the line when it came to actively working to ensure the passage of Proposition 8.

Still, I watched in amazement as my fellow ward and stake members worked tirelessly, committing themselves full-heartedly to the cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Their faith strengthened mine, and I committed to participate in a sign waving public rally sponsored by our stake to be held at a local intersection.
By following through on this commitment, I found I had a greater stake in the battle than I had ever thought. I learned a number of hard and harsh lessons. And in the events following the election and passage of Proposition 8, I felt great anguish forcing me to drop to my knees in prayer – eventually coming to a more personal understanding of the Love of Christ and what he expects from me.

During the Proposition 8 rally, as I stood with my wife and friends waving Yes On 8 signs and waving to the passing rush hour traffic, I learned several things. I learned supporters of both Yes On 8 and No On 8 liked to honk their horns. I learned the way to tell the difference is the No On 8 supporters usually accompanied their horn honking with an obscene gesture or a string of obscenities. They also liked to swerve their cars toward the children on the curb.

I learned when we didn't engage in argument with the No On 8 supporters who intermingled with us in the intersection, they became enraged, red faced, and fit to burst.

I have no doubt Yes On 8 supporters both from our church and other churches engaged at some point in the shouting matches during the numerous rallies and demonstrations across the state. However, on the evening of my participation, I was amazed by the cool and non-confrontational way the Yes On 8 supporters conducted themselves.

I learned at the rally several of our ward members had received hate mail after their names, religious affiliation, contribution mounts, and addresses were published on a website inciting No On 8 supporters to target the listed individuals. Their houses and cars had been vandalized, their campaign support signs stolen, and opposition signs planted in their place.
When I returned home after the rally, I had a huge headache and my stomach was in knots. I am not a fan of confrontation, and the noise of the horn honking, both pro and con, and the divisive atmosphere inherent in the volatile situation had taken its toll. Still, after praying with my wife, I felt calmer and was pleased we had chosen to participate. While our efforts were minuscule compared to the hours of service to the cause provided by others, we had at least jumped down from the fence and done something.

Then I saw the latest No On 8 television commercial.
aaaaaaa
Tolerance?

Supposedly produced by an independent group not affiliated with the official No On 8 campaign, the thirty second commercial spot shows two scruffy male white actors portraying Mormon missionaries who force their way into the well-kept home of a married lesbian couple.

"Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," one says.
"We're here to take away your rights," says his companion.

The missionaries then rip the wedding rings from the women's fingers and ransack the house until they find the women's marriage license, which they destroy.
aaaaaaa
"Hey, we have rights," one of the women says.
"Not if we can help it," answers a missionary.

Moving outside the residence, one of the missionaries smugly says, "That was easy."
Flexing his muscles, his companion asks, "What do we want to ban next?"

While I was appalled by the commercial, I was even more appalled both MSNBC and The Comedy Channel happily took money to broadcast this overtly hate filled vignette. I cannot imagine a similar commercial, targeted at any other religious or racial group, not being considered a hate crime with a civic outcry for prosecution.
My hackles were beginning to rise in a distinctly unchristian way. However, the fun was just beginning.
Election Day And Aftermath

Election day in California saw numerous No On 8 activists distributing literature and vocalizing at polling sites in clear violation of election laws. Police were called, 100 yard distances from the polling places were paced off, yet the agitation continued.

Despite these efforts, Proposition 8 obtained a slim majority (52.5% to 47.5%). Exit polls showed the proposition was supported by 7 of 10 Black voters, a majority of Latino voters, and by people with children under the age of 18 still at home. Clearly, it was supported by all people who believed marriage is a special and protected institution.


The day after the election, spontaneous protests sprung up in West Hollywood – a small residential community, with a large gay and lesbian population, located within Los Angeles County , but just outside Los Angeles city borders. The protests did not have a particular focus or target other than outrage as they strayed outside the confines of West Hollywood and into Beverly Hills , Hollywood , and West Los Angeles . Several arrests were made, but the seething anger at the passage of Proposition 8 was not dampened.

