Wednesday, March 27, 2013

About that . . .

So about that whole marriage case at the Supreme Court. I'm typically pretty silent on Stranger about controversial current happenings. I think this is because I never wanted Stranger to be a forum for those kinds of things. Because for heaven's sake friends. We should have SOMEWHERE to go on the Internets where people aren't screaming at each other about these issues because they're too busy talking about their fear of chickens and cats and snakes and accidentally getting naked in places where they were supposed to be fully clothed (last time I'll ever go to THAT pharmacy!).

And I'm not about to change course on that. So don't worry. No long ranting post today about the arguments and the Supreme Court and all the people caught in between. But I'm a lawyer. And a Mormon. And an American. And I've been working for appellate courts and offices that practice appellate litigation for the past three years. So naturally I'm interested in the process and the discussion and my place in it all, or my perceived place in it all.

I've read amicus briefs for each side that were filed with the Supreme Court. The vast majority of the arguments made by both sides, as far as legal matters are concerned, I thought were utter nonsense. But I don't blame the lawyers for trying.

And ultimately, I have many thoughts on the issues of equality, and the judiciary's role in these things, and federalism, and the practical implications of different decisions being handed down by unelected judges, and why that's ok, and why that sometimes doesn't feel ok. And honestly, those thoughts are in a constant state of evolution in my mind. And I'm totally fine with that. Because what's the point of life if we aren't willing to learn something new?

Note: The answer to that question is "cheesecake." Twice up the barrel, once down the side.

But in all of this, I do want to say, let's all please try to remember that sweet and sincere people stand on every side of this debate. And yes, there are WAY more than two sides in this debate.

There are some jerks scattered about, too. But everyone can benefit from a little kindness. Especially the jerks.

It's one thing to be nice to your friends who agree with you. It's another thing to be nice to your friends who don't agree with you. But true goodness is being kind to the strangers, too. And let's not forget, in this little corner of the www, Strangers are family.

~It Just Gets Stranger

58 comments:

  1. Wow I like this a lot. I think I've been guilty of getting a little too caught up in it all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. From my vantage point in rural Australia it seems the US is more conservative and religious (all flavours) than we are. It isn't a popular discussion here but the general approach is 'live and let live'. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one... Tolerance, acceptance and love are central to human happiness. I think you'd like Australia, except we do have a LOT of snakes, and enormous spiders, and ferocious sharks, so maybe you shouldn't come. Just get Daniel to read up about it and tell you the good bits.
    Bridg

    ReplyDelete
  3. ^^ I'm almost pretty sure the "live and let live" concept is NOT what he was talking about. Because we all know that that is only true in theory. And I'm pretty sure there are many on both sides that believe their way of living is correct and they will live but NOT let you live with your own convictions. And for the record, tolerance and acceptance are not necessary for happiness, just love.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In some parts of the world (mine) difference is more okay than you suggest Anonymous, and live and let live applies to people not snakes, so you can relax Eli. Okay, maybe relax is too strong a word and I don't want you to relax enough to, you know, take your clothes off, but a low level of panic should suffice. Bridg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said on both of your comments.

      V

      Delete
  5. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions aren't enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah following through with your intentions is where the real good happens.

      Delete
  6. Well said, Eli. Neutral, yet meaningful. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since I live in California, I've been dealing with this for five years. Or really, longer since it goes back to Prop 22 in 2000. I wish more people would be kind and respectful of different opinions. I've completely shut up about my point of view because I actually lost friends over it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love "live & let live". That's tolerance. But tolerance and acceptance are two different things. People say they want tolerance, but what they really want is acceptance. To a person who doesn't agree with someone's beliefs/lifestyle, he/she may tolerate said beliefs/lifestyle, but now, a person may be forced to accept that which may go against his/her own personal beliefs. And that's not tolerance, it's more akin to coercion, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Dorothy. And political coercion against my religious beliefs is akin to oppression of one to elevate another. The root question is a divine one for me: does God (not man) believe marriage/union is between a man and a woman. The answer is yes. So if we are to be a godly nation, founded on principles not preferences, the courts need to stay out of God's determinations and the people need to obey.

      Delete
    2. I have long tired of mere mortals (and that includes unelected & elected judges) being so morally confused/devoid as to think themselves nigh unto gods.

      Delete
    3. Is the US supposed to be a "godly nation"? What about the people that don't believe in god, are they not allowed in the US??

