A Facebook Exchange

I logged into my facebook the other day and saw that one of my friends had posted the following on her page: Prop 8: An attack on religious freedom in the name of 'equality' which is nothing more than a formality.

Here's what followed...

Me: An attack on religious freedom? How are they attacking anyone? You are still free to believe and practice your religion as you please, whether or not it passes, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

Her: If my religion tells me homosexuality is morally wrong then isn't it discrimintation to force the church I believe in to allow homosexual marriages in the temple or else risk the legal raminfications and lawsuits that will follow if they do not comply? How is that constitutional? I think everyone should have equal rights, absolutely, but as soon as the rights given to one marginalizes the rights of the rest then equality no longer exists.

Me: No one can force the church to have gay marriages in the temple, just as no one can force the church to allow non-members or unworthy members inside the temple. Prop 8 is an issue of the STATE of California, not the church. We passed laws in 1964 to prohibit discrimination against African Americans, and that did not stop the church from withholding the Priesthood from them for another 14 years (they were given it in 1978). Prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals will not stop the church from withholding marriage from them in temples. Again, Prop 8 has nothing do with religion; my opposition to it has everything to do with stopping hate.

Her: Technically, the law CAN force them or else they have the right to take away their status as a tax-exempt institution in that state. This law is setting a precedent. How do I know? Years spent in the political world and mindless hours spent in committee meetings, the senate, and the house. I've argued both sides of this issue so many times. The problem is Prop 8 is not a stand alone policy and I can tell you that regardless of anyone saying it is a simple law it requires state regulation which trumps private property rights. (this includes the temple, churches, the dr. office, private schools, etc.) Yes, the law CAN mandate on this issue and the outcome will create problems. This is NOT human rights. This is state mandated say-so. My issue on this has nothing to do with "stopping hate" or altering our social institutions- my issue is with state-mandated policy. Have you read the language of Prop 8? All it does it simply amend the constitution but saying "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" That's it. And by this it is not retroactive and it does not limit any future law(s) or rights that the homosexual community may wish to have as a civil union. Please do not compare this to a racial issue. This is absolutely not racial- it's about sexuality orientation and the current social norm on it's morality in society. Gay and lesbian is not a race.

Me: I compared this to race because I feel it comes down to the issue of whether or not you believe homosexuals "choose" to be that way--I believe they do NOT, just as no one chooses their own race. Therefore, I feel the association is a valid one...and I strongly feel that homosexuals should not be discriminated against for being who they were born as (I'm assuming because you are LDS, you believe it's a choice as that's what you have been taught). Ultimately, I feel your argument is invalid because it has NOT happened in any of the countries that have already passed laws to allow for gay marriage, such as Denmark. Watch out for those slippery slopes of logic, which unfortunately breed paranoia that leads to discrimination against people based on their beliefs and is the same argument that was used to discriminate against people of color in the past.
I can see that we've reached an impasse--so I will close with this: the homosexuals I know, many of whom are former LDS church members, have no desire whatsoever to be married in the temple, or even by an LDS bishop...so even if the "technicality" of the law could pose a threat, which it does not, then it still wouldn't be an issue. Thanks for at least being willing to discuss this issue with me, which is more than most people have done. I appreciate your good sportsmanship. :-)

Due to the multiple negative responses I've received because I do not support Prop 8, I wanted to address it. And that's all I'm going to say about it here.