On Thursday, however, two days after the election, rumors began to be picked up by LAPD of a large protest organized by gay and lesbian activists and their supporters to be staged outside the Los Angeles LDS temple on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Los Angeles.

LAPD has 22 geographic Areas divided between 4 administrative Bureaus . My investigative unit is attached to Operations-West Bureau – which has responsibility for the area where the Los Angeles temple grounds are located. We operate out of a squadroom across from the Bureau's administrative offices. In such proximity, I was in a position to observe the command post set up in the Bureau offices to monitor the actions of the field command post charged with keeping the already illegal (no permits) protest peaceful.
aaaaaaaa
What I learned by watching and listening shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. During my 30+ year tenure, the LAPD as an organization has made great professional strides in the internal battle against sexual harassment, sexual orientation harassment, and racism. While there are still those in civil liberty organizations who contest we are still guilty of racially profiling on the streets (difficult to imagine when our department is so thoroughly integrated at this point in time), organizationally there is little or no tension remaining in these areas.

In the Bureau command post there was a large screen television displaying scenes from the protest outside the Los Angeles temple.. Imagine my surprise, when angry protesters began rushing the closed temple gates, and I heard an officer in the command post say, "I hope they burn that place to the ground."

Imagine my even stronger surprise when another officer replied, "They better hope they don't get through the gates, because the Mormons have an army in a bunker under the temple that will come out and kill them all."

Really? My temple recommend must not be of a high enough clearance to get me into that part of the temple.

I'm now doing a slow burn. Not only am I watching a sacred building under siege from 2,500 angry people shouting, "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE," and carrying signs proclaiming MORMON HATERS and LOVE NOT HATE, I'm listening to other police officers who agree with the protesters or have the most imaginative fantasies about blood atonement armies hidden under the temple (exactly how do we feed them, drill them, get them in and out without anybody seeing, or are they all in a state of suspended animation until needed?).
I want to emphasize these were not officers or detectives from my own unit – who are all aware of my Mormon faith. Those in my unit who disagree with me over this issue are respectfully tolerant, as I am respectfully tolerant of their opposite beliefs.

Tolerance, as Orson Scott Card recently pointed out, is indicative of disagreement. It is not a battle we choose to fight amongst ourselves. Most of us have known each other for a long time and are either embracing of, or oblivious to, our differences – divisiveness has no place in the types of investigations we conduct.

The Mob

The worst, however, was yet to come. The temple presidency made a decision to close the temple for the evening. The right decision, but since when do we as Americans stand by – no matter what our religion – while access to a place of worship is forced to close down because of aggressive outside influences.
asdfasdfaaa
The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground. Police intervened and arrests were made, but the fact this was allowed to happen at all was appalling.
Other supporters of Yes On 8 drove slowly by the protesters with Yes On 8 signs attached to their cars and pickups sparking other violent confrontations.

A friend of mine, watching the same scenes play out on the television, called and said he felt like he wanted to go down to the temple with a baseball bat and begin swinging at the demonstrators. I must admit, the natural man in me agreed.

In actuality, the scenes on the television, literally drove me to my knees in prayer for the safety of the temple, the members, and our church.. A lesson I have learned several times before, caused me to expand my prayers to include those who were opposing us for they are not our enemies – they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Appropriate Response

In the face of hatred, how are we to feel about this focused attack upon our church? An attack launched not because we are the only supporters of Proposition 8, but because we have been the most visible and financially supportive entity in the battle. We are an easy target.

In a recent article on Christian Courage , Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote,

"I would say that one of mortality's great tests comes when our beliefs are questioned or criticized. In such moments, we may want to respond aggressively –to put up our dukes . But these are important opportunities to step back, pray, and follow the Savior's example. Remember, Jesus Himself was despised and rejected by the world. And in Lehi's dream, those coming to the Savior also endured 'mocking and pointing … fingers' (1 Nephi 8:27). 'The world hath hated [my disciples],' Jesus said, 'because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world' (John 17:14).

