(Not) Supporting a Cause

Gay marriage is in the media again. This time the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) is taking the issue to the supreme court. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is involved, and NOM (National Organization for Marriage) opposes it. The issue is the word 'marriage'. The HRC and ACLU want the definition of marriage in the law to include three things: 1) between a man and a woman, 2) between two men, and 3) between two women. Currently, in U.S. law, the definition includes one thing - between a man and a woman.

I think that people support causes, but they don't really want them to end. They want the causes to continue because they like the fight. But do they really want the effects of the end result? (For example, gay people want equality and fairness but if they got those things they would just be ordinary people, and, truthfully, the effects are that the wouldn't be in the spotlight. Right now gay people are special; they are in the spotlight.)

Causes (minorities, immigration, race, homosexuality, religion) bring focus to their group. I truly believe that some people want to be a part of a memorable group because they like the attention and because the fight takes the focus off of them not having to work on aspects of their character (like not working on being kinder [or whatever] because they're too busy fighting for their cause.)

Life is full of unfairness. How I respond to the unfair thing tells how I am. If I get angry about the unfair thing, it just says that I'm an angry person. My life will benefit more by me working on controlling my anger than by me supporting a cause. When I die, the cause won't be there but my angry attribute will. Will the HRC, ACLU and NOM help me be kinder? No, I need to do that myself. It seems like loyalty only goes one way, and it doesn't point to me, but to them. How is it fair to me that I need to be loyal to them but they don't need to be loyal to me?

Organizations like the HRC, ACLU, and NOM get involved in causes because they want to win. After the gay marriage result, they will move on to the next cause. It seems like they support people, but, really, they support causes. Those organizations aren't people - they don't have lives - they are companies. They are filled with people, but the harsh reality is that they don't care about the people, they just care about themselves (existing, winning.) Those organizations will do anything to stay in business: they want employee loyalty, but their loyalty is to only themselves. 

After the Supreme Court result, other people (human rights groups, people passionate about the cause, etc.) will work out the details of the gay marriage cause, but the HRC, ACLU and NOM will have moved on to the next thing.

I'm staying out of the fight. I would rather work on my character then support a cause.

The Prop 8 Hype

If you live in America, you've heard of Prop 8. It's a proposition for a law in California that supports traditional marriage. Gay people are outraged because they want to have legal access to the word "marriage" and they want homosexual marriages legally recognized by the state.

Someone came up with the slogan "No Hate" regarding this proposition - inferring that if a person supports traditional marriage, they hate gay people.

My church is related to this proposition (as are many churches) because a person in my church is running to become the U.S. President. My church has told its members in CA to support traditional marriage and vote for the proposition. My church believes in traditional marriage (between a man and woman) and is in favor of traditional families (a dad, a mom, and children.)

The people who support gay marriage don't approve of supporting only traditional marriage. They say to my church (and it's people) "Who are you to judge?" They think gay people should be allowed to legally marry whomever they want and that no person (or organization) has the right to stand between two people who love each other.

I think that a person can do whatever they want but if they want to change the law to include their behavior, in this case I don't think that should happen.

My church doesn't get involved in political elections. It doesn't tell it's members to vote for certain people. It does, however, tell it's members to vote for or against values in which it believes - when those values are threatened.

I believe the slogan and the people who want to legalize gay marriage are bullying people who disagree with them.

I support traditional marriage, but that doesn't mean I hate gay people.

Since when is it wrong to have an opinion? I stand up for what I believe - even when people try to intimidate me - even when they try to sway my beliefs.

Some Mormon's are hateful and bigoted and narrow minded and say mean things. Their thinking and behavior is wrong. But to use a blanket statement like "Mormons think..." is naive. I'm a Mormon and perhaps I don't think what is said.

It's ironic that the people who don't want to be judged seem to be judging.

I don't treat gay people any differently than straight people. But I do have my opinion. No matter what I think, I believe in following the law. Also, I believe in the 12th Article of Faith of my church which says "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Currently U.S. law only recognizes traditional marriage. If the law changes to recognize homosexual marriage too I will have my opinion but continue to follow the law.

I don't agree with everything a person thinks but that doesn't mean they get to call me names. Sometimes we will have to agree to disagree.