College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Why we must not target the Mormon Church

By Gregory M. Kastelman

Print this article

Published: Monday, November 17, 2008

Updated: Monday, November 17, 2008

Prop8

MCT

I feel very wronged. Proposition 8 has stripped me and hundreds of thousands of Californians of the basic civil right to marry. The passing of Prop 8 is a huge setback for human rights in America.

We should never stand for "separate but equal" institutions because they never work out to be equal in practice. Demeaning people for wanting to be with the love of their lives is outrageous in this day and age.

It shows us that there is still more work to be done to eliminate discrimination in this country and that we must work tirelessly to do so. I cannot state strongly enough how saddened I am by those citizens who voted not with their hearts but with their prejudices.

Now is the time when we must be the moral leaders. Specifically targeting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the solution. I was saddened to see how many signs at the rallies on Nov. 15 targeted the Mormon religion, bigamy and their revered leader Joseph Smith, Jr.

Mormons did not create homophobia, and they were not the only people who voted for Prop 8. In fact, people of all religions and persuasions voted for it, even some gay men and women.

Other religious organizations contributed monetarily to the campaign to pass Prop 8 as well. While I am saddened by the lack of Mormon resistance to Prop 8 -- many Mormons are truly wonderful people -- it is wrong to demean their religion because of the actions of some.

As a Jewish man, I cannot and will not condone hate mongering of any religion. I know too well how my religion has been targeted for over two millennia, how we have been wrongly blamed for a litany of crimes we never committed. While Mormons contributed significantly to the campaign, it is counterproductive to single them out. Doing so may only make them feel even firmer about their beliefs, and this is obviously not our objective.

We must show them and all peoples that we have respect. An eye for an eye makes everyone blind. We must show the world our true colors, our strengths and our beautiful humanity. This is what we must do. We must not discriminate against those who discriminate against us. Though I am not a Christian, I believe the right thing to do now is to turn the other cheek. To follow in the footsteps of Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., César Chavez, Harvey Milk and others like them will ultimately be our greatest achievement.

We are strong. We are right. We will persevere. We will not succumb to cowardice, prejudice or hatred. The rallies on Nov. 15 were a beautiful representation of our determined will to do the right thing. Let's not taint this achievement with scapegoating or religious hatred.

--

Comments

29 comments
Also Craig
Fri Nov 21 2008 13:31
It seems like bigotry tends to be defined as what the other guy thinks. I admit that I have a narrower definition of what marriage means, than the no-on-8 folks do. I firmly believe that as a society we should promote traditional marriage, and not broader redefinitions of it. This is based on my belief that children, in general, become healthier and more well-adjusted adults if they grow up in a home with both a strong male and a strong female role model.

For the same reason, I don't believe in divorce. I've been married for 15 years and have five kids, so this is not just a hypothetical belief for me.

My view about marriage has been the accepted definition for thousands of years. When I got married fifteen years ago, I had never even heard of the concept of gay marriage. I had gay friends then, and I have gay friends now. Thinking that marriage was a social contract between a man, a woman, society and god to provide a protected environment for the raising of children was the pretty much universally accepted view then, and would not have been considered bigotry then.

But, now a special interest group comes along and wants to change the definition of marriage to suit themselves. I don't want it to change, I like it the way it's always been since the dawn of time. And now because I don't to willy-nilly change the meaning of the most important institution in the history of the world, I'm a bigot. I find the accusation unnerving, because last I checked, I didn't hate anyone, and I was pro gay rights. Changing the definition of marriage is where I draw the line, though. It's just too important to allow to be watered down.

Also Craig
Fri Nov 21 2008 13:12
To Greg Rattey: Clearly you are not what you claim. You are just spreading anti-mormon propaganda, because the mormon temple ceremonies are nothing like what you describe. I should know, since I've participated personally hundreds of times. Nothing weirdo, no blood oaths. The way you represent the temple ceremony, however, is quite similar to how I've seen it described by anti-mormons who have no idea what they're talking about. So I must conclude that this is where you got your misinformation.
Greg Rattey
Tue Nov 18 2008 14:10
Sorry I don't accept the view that the Mormon church should not be targeted by demonstators.
As a jewish man you would never have known the weirdo nasty temple ceremony where those involve
had to take blood oaths, I have!!!!
Also when I came out this vile cult were awful to me!!!!
I hope demonstrators continue to expose their homophobic doctrine-for any gay mormons out there don't worry
God was awful to negros once!
Your name
Tue Nov 18 2008 13:07
Also Craig,

I reject your notion that Prop 8 was "pro family". Prop 8 did NOTHING for the family. In fact, it hurt many families, where the parents are same-sex. Defining "family" as "one man, one woman, and their children" is inherently bigoted.

