Great LsTTE in Salt Lake Tribune, Re: LDS church and gay marriage

[helderheid]

Missed the point

Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 11/14/2008 05:09:50 PM MST

Rozann Thoelke (Forum, Nov. 13) missed the point in the debate over Proposition 8. Thoelke has chosen to accept, on faith, and without empirical proof, that there is a God, that he is the Mormon God, and that he disapproves of gay marriage. Using that chosen faith as the legal basis for revoking the existing rights of U.S. citizens is "ramrodding" her personal beliefs on society.

She should realize that Mormon leaders once applied the exact same faith-based arguments against interracial marriage, including: traditional marriage should not be redefined for the sake of political correctness; it's a sin; it's bad for children; God says no; what's next, marrying your dog?

This historical perspective shows where the battle over gay marriage is headed, but there is some comfort for Thoelke in this precedent: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against banning interracial marriage in 1954, but the LDS Church was not forced to recognize this practice in their doctrine or perform these marriages in their temples during the 24 years until God changed his mind. Thoelke should be soothed by the fact that the idea of racial equality in marriage legally could not be shoved down the Latter-day Saints' throats.

Samantha Borstadt

Salt Lake City

Slandered? You bet!

Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 11/14/2008 05:09:48 PM MST

I've struggled with Mormons' umbrage at those who condemn their role in passing California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. Alex White helped me find the words ("Protesters make enemies," Forum, Nov. 12).

What could possibly be more "slanderous" or "offensive" than being told that because you do not hew to a particular church's doctrine you are undeserving of the civil rights afforded all others, including the worst of the worst -- child rapists, murderers, wife beaters? By virtue of their extraordinary involvement, Mormons would have us believe that gays ?-- the only citizens denied the right to marry -- are below all others. Offensive? You bet! Slanderous? You bet!

Suppose someone, unprovoked, punched you in the stomach. Would you be offended if your screams of protest were deemed more offensive than the attack?

The "pro-marriage" amendments in many states -- Utah's being the worst -- are beyond extraordinary in that they constitutionally codify a religious doctrine that some citizens are less equal than others. How would the great people who so carefully crafted and nurtured the Constitution feel about how we've managed their legacy? Slandered? You bet! Offended? At least!

Jerry Thomas

Salt Lake City

Aligning church, state

Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 11/14/2008 05:09:44 PM MST

Why all this concern about aligning church and state notions of marriage? We don't do the same for divorce. The state may allow a minister to perform a marriage, but it reserves the power to legally end one to a judge. For Catholics, Mormons and those of other faiths, you can be legally divorced but your religion will still consider you married.

For temple-married Mormons, your marriage really isn't ended until the prophet says so, and that can be decades later. Ditto for Catholics. As to the wedding itself, Catholics theologically recognize a marriage between Christians but not one with a "heathen" (which includes Mormons). Mormons are not really married in heaven ("sealed") unless the ceremony is in a temple (in the 1880s many couples were sealed but not legally married). A civil marriage is like a temporary driver learner's permit -- not the real thing.

At best, civil and religious marriages overlap, but neither their starts nor ends coincide, so why should a religion care if the state allows two men to marry civilly when it doesn't mean a thing to it theologically?

As one protester's sign read: Keep your doctrine out of my covenants!

Brandon Mills

Salt Lake City

Offense irrelevant

Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 11/17/2008 07:51:13 AM MST

I agree with Alex White that public demonstrations at LDS temples offended many ("Protesters make enemies," Forum, Nov. 12); however, I recommend that the offended recall William Ellery Channing's statement regarding offensive demonstrations by 18th-century abolitionists: "The great interests of humanity do not lose their claims on us because sometimes injudiciously maintained. We ought to blame extravagance, but we ought to also remember that very often it is the indifference of the many to a good and great work, which hurries the few who cleave to it into excess." Whether or not I am offended by supporters of a moral cause is irrelevant to its validity.

Those who wish to marry another person of the same sex want only the same marital rights that we heterosexuals have, and granting them these rights does not diminish ours.

Warren Johnson

Sandy

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[midnight]

2. This constitutionally codify a religious doctrine

that some citizens are less equal than others is the calling card of the GOP.

[helderheid]

4. Yep.

[helderheid]

3. k

[RedLetterRev]

5. To Brandon Mills: Hear, here!

"Keep your doctrine out of my convenants!"

My husbear would agree.

[helderheid]

6. Keep your doctrine out of my covenants!

GREAT line. Would make a nice bumper sticker.

[helderheid]

7. kick

[Coexist]

8. K & R!

[SalmonChantedEvening]

9. Kick!!!

With love, for my GLBT DU brothers and sisters.

[Cerridwen]

10. K & R

Thank you, helderheid.

Those were some beautifully written letters.

[hunter]

11. Very well spoken letters.

Thanks for posting them here.

[astonamous]

12. K & R!!!!

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to "shove" your religious beliefs down someone else's throat.

On edit:
I sure do miss living in Utah... :sarcasm:

[bluedawg12]

13. Maybe the best line on the subject today:

"...it is the indifference of the many to a good and great work, which hurries the few who cleave to it into excess."

K&R