      Delete
    4. Consider that the founding documents clarify the necessity of recognizing the bestower of unalienable rights is God, a higher power, and that the govt is not God therefore should have limited power as opposed to God-like power.

      Delete
    5. Kinda wondering about the whole separation of Church and State thing....what the heck happened to that concept?!?! I do not believe in a God that says that "marriage" is ONLY between one man and one woman. I live in the US. Should I move? Or should I stay - and rejoice in the fact that the word "marriage", in its most simple state, means the joining of two. Besides...correct me if I am wrong - but "marriage" has already been redefined. Because I am pretty sure my Dad didn't have to give my father-in-law 3 goats and a cow. :)

      Delete
  9. Eli,

    Im a long time reader, never before commenter, and secret love-affairer. I think you are brilliantly funny, and (as one can only judge by reading your posts) it also seems that you are a top notch human being.

    I would normally agree with your post whole-heartedly. For example, I hate chocolate, and not only that, I cannot for the LIFE of me, understand why other people enjoy it. It makes no sense..... I cannot warp my head around it ....... its disgusting. But in the case of marriage equality, no.... I cannot be neutral, nor can I agree to accept the 'other sides' arguement. Because (as a fellow human in the field of law), there really is no arguement. And you know, there are some times where the right thing to do is to put your foot down, say 'no more' and draw your sword.

    Marriage equality is a moral issue (I would even argue that.. but Im trying to not have all your readers kill me) NOT A CIVIC ISSUE. Just like segregation, women's sufferage, and interracial marriage. We are all equal in the eyes of the law. Some day all the people who fought against every American having equal rights, and yes, even the people who remained "neutral".. some day you will look back and think, "boy howdy I got it WRONG. I was part of the problem, part of the barracade that kept people...real, live people just like you and me.....I helped keep them having the rights that were alotted to them by the Constitution of the United States." And honestly, I hope when you realize that that you will have the courage to forgive yourself.

    No, Im sorry, I just cannot accept that being neutral on such an outrageously unlawful issue is the right thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who hates chocolate. I mean really.

      Delete
    2. Well said. Human rights absolutely trump all. All humans are entitled to be treated with equality and respect, and one's personal beliefs, which should be confined to one's own ideology and not used as a basis for legislation, are not sufficient cause to prevent and deter the equal treatment of one's fellow human beings. It becomes sticky, of course, when both sides are fighting based on ideology, but I think we must always defer to the side that does not remove the natural rights of human beings, but gives the same privileges and legal rights to all citizens, regardless of any one seemingly defining characteristic. We are all defined, by our differences that make each of us unique, and by the inexorable quality of humanity that persists in all of us, and I cannot abide by the assumption that someone is deserving of lesser treatment because of a matter of biology. There is actual legislation attempting to infringe upon the rights of our fellow people, and in such a case, complacency is as bad as active hate.

      Delete
    3. I don't think he was asking you to be neutral, or even accepting of the opposing views. He was merely saying that we're all human. And although you don't accept their views, most of them are good people trying to do what they think is right. We can't dislike someone, or not at least give them the respect everyone deserves as human beings, simply because they're views are different. Don't get me wrong though, this is easier said then done. When I'm in class debating issues, I have a really hard time not wanting to punch some of my classmates in the face... :)

      Delete
    4. Ha! Admittedly, I know the feeling. I try to respect passion in any capacity, though. It's what drives us to create a better society for ourselves. I agree with the idea of respect, and that it should extend to all people, regardless of opinion. I suppose my thought was that I believe that this respect mustn't end just with a general attitude towards others whom are different, but to ensure that all people are given equal rights. I think that it is our responsibility as a society to strive toward constant progress, and for me that means striving to create a world in which everyone can live free of fear and judgment for whatever characteristics define them, to themselves and to those that perceive them; however, in reviewing my post, I see that it was perfectly indicative of what Eli was talking about. You cannot only maintain compassion for those that agree with you, that's easy. I suppose for me it's difficult, because it is such a dear cause to me, as I've seen those I know and love struggle at the hand of institutionalized prejudice, and I cannot really comprehend how one could believe that someone deserves less, or even simply different, than anyone else. I believe that, despite characteristic differences-- differences in background, race, gender, sexual orientation, what have you-- humans are all fundamentally the same, just doing the best they can with the information that they have, so it bothers me that some are not treated as such. And it's hard to refrain from judgment when someone's views, however personal, directly impact others, be it through legislation or simply attitude. But judgment is a useless expenditure of energy, it accomplishes nothing but to promote one's own prejudices. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Sorry for the wall of text. :)

