Proposition 8, a hot-button issue on the upcoming California ballot, is one the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is actively engaged in. Letters have been sent out to Mormon congregations, encouraging members to actively do all they can to urge the passing of this piece of legislation, which, as I understand, amends the California constitution to recognize only marriage between a man and woman.
Personally, I would like the government out of marriage. I know this for some is fairyland, as government, for at least tax reasons, is inextricably entwined with marriage partners (and has been for decades) in what I consider to be invasive ways.
From this perspective, supporting Proposition 8 is surely an act of faith. But there are rational reasons for me to support this expansion of government which I find consistent with my principles. The problem with inaction? Positive Rights.
Traditionally, Lockean government existed to protect individual negative property rights: my neighbor has no right to assault me, for instance, or steal my stuff, to use technical terms. My rights are protected by government.
Positive rights are a different matter entirely. Instead of the right to be protected from something, positive rights are the right to receive something, like health care, a “living wage”, home ownership, and the like. This necessitates something being confiscated from someone else and given to you. It is this mindset of entitlement which concerns me most about this proposition.
Implications of positive rights as applied to proposition 8 to me include messy litigation cases. All it takes is one or two high profile lawsuits and the consequences could become very difficult. These could tie up precious tithing money as the Church defends itself from accusations of discrimination. They could result in LDS Bishops being unable to perform marriages to heterosexual couples only. I see even parts of temple worship, like the sealing ordinance, could be at risk, perhaps not in the immediate future, but down the road. I could see where, in the not-too-distant future, excluding practicing homosexuals from ordinances could be considered discriminatory. These scenarios seem uncomfortably plausible and it would pain me to see the Church fight these type of unnecessary and destructive battles.
And so I urge anyone residing in California to support a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, not to enlarge the powers of the state, but to prevent unwanted encroachments on private religious organizations.
By the way, for those interested, the Church posted an official commentary called “The Divine Institution of Marriage” on its website, which is quite interesting.
Family-Friendly Television?
Most of my posts are more libertarian and political in nature, but this has a decidedly cultural and religious bent.
Last night, I was watching part of a program about Rick Steves’ touring Europe on PBS. This episode included parts of southern France, like Carcassone, for instance. Beautiful scenery and an interesting glimpse into daily European life drew me in. I’m the type of nerd that likes watching travel shows. Part of my problem with the travel channel is that they have moved away from those into shows on beaches, cuisine, and poker tournaments. But I digress.
Rick Steves is friendly, upbeat, and interesting. His show would strike most as bland and family-friendly. But parts of this episode got me wondering.
After talking about religious persecution of the Cathars, the program showed a Catholic cathedral. Inside, there is a large fresco about the final judgment, where the righteous are blessed and the wicked punished. Then he said something like, “The Church used this painting to intimidate parishoners to stay with the Church.” The question of intentions and motivations is to me suspect: how do we really know intentions? And the whole perspective was, to me, more anti-religious than anti-Catholic.
But the mood changed when he examined a museum dedicated to Henri de Toulouse-Latrec. He touted him as a fascinating individual, explaining that because he was born different, he had a unique perspective. Fine so far. But then he went into detail about Latrec’s obsession with brothels and prostitutes.
The dichotomy was interesting: skepticism, pessimism, and near hostility towards organized Christian religion (all under the pleasantly-smiling face of Rick Steves), but a warm embrace of immoral explorations. I know this is not nearly the apex or acme of 21st Century hedonism, but I do find it to be indicative of the times, how we reservedly deal with religion (especially organized, established Christian religion) and yet feel comfortable and positive about public explorations of sexuality and immorality. That, to me, is backwards, yet sadly representative of the popular mindset nowadays.
Elder Maxwell, among many other prophets, was right about the Seventh Commandment in this classic and highly-recommended talk given October 2001.
Leave a comment
Filed under Mormonism, Personal, Social Commentary