Kevin M
Tue Nov 18 2008 13:00
I think it's funny how some people see "the protection of the sanctity of marriage" in this issue as not inherently being a hateful message. How do same-sex couples marrying violate the sanctity of marriage? "Sanctity" means "holiness" or "purity". So same-sex marriage somehow makes marriage impure? Same-sex couples are "dirty"? I personally witnessed the marriage of same-sex couples this Summer who had been together for 40, 50, even 60 years... anyone who thinks that their marriage somehow "de-sanctifies" marriage is espousing hate.
Kevin M
Tue Nov 18 2008 12:53
Also Craig,

There are MORE Mormons in California than in Utah numerically (not by percentage).

Also Craig
Tue Nov 18 2008 10:58
This is not a Utah thing. There are nearly as many mormons in California as there are in Utah. If you just count "active" mormons, there are probably more in California than Utah. Of the 13 million mormons in the world, less than one million of them live in Utah.
Also Craig
Tue Nov 18 2008 10:35
One inaccuracy by the No-On-8 folks is that somehow they've been stripped of their rights. I'm not sure how marriage can be considered a "right". It has always required a license, therefore it is a state-regulated privilege, like driving or fishing. I don't have a right to drive. Neither do I have a right to marriage.
Your name
Tue Nov 18 2008 08:53
Since the Mormon Church was really "fair" towards homsexuals who don't even reside in Utah.
angie w
Tue Nov 18 2008 08:46
did those posting anti-mormon comments actually READ the article? kastelman says targeting the Mormon church and their beliefs isn't fair. turn the other cheek. the Mormon church issued a statement saying essentially the same,

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. "

Be fair.

Your name
Tue Nov 18 2008 03:35
All their info is coming straight from Joseph Smith. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Your name
Mon Nov 17 2008 22:41
I don't know where the previous two posts have been getting their information, but the federal government does not recognize civil unions, leaving plenty of rights unprotected. Civil unions are not recognized in the states outside of which the union took place. Not only that, but many states don't even offer civil unions, and instead allow for "domestic partnerships," which in many cases aren't even close to protecting the same rights afforded to married couples. On Nov. 4th Arkansas past a law that states homosexual couples can't adopt. And you're trying to tell me that that's not second-class citizenship?
Diana
Mon Nov 17 2008 20:59
The 'separate but equal' cry is inaccurate. There is no separate right to property that is separate from that of married folks; it's THE SAME RIGHT. It is even on the same form upon which married couples choose to take title: there is quite a list of choices--"husband and wife," "wife and husband" (huh?) "single..never married" "unmarried man--divorce final" "unmarried woman divorce final," and a whole host of others, including 'domestic partner." ALL are descriptions of one's relationship to a spouse/partner. Same/same.

There is no separate hospital to go to if you are gay, no separate school, no separate paperwork to fill out when you purchase something or apply for a loan or get insurance--no separate water fountains, nothing. There is no legal difference in rights in California between domestic partners and spouses. None.

The ONLY difference is this forced moral stamp of approval on a lifestyle that most people simply do not want to see as 'marriage.' It's no longer about legal rights in California. Gays HAVE those. It's now about gays attempting to force those who disagree with their lifestyles to not only accept that they have those rights (not a problem) but to approve of their moral choices, and do so by force of law.

That is a problem for me.

Your name
Mon Nov 17 2008 18:54
Good point to the guy below me. And African Americans had all the same amenities in the '60s, they were just separate. What was all the fuss about then?
Voter
Mon Nov 17 2008 18:17
"FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED TO VOTE; THEY DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF NO ELECTIONS."

Really? Then what is the issue about? Gays can enter domestic partnerships that guarantee them 100% of the same rights and privileges as a traditional marriage... So, that means it isn't a civil rights issue, because there is no limiting of civil or fundamental rights.

The voice of the people needs to be respected... both times.

Steve in CA
Mon Nov 17 2008 18:02
Mormons are taught from early childhood that hating anyone, for any reason, is evil and unacceptable. The ones I know are more likely to offer protesters banana bread than to hurt them or do something unkind. Indeed, I know a great many Mormons who, while following their consciences and their leaders to vote for Prop 8, were sincerely concerned about the feelings of gay people who just wanted to get married.
Your name
Mon Nov 17 2008 17:44
As a Mormon, I have never heard anti-gay polemics in my church. There is much emphasis on the sanctity of marriage. Those who participated in this measure (Prop 8), were likely trying to protect something that is very important to them.

I do know of other people who do seem to hate gay people. I do not like them, and none of them are Mormon.

Your name
Mon Nov 17 2008 14:54
"FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED TO VOTE; THEY DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF NO ELECTIONS." - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in 1963. The person below me is such a monumental idiot I can hardly manage a response.
Your name
Mon Nov 17 2008 14:47
In a society lines are drawn! The rule of law is ,the rule of law! If I decided to murder somone because I felt like it , There would be consequences , Just as if I decided to engage in sex with small children or people who are not competant to make decisions (mentally ill). Gays want to say we are above the Law. or there is No Law that applys to us! well the simple answer is YES THERE IS!!! And that was passed by a MAJORITY TWICE!!!
Your name
Mon Nov 17 2008 13:56
Oh, if only the rest of us were as proper and upright citizens as the mormons, who never make ado about anything or realize their first amendment rights!






log out