      Delete
    5. Um... nowhere on this post do I see Eli asking anyone to be neutral. He said he has many thoughts on the issue. He's not necessarily expanding on those thoughts because, based on what I read here, he is trying to portray the message of being kind to everyone regardless of their opinion. It's really easy to tell who is willing to show that kindness and respect, as hard as it may be, just by reading the comments on here. I found it extremely hard but worth it to show kindness and respect just a few months ago during the elections but because I tried, I was able to understand many of my friends' points of view while being true to mine and I realized it's always better to be kind.
      Now, chocolate is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me. And yes, cheesecake is the answer to actually EVERY question. Twice up the barrel, once down the side. Amen.

      Delete
    6. No. Not "all humans are entitled to be treated with equality and respect, and one's personal beliefs, which should be confined to one's own ideology and not used as a basis for legislation..." That is not true, it is one of the major deceptions of this world. People who violate the rights of others, who behave outside the morays of acceptable behavior, etc -- society has the obligation to maintain civil environments and to isolate/control uncivil behavior. For example, a professed nudist should not be allowed to practice that belief as a teacher of a 2nd grade class. This teacher can practice its nudist beliefs only where it does not infringe on the rights of others.
      And telling that teacher to practice his beliefs in a private setting is not being unkind, disrespectful, or prejudiced. In fact, it is the teacher's obligation to recognize how unkind and disrespectful such behavior would be to those not practicing nudist behavior. Both sides have a duty to think of the other side's position. That is humane compassion.
      This may not be the best example but it works.

      Delete
    7. Man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

      Delete
    8. Your entire argument became invalid the second you said you don't like chocolate and can't understand how other people like it. You are obviously too close minded to be paid any attention to.

      Delete
    9. "We can't dislike someone, or not at least give them the respect everyone deserves as human beings, simply because they're views are different."
      Hmmm, I beg to differ. If someone is racist, I think I can dislike them, and not respect them. Because not only are their views different, they are also racist.

      Delete
    10. exactly. not all human behaviors deserve respect and protection.

      Delete
    11. Just to be clear, I did not state that I am neutral, nor did I encourage anyone else to be neutral. I merely explained that I have chosen not to use this forum to expound upon the substantive issue here and noted that while my thoughts on the topic are multi-faceted, I don't believe that I have all of the answers. I am happy to discuss the issues and my thoughts on them, and have done so in other forums, but as far as Stranger is concerned, the relevant message I want to communicate is one of kindness. And kindness is not a neutral position. It's possibly the most partial position one can take.

      Delete
    12. Eli, awesome response. Thank you for being such a great voice of reason in this unreasonable world. I'm going to try to be more kind.

      Delete
  10. For the ppl saying they don't hate, but that what is being asked of them is more than just tolerance...it is in fact having someone elses opinion forced down their throat...against their will, to them I have just one question "what then have you been doing to people who do believe in same sex marriages?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. I happen to love this quote, "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." -Rick Warren. And what you said Eli rings very true, I loved how you put it. You have a way with words that brings me to tears with laughter and can make me sit back and think deeply. I'm very glad to be a part of the stranger community.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you so much. This is such a great start to my day. <3

    ReplyDelete
  13. This country wants God out of every aspect of life. Lets not forget religion was what this country was founded on but who cares, no big deal. Then when tragedy strikes everyone asks "how could God let this happen?" and they all get together and pray. How ironic. Same thing here. Whether people want to admit it or not, religion and God is what the USA was built upon. Take away the last few moral fragments that exist in this country and you will have nothing left.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This country wasn't founded on religion. The original settlers came here for religious freedom and freedom from persecution, to practice how they wished. The Founding Fathers separated church and state exactly because they did intend to found a nation on any given church, but rather support the concept of freedom.

    Eli - great post.

    Let me add: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ZXdvN3orA&safe=active

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Freedom from one religion is by its nature freedom to practice religion.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry for the typo. The Founders did NOT intend to found a nation on any given church.

      You're welcome to practice and believe what you want. Even to try to convince me of your beliefs. I just think it is incorrect to believe that our nation was founded on any one religion or that it is okay to discriminate against others because of differences in opinions.