But when we respond to our accusers as the Savior did, we not only become more Christlike, we invite others to feel His love and follow Him as well

"To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula. The Savior responded differently in every situation. When He was confronted by wicked King Herod, He remained silent. When He stood before Pilate, He bore a simple and powerful testimony of His divinity and purpose. Facing the moneychangers who were defiling the temple, He exercised His divine responsibility to preserve and protect that which was sacred.. Lifted up upon a cross, He uttered the incomparable Christian response: 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34)."

We have often been instructed to love our enemies, and despite the current horror of our trials, this is no time to do differently.

As I write this (Friday, November 7, 2008), plans are being made by the LAPD to respond to another larger protest/demonstration being planned by No On 8 supporters to be staged in front of the Los Angeles temple on Saturday.
aaaaaaaaaa
This is interesting since Saturday is my stake's day in the temple. For some weeks now, we have been encouraging families to come together to the temple on Saturday to participate in ordinances.

How do we respond to hatred disguised by the adversary as tolerance? Our stake president has talked to the temple presidency who has assured him the temple will be open for business as usual. There are eight weddings scheduled on the grounds. Will we be able to get to the temple without being molested or our vehicles vandalized? We must place our faith in the Lord and proceed.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Challenges to our faith are not new. Nor are they likely to go away anytime soon. But, as Elder Hales reminds us, "True disciples of Christ see opportunity in the midst of opposition. We can take advantage of such opportunities in many ways: a kind letter to the editor, a conversation with a friend, a comment on a blog, or a reassuring word to one who has made a disparaging comment. We can answer with love those who have been influenced by misinformation and prejudice – who are 'kept from the truth because they know not where to find it' (D&C 123:12). I assure you that to answer our accusers in this way is never weakness. It is Christian courage in action."

Lessons Learned
Clearly there are lessons to be learned from the current unrest:

Tolerance is not agreement and should not be a one way street. However, we must still remain tolerant of those who are intolerant of us.
aaaaaaaaa
Recognize the adversary at work here – making good seem bad and evil seem good.

We can only be disciples of Christ when we respond to adversity in a Christlike manner. To do less opens our actions to the influence of the adversary and hurts us even more.

We should never take for granted the opportunities we have to gather together in worship.
aaaaaaaaaa
We should never put off the opportunity to attend the temple.

For these valuable things can be disrupted and possibly even closed to us – if not permanently, then at least on a temporary basis.
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
Pray. Often. Don't forget to include those who are set against you.

And finally, have no doubt President Monson knows where all of this is leading. He will surely reveal the knowledge to us on the Lord's timetable. Meanwhile, we must support and trust him, his inspired councilors, and our inspired local leaders in our actions. Their actions of Christian courage will be our examples.

7 comments:

Arica said...

thank you for that. it is always refreshing to hear a very mature perspective on this matter.

and besides, it is definitely clear now more than ever in our day that 'we are a peculiar people.'
..and i've never been more proud. :)

Allison said...

Thanks for posting Becca. What a time we are in now.

Merkley Jiating said...

I feel so sick when I hear about things like that. I don't know why people cannot treat each other better. Thanks for posting this!

Della Street said...

I ended up reading this post b/c i am queer myself and happened to be trying to look up an old friend from Hillsboro High School in Oregon. Her name is/was Rebecca Haroldsen. Possibly I do have the right page and Rebecca is now Rebecca Monson?

Regardless, I always knew of Becky's (as we called her then) faith. It makes it even more plausible that I have found the right page, although I am certain there is even more chance that I don't know Rebecca Monson.

Being aware of the horrific and sometimes genocidal responses towards Mormons in the nineteenth century causes me to be even more sensitive to what y'all must have been feeling when witnessing a group that clearly became a mob.

