...so consider yourself warned.
I'm a registered Democrat. You may or may not have known that. It's quite possible you didn't care. I only mention it because I live in Utah, a staunchly Republican state. In Utah, I would be considered very liberal. In a more liberal state, I would likely be considered a moderate, if not conservative.
I'm also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (AKA the Mormons). This is a very conservative church.
For the last week or so I've been mulling over an article I read, linked here. In this opinion editorial, a Mormon bishop claims that Mormons who vote Democrat should not be considered worthy members of the church. I also read a couple response articles found here and here. I've been thinking of what my response would be and what my thoughts truly are in regards to being a Mormon Democrat.
I'm just going to list them and discuss them.
Abortion: I believe that a woman has the right to choose abortion. I think there should definitely be a time frame involved. I personally do feel that choosing a medically unnecessary abortion is never the right choice, but that's my personal feeling. I do not believe that I have the right to make that decision for someone else. It is HER CHOICE.
Why do I feel that she should be allowed to make that choice? That is why we are here on Earth. To make choices. Before the Earth was created, God held a council in heaven. He presented his Plan to allow all of us to come to Earth to make choices and learn and grow. To help us, because He knew we would make mistakes, He sent His Son to atone for us, so that we could repent and return to Him. In that council, an alternative plan was presented. Lucifer wanted to save every soul. He proposed that we all come to Earth to get bodies and live, but that we should be forced to make the correct choices, we would have no chance to make mistakes or learn and grow. Everyone would be returned to God's presence. There was a war in Heaven over these two Plans. God's plan, obviously, won out. We can make choices. Even the choice to have an abortion.
Women can choose to have an abortion. Not making laws against this act means that, if a woman should choose to abort, she can do so in a facility that is clean and safe. Will she still have to live with the consequences of aborting? Absolutely, and I believe it is something that she will think of every day of her life after. But it is HER CHOICE. The government should not legislate a woman's body.
Gay Marriage. I firmly believe that two consenting adults who wish to spend the rest of their lives together should have that decision legally recognized by the government, especially when benefits and hospital visitation rights are involved. I believe in the separation of Church and State, and I believe that separation goes both ways. Congress can't govern churches, and churches should not dictate laws. Would church authorities, such as pastors and bishops, still be allowed to perform marriages? Yes. Would they have the right to refuse to perform those marriages if their religion forbids it? Also yes. I understand, but have not studied the topic, that the law does not require Catholic priests to perform marriages for those who have been divorced before. It's the same for not being required to perform a marriage for a gay couple.
Quite frankly, it makes sense to require everyone to get married civilly, then have a second ceremony if they wish to have a religious ceremony. That's how they do it in Peru, and in many other countries as well. It works. The government gets their legal ceremony, the couple gets their religious ceremony.
As far as gay marriage and the Church goes, well, as it has been heretofore revealed, the eternal nature of marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't really see that changing any time soon. I, personally, am all for gay marriage.
As for the arguments I've heard:
"It makes a mockery of the institution of marriage!" Really? I think hetero marriage had already been thoroughly mocked, by those that have participated in it. Remember Britney Spears' flash-in-the-pan marriage? It lasted, what, 72 hours? What about Elizabeth Taylor's 12 marriages? How is that not mocking marriage?
"Allow two people of the same gender to marry and next people will be marrying their dogs/a child." Well, child brides have been thing for a long time, but hopefully we've abolished that. And it was only when their parents had made the contract. As for marrying pets, well, can that pet sign the marriage license? Does it know what it is doing if it is able to sign by some miracle?
"Marriage is for procreation, gay couples can't have kids." What about infertile couples? Are they required to get divorced when they can't have kids? Gay couples can adopt one, or more, of the many, many children in foster care. That's just an option off the top of my head. Foster children deserve a home, with loving parents. If those parents share a gender, well, then they share a gender.
At work I generally hold my tongue whenever my coworkers talk politics. I avoid political discussions as a matter of principal, but I also don't enjoy being grossly outnumbered. It has been nice to just let this all out.
If you have questions, please let me know. I'll be glad to explain anything I've said here.
No comments:
Post a Comment