prop 8

Now that Mormon ward houses are being vandalized and prop 8 has passed in California (with similar measures passing in Fla and Az), Arthur feels like it might be worthwhile to clarify that he thinks the Mormon's got this one wrong and that gay people that want to be married by the state should be able to do just that.

At his brother's suggestion, Arthur read the official Church explaination of why it supported prop 8 and asked its members to "do all they can" to support the measure. None of the reasons seemed very compelling to him.

First, the Church claims that they have the right to participate in the democratic process and takes great lengths to espouse the virtues of democracy. Fine...but this approach seems entirely misdirected considering that Mormons believe in the theocratic rule of Christ himself and that he will return to earth to reign and govern all humanity. We will not be voting for him. The democratic process is a temporal solution for bad rulers and though arguable the best system of governance that we can come up with, it is hardly a reason for the Church to step away from its standard position on voting and democracy. If the Church had said, "Democracy is good...go vote"and left it at that, we Mormons might not be percieved as instigators of divisiveness and prejudice.

The appeal to the right to participate in the democratic process "when it comes to moral issues" also begs the question: Why does the Church not direct its members to vote for candidates that will end the war in Iraq? Or that will fight to alleviate poverty? Or that will preserve ANWR and other unprotected wilderness? Each a threat to family stability and each a moral issue. Though others do and will disagree, Arthur thinks we Mormons got this one wrong (it would not be the first time) and is pretty sad to see the negative fallout on both sides.

The Church also claims that allowing gay people to be included in the definition of marriage threatens the separation of Church and State, a long held principle of our consititution. They cite examples of pro-gay groups instigating lawsuites against church run universities and other religious institutions for violating Equal Protection rights of religious gay people who want to participate in the religious life. First, those lawsuits are only applicable to religious institutions that recieve federal funding, and if they really want the freedom to worship "how, who, or what they may" as provided for under the Bill of Rights (and Mormon Articles of Faith), all they have to do is lose the federal funding. As freedom of religion is so fundamental to the fabric of our country and its founding, I find it hard to believe that our right to continue to worship the way we do will be jeopardized or threatened in any significant way because of how THE STATE decides to define marriage. Contrary to the Church's argument, allowing gay people to be included in the definition of marriage is the ultimate separation of church and state. Mormons believe marriage in the temple is for eternity and is the only form of marriage that continues beyond mortality and thus that has any eternal value and purpose. Why should we worry about a temporal union sanctioned by a government of men? Especially if/when we believe that we are all children of God and as far as earthly governments go, are entitled to equal protection of earthly laws. The obsession with gay marriage seems to distract us from our goal of heaven and a celestial life and bogs us down in what Arthur percieves as decidedly political issue. We love our gay friends, don't feel they are a threat to our marriage, and hope for more love and understanding. Besides, as Captain Steve Zissou notes: "We are all part gay"