And yet, as introspective as this post is, I was disappointed too. There is significant opportunity to bridge gaps when we recognize others as people with similar stories to our own. The post author - Kyle or Rebecca I'm not sure - must certainly have been aware of how violence has been repeatedly used against transsexual, transgender, and gay/lesbian/bi/queer folks. It seems clear the author is quite intelligent and perceptive. Thus it seems implausible that the author wouldn't know how public processes of dehumanization contribute to that violence.

All this leads me to ask an important question: Why is it that the author never addresses the consequences of a policy that declares - constitutionally - that some people are not worthy of the same government treatment that others receive.

I believe it is possible to be so committed to a set of beliefs about marriage that one would see the harm done by declaring as official policy that lgb folk are "less than" heterosexual folk. But I think it is not a responsible, or indeed, _Christian_ (as I understand the term) behavior to make a choice on something like this without considering the harm done/potentially done.

I have lectured at a number of universities about the history of marriage. There is an idea that to permit the government to treat same-gender couples equally would be a "radical redefinition of marriage". Certainly to some, it would be. However, in different cultures and different times, marriage has meant very different things. In the USA, even as recently as pre-world war 2, marriage was seen as a method of allying families, managing community relationships, and managing wealth far more than it was seen as something done for love.

But more than that, marriage has different meanings in different countries, cultures, and religions right now. In many of those cultures, there is a strong tradition of something not very different from what is called same gender marriage here in the USA.

(Nothing is ever exactly the same, because in different cultures so many things change it is hard to call them equivalent. For instance in northern Greece and the former Yugoslavia there is a tradition, many centuries old, that a person with female anatomy who acts like a tomboy and is willing to take on certain responsibilities can "become" a man. There is no surgery involved, just community recognition that the person is taking on a man's role. This person is then free to marry a woman in the community and adopt children. In fact, families that are taking care of grandkids b/c of the death of their own children welcome one of their daughters marrying one of these people.)

And so, in my opinion, one of the things we need to ask is whether we are truly a society that welcomes immigrants from any culture, or are we going to tell people: your traditional marriage is wrong because it isn't our traditional marriage? I do not tell any individual how to answer that question, but I do encourage people to ask it of themselves.

And even "our" traditional marriage isn't traditional. Polygamy is biblical marriage. Biblical marriage is an economic contract between men for the ownership of women. Biblical marriage can involve the killing in war of a thousand enemies, the removal of foreskins from their bodies and the passage of those collected foreskins to a father as bride-price. Clearly we do not want such biblical marriages - save only that some still believe that polygamy would be acceptable, and some of those even believe it to be desirable.

So when did "traditional marriage" become the marriage we see today? In most ways, during/right after WW2. In some ways, not until 1967.

Perhaps this gets too far from my original point. I suppose what I am trying to say, is that I see the description of a decision with not much justification for it. Perhaps to most readers of this blog, no reasons need be given. To me, however, it feels incomplete. When one is stating over and over one's "respect" for glb folks, you create a deep curiosity in your readers as to how you could struggle with the questions above - especially with the dehumanizing aspects of Prop 8 - and still regard support of Prop 8 as a Christian thing to do.

Lastly, you point out a lot of horrible statements and horrible violence by prop8 opponents. I believe every word and defend none of those actions. (Though very one-sided, I do not hold this in any way against you: this is a blog, a personal writing, not a newspaper.) However the commercial as hate speech was less convincing. The LDS Church did, in fact, want to take away the right of lesbian couples to get - or even stay - married. They did want to extend the power they have through their membership and wealth into a political power to limit the rights of people who do not belong to the church.

Certainly the commercial was a metaphor, a dramatization, and I've never heard of a member of the church breaking into someone's house as a religiously-motivated activity. But I do believe that _no one_ watching the commercial thought that anyone's house would be burglarized by any1 - Mormon or otherwise - after passage of prop8. No one said it's bad to be Mormon. No one said that rights to practice Mormonism should be limited. No one said that Mormon's should be punished for supporting prop8. (In these statements I mean: "no one said it in the commercial," not no one ever said it.)

If you are going to make a case for this commercial being hate speech, what, exactly do you think crosses the line. And IF you believe (after reexamination) that a line was crossed to hate speech, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on whether any of the commercials sponsored by the LDS church would or would not be judged to have crossed the same/a similar line. It seems to me very hard to say that a commercial that uses dramatization/hyperbole/metaphone to criticize the actual and undoubted behavior of an entity thus constitutes hate speech without lumping most political commercials into hate speech.

Where exactly do you draw the line? What about commercials that use less hyperbolic imagery, but tell actual falsehoods? Commercials sponsored by the church asserted that clergy could be arrested and/or punished by the government unless prop8 passed. This was clearly not true. Is that worse than, not as bad, or about the same in character of hatred as the add you cite opposing prop8?

Thank you for writing from your heart. The length of my post should be taken as respect for your willingness to openly discuss difficult issues. Were you not willing to tackle difficult questions, I would have no interest in asking these followups.

The Monsons said...

Thanks for checking out my blog Della. I am grateful for your tolerance of our beliefs and choosing to respond respectfully.

I am very aware of the extreme violence that has not yet ceased against homosexual individuals. It is disgusting and degrading and has no place in this world, let alone our country.

This story however, was not to outline the violence against many homosexual people, but to help those of the Church of Latter Day Saints understand the best ways to deal with direct Hatred. It is not the first time we have seen such hard times, and it won't be the last. My husband and I are young, and have not been victim to this type of persecuation until recently. We are learning the best ways to deal with it.

The family is the basic and fundamental unit in society. With the family being the fundamental unit, it demands a high level of responsibility from the Mother and Father in raising their children. Although the husband and wife carry equal responsibilities in raising their children, due to the amount of time that a mother traditionally spends with her children throughout the day, a woman can leave no greater mark on society than through the children she raises.

When parents are raising children, they must decide if they are going to raise them based in a solid environment based on principles and values or upon the conveniences and current traditions of society.

Our country was founded on principles. The founding fathers recorded that they felt they were inspired in writing the constitution and its core principles. Most of the states used the nation’s constitutions as its model. In the constitution, the country had a solid foundation established. Once we as a society allow our government to make changes or amendments to the constitution it carries lasting effects and a vote to do so should not be taken lightly nor should it based on popular conveniences. Our country and our government rely on its basic unit, the family, to not only provide tax dollars but also to provide citizens who will obey its laws, be leaders in their community, serving the country in the military, strengthen the economy through strong work ethics, etc. All of this and more is reliant upon the family. We are now seeing a popular change in society. Something that has existed for thousands of years and was designed as a sacred religious institution has now been placed under vote by government. Marriage originated with religion and it was not until much later that governments for tax purposes recognized it. Judges are ruling on it and when they do, it requires religions, almost all Christian religions and its members to make changes to what they had originated. Freedom of religion must never be compromised. Government needs to stay small and when government gets involved in too many things it is considered as big government. We are experiencing big government.

Proposition 8 in California this year was on whether or not a change should be made to California’s constitution on marriage. It was not a vote for or against homosexuality. It currently states it is only between a man and a woman. If you voted yes, no changes were made and everything stayed the same. Voting yes does not mean that you oppose homosexuality. If you voted no, you voted for a change that would not only affect the homosexual population but everyone involved in California and the rest of our nation.

Currently, all homosexual partnerships receive the same tax benefits and rights as a married man and woman. A change would only give homosexuals the opportunity to be married like their parents but would not affect their financial situation or grant them anymore civil rights. For homosexuals this is a fight over the title of marriage but for the straight population, the majority, it is much more. The repercussions are outstanding. To inflict a homosexual lifestyle on an entire nation when those rights are not affected in the outcome is unbelievable.

Schools in California currently teach family life and will be required to teach students as young as kindergartners about straight and gay marriage and their lifestyles. This is too young of an age to be taught in schools and should be reserved for the teaching of parents in the home. A father in Boston, Massachusetts was arrested for trying to get his son excused from the class when gay marriage was being taught and that he be notified when that would occur. The public school denied both requests and had him arrested.

Adoption agencies including those owned and sponsored by religious groups would be required to allow a homosexual couple to adopt or would be forced to shut down. This would impose upon children many questions in regards to their own sexual orientation. As much as men try to be women and women try to be men they cannot provide all the benefits that a child needs from being raised by a female mother and a male father.

Church buildings will no longer be used for civil weddings and wedding receptions unless they offer the opportunity to gay couples as well. Religious marriages will no longer be recognized. Civil marriages will also be required before being married a religious building. This currently happens in other countries where governments do not recognize religious weddings.

Church leaders who have the authority to marry couples, no matter the religion, will be required to perform gay marriages when requested or they and their church can be sued. Church’s that did not perform these acts would lose their tax-exempt status. Tax-exempt status is crucial for a church and some would not survive without it.

All doctrine and scripture that teaches about traditional families such as our church's "Proclamation on the Family" (see below) and anything else that is taught against homosexual marriage would be declared as hate speech and could not be used.

The list goes on.

Four of these five examples show that if gay marriage is legalized, government will be controlling our religions and how we worship and teach. Our founding fathers left their homelands in search of freedom of religion, which is the primary reason why this great country was founded. We do not want a government telling us how we can and cannot practice our religions. Society can recognize the minority without making changes to the majority. This is why marriage was never granted to homosexuals in the past. Instead, they were given certain rights and privileges to help provide equality. Prop 8 is not and never was over whether being homosexual is right or wrong. It is over the clarification of marriage and its long lasting effects. Looking back, I observed, "If Prop 8 passes, nothing happens and we can all have our same freedoms but if it does not pass then some of our freedoms will be lost."

This decision not only affected us personally but our children and our entire posterity.

Although some may claim it, there is no honest way to separate your religion, your morals and your ethics from your political stances and the way that you vote. If you are separating them, you are not being true to yourself. Some say churches should stay out of Proposition 8. It is a church’s job to speak out if society is going against the doctrine and principles of that religion. If they do not then what good are these churches for? Nothing!

We must do everything we can to stand up and promote the truth and those things that are right. We must deliver when called upon to serve and help each other understand what we must do in order to protect our freedoms.

The Proclamation of the Family states:

We believe that all men and women are created equal. We believe that each Human Being is a beloved son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We believe and declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

We believe the family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is our belief regarding family and marriage between a man and woman. We invite everyonoe to learn about the truth of the gospel. I believe the gospel is perfect, although its members are not.

I am grateful I can live in a nation that has given us all the freedom of religion. You may or may not believe in Deity, that is the liberty which we all enjoy. As a established religion, we do not hate homosexuals, we do promote marriage between men and women. We have no disagreement with any type of civil union or homosexuals receiving their rights to hospital visitation, co-inhabitation, insurance benefits and other as two loving individuals.

We may disagree with homosexuals on the fundamental unit of traditional marriage but we continue to treat them as children of our Heavenly Father, with love, patience and kindness. In our meetings we do not preach the “sins” of others but promote following Heavenly Father’s commandments and counsel that has been taught in the Bible and through modern revelation. I encourage you to visit our meeting houses and come and see for yourself.

Thanks for visiting.

Rebecca

(Oh and my maiden name is Carlson, so I don't think I'm the person from High School you're thinking of.. :) )

Della Street said...

Thanks for replying. I understand a little better what you were trying to do in your original post. Obviously a blog is primarily a stream of consciousness document. Even my comment contained embarrassing typos when I re-read it. (Metaphone instead of metaphor? how did that even happen????)

So, although your post later condensed around the topic of "responding to hate" I hadn't perceived that as the _one theme_ of the post, and my clarifying questions do seem irrelevant to that particular train of thought.

I am acutely aware of the violence and intolerance directed at Mormons in our society. As I said, it has resulted in efforts at genocide. One does not like to think that our country has engaged in anything so reprehensible, and yet the very reason that Utah has become the LDS homeland is a devastating level of violence so devastating and pervasive that it made an arid environment whose main source of water is bracken and alkaline seem the very land of milk and honey.

I am certainly glad that you have not experienced that before in your life.

Your reply did bring up a couple of other things tho, and then I promise, I'll go away as I truly was just trying to find an old friend and not change you or your thinking in any way.

I was sad to see that some of the things in your response are simple myths - misunderstandings, really - but they have such awful power because they cause people like you to be afraid of the efforts of people like me.

1. We do not have all the same rights and benefits. They are similar, but not the same. State tax benefits are the same, but federal tax benefits are withheld entirely. This is a small example of how a seemingly small error in how civil unions are discussed as "equal" can hid differences that can cost families thousands of dollars, and thus might make the difference between being able to afford, for example, a summer camp or private schooling for a child.

2. No place owned by the government could allow opposite gender weddings and prohibit same gender weddings. However EVERY religious place is free to make religious distinctions as they have for hundreds of years. Just as the LDS church could refuse a Buddhist opposite gender couple the chance to marry in a beautiful LDS temple for not conforming to LDS religious mores, likewise any Buddhist temple or Catholic Basilica or, yes, LDS church/temple could refuse to hold sacraments for same gender couples. Religious freedom is still religious freedom, even in Massachusetts, even in Conn., and even in a hypothetical no-prop8 CA.

Likewise, clergy could never be arrested, sued, or otherwise impaired in their duties for acting in their office, including decisions on whether or not to sanctify any marriage for any reason.

You may not know it, but it is possible for an LDS clergy member to refuse to marry any African-American person without any repercussions whatsoever. The decision to endorse _religiously_ a particular marriage is a protected right.

Now, if you are a Judge in the state of CA, you may choose to perform marriages. If you do not choose to refuse all marriage requests, you cannot pick and choose based on race or religion, and in a no-prop8 world, a Judge could be sued (tho not arrested) for choosing to marry opposite gender people but not same gender people.

The difference is one is a public official, one is private clergy. Many people failed to understand this major difference that has always been drawn in the USA between the actions of a Public figure in using the powers of Public office, and the actions of a private one.

3. About kids. More and more kids are getting different levels of information about same-gender relationships. I am not sure how I feel about certain pieces of information being given at certain ages.

What is certainly true however, is that neither prop8 nor the supreme court decision it overturned affected public education in any way whatsoever. Had someone desired, it would have been easily possible to put an amendment in the Constitution of California saying that children won't be taught x or y in schools without taking away the rights of adults to choose whom to marry.

If the supporters of prop8 don't put anything about public schools into prop8, it seems ... just weird that it would come up at all. Why say people can't marry because the USA has public schools.

I am quite certain - i understand very clearly - that the LDS church considers my loving relationship to be a sinful distortion of a sacred institution that inherently violates LDS religious principles.

What I don't understand is that Buddhist marriage does the same thing. People living together having sex, having children not in a relationship sanctified by Deity is, according to writ in the LDS and many versions of Christianity, sin, fornication, etc.

To be Hindu is to be anti-LDS. To be Jewish is to be anti-LDS. To be an Animist, such as a follower of Shinto or some African religions, is clearly anti-LDS. To be an avowed athiest is decidedly anti-LDS.

And yet the LDS abides this anti-Christian agenda that creates moral equivalence between atheist marriages and relationships sanctified by the LDS church.

I say this not to imply that the LDS church should change its stance on what constitutes sin. Absolutely not.

But we must all bring our religious beliefs, spiritual beliefs, moral beliefs to bear when choosing to vote on such things as prop8. And, as I understand Christianity and Christ's story, one of those beliefs is to treat the leper, the whore, the Samaritan (who, in the context of the bible, was a religious infidel) better than they treat you.

Knowing that voting in prop8 will make a statement saying that SOME marriages are anti-god, or anti-Christian and yet are respectable, but YOUR marriages we cannot abide. Even if we never meet you. Even if we don't know you. Even if we never have to speak the word marriage in reference to that relationship. We cannot abide that the government treats you exactly as well as the government treats us.

I believe it is possible for humans to reconcile many things in their hearts. I believe it is possible to see how the Christ thought of the Samaritan, how he viewed the outsider and the infidel, how he viewed those who held no respect for his own sacred teachings...and _still_ say: I am commanded to love you, but I will not allow my government to set your names on the same list as my spouse's and mine.

It's just that I have never seen anyone tell me _how_ they can justify those to different ideas before.

You came close to touching on that subject, and I tried to ask you to take that next step, despite how personal I know it is to ask someone, "What is in your heart?"

Forgive me for thinking that I had the right to ask something so personal. If it is any excuse, I only thought it might be okay because you had already written some very personal things on this public blog.

Live well and love well,

D.

PS - check out the following:

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point.

''I chose to stay, which I'm not sure was a wise move," he said. ''But I wanted to see how far they would go for asking something simple." Parker said he wanted to control ''the timing and manner" in which his son learned about ''adult themes."

''This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society," Parker said after his arraignment. ''I'm just trying to be a good dad."

From the following newspage:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/

He wasn't arrested b/c of what he asked for. He was arrested because the school officials, very reasonably, told him that changing policy wasn't something that could be done in a moment on his say-so, that they were taking him seriuosly, but that they couldn't promise what form the new policy would take.

He said, if you don't promise me everything I want here on the spot, I won't leave.

Eventually people had to go home, and they couldn't with the father in the building. They begged him to leave and come back later. He refused even tho' he knew changing the policy required procedures involving people not present.

When there was no other option left, he was arrested so the school people could get on with their work and lock up the building.

I, personally, agree with what the dad was saying. However if you refuse to leave a public building after closing time, you may very well get arrested no matter how wonderful your motives.

Sometimes this is worth it. Dr. King broke the law, knowing he would be arrested, and did not criticize the arrest.

When you choose to be arrested to make a political point, it seems a little, well, weird, that people who agree with your point should be upset you were arrested.

If you support the dad the way I do, can't you be happy for him that he got what he wanted: a public arrest that allowed him a media platform to further his political efforts. If he hadn't been arrested, he would never have gotten a press conference.

Thus, it seems just a little strange that you would think it a bad thing, as you seemed to do when you suggested he was arrested for trying to change policy (and not voluntarily, for trespassing).

Good night & good luck

Della Street said...

Oh, also, we've been voting on marriage rights since voting was allowed, not only recently.

Laws against people getting married if they were black, or different races, or epileptic, or mentally retarded/developmentally delayed, two different faiths, or even just Mormon have all been on the books based on the votes of different people at different times.

You didn't know that LDS marriages were considered not legal marriages in many times and places? I would think that non-LDS Christians have done exactly the same thing to you would be remembered.

Again, I am not saying you would change your mind b/c of that. I am only saying that I am surprised that you believe that marriage rights are a recent political issue and not one fought over repeatedly for the last 500 years. (or more, I only know about the last 500, going back to the protestant reformation when the governments in europe were all either catholic or eastern/greek/russian othodox. In the first 100 or 200 years of the reformation, it was quite common to make protestant marriages illegal/unofficial and/or make them only partly legal where certain benefits were retained, but not all.

I am embarrassed by the laws which took away your right to marry, but I am also embarrassed by laws like prop8.

It is not that I don't have values or don't choose to raise my children on a bedrock of values, but one of my bedrock values is that of religious freedom - meaning even my very valid feelings about someone else's religion are not reasons that the government should treat those people differently through its official acts. This is strengthened through my historical awareness of the many times that people different from me, sometimes people exactly like you, have faced a government that decided to treat -and value- them differently than others.

Night again, good luck again. If you feel like replying, I'll read it, but now I officially stop writing on your blog comments page. Really. ;-)