      Delete
    3. Actually our great nation was founded upon Christian principles. They came here so they would be free to practice their Christianity without being persecuted. The reason for separation of church and state was specifically so that laws could not be made making our nation like the nation's they had fleed from.

      Delete
    4. If you really break it down, most religions ask you to practice the same principles. It doesn't matter if it is God, Buddha, Allah....

      Delete
  15. Well said wtchrdr67. If this country were founded on religion, well Mormonism wasn't even around back then so what is the likelihood it would have been tolerated (barely tolerated as it was) by a state founded by a different vein of Christianity? One can believe the founders were inspired, as I do, ... they were inspired to separate church and state. This country was founded on freedom, which is the whole reason we are free to have a "new" religion, restored here in the 19th century. It is not the government's place to dictate our spirituality, but rather up to individuals to decide. If we feel like this country is becoming a less religious place, then it's likely because overall the people are becoming less-so. It's unfortunate, but we can't blame the government for this. It is up to us to teach our children what we believe is right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well said! Kudos to you good sir!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you Eli. When you are confident in your own beliefs then you aren't threatened by others' beliefs. What you've written shows the foundations of living that way. I wish we lived in a time when people would slow down enough to really read what you wrote and contemplate its meaning fully. I wish people felt we lived in a community that welcomed all its members with compassion and respect. I wish people looked for ways to connect instead of ways to find offense. I don't see how making our community more accepting of multiple viewpoints hurts anyone's individual choice of their own viewpoint or belief. I wish more people had your clarity and strength.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think you were in the right to avoid political/religous issues on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Biggest problem with this issue is that marriage, since it ever first existed, was in the premise of the CHURCH. It became an issue here when the federal government decided they needed to issue state marriages. The states can legalize gay marriage, but they can never force a church to recognize or accept it as "holy matrimony". In my opinion our government is concerned with too many trivial social issues, when they should be more worried about our downward spiral into bankruptcy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were two women who were a couple for over 40 years. One of them died when they were in their 80's. The other was then told by the federal government she would have to pay over $300,000 in estate taxes. Had they been a man and woman instead of two women, they could have been married legally and the survivor would not have been asked to pay. Health benefits. Social security benefits. Basic rights of couples are being denied. These are not small issues.

      However, I agree with you. The government should be focusing on saving our economy. It would be nice if we could move forward on what should be a non-issue and get on to what are more complex and thornier questions.

      Delete
  20. This is the first thing I have read on the topic that hasn't made me feel discouraged. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I really appreciate this post. This was very well written.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Really, though...at the heart of it, I'm not even sure it's a fight about marriage and what's right or wrong in relationships and whether or not it's "fair." For me, it's about supporting and defending gender identity and gender roles. Society was built on them and still needs them. Not sterotypes that lock people into oppression, but the balance that the different genders bring to society. We need both women and men who enjoy being women and who enjoy being men...and not trying to be the other. As soon as we as a society let those lines blur, even in the name of "fairness" to this generation, the more of a disservice we do to the next and the more confusion we have among people...and the more our entire society becomes defined by sex and sexuality rather than what we human beings are capable of doing and becoming otherwise.

    I wholeheartedly believe it is also a moral issue that the government doesn't have any right to govern it...but once they decide to do it, it's just one more way they infiltrate themselves into the lives of people. As soon as it becomes legal, it also becomes legal to teach it in schools, and to normalize it without any input from parents.

    And while the world was up in arms debating this one, we all got screwed in a different way. The mega corporations that consistently genetically modify most of the grains and commodities that are used in our nations food supply just received federal protection to continue poisoning our society and never have to disclose it. Carefully planned? I think so!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What exactly is "it"?

      Are you saying that if homosexuality is accepted, we will teach it in our schools to our children? God forbid. That might make them gay. Just like teaching them about civil rights from the 60's will teach them to be racist. The horror.

      Delete
  23. I've been trying to turn this conversation back to chickens somehow since I think many of us (myself included) got drawn away from Eli's goal in his eloquent post above, but the best I could find was ducks. But I suppose if you can get from gay marriage to sex with ducks, sex with chickens (or cats or snakes for that matter) cannot be far behind. Watch out, Eli!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8&safe=active

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed agreed! In considering my initial thoughts again I've realised that Eli shouldn't come to Australia, or even listen to Daniel read about it... We have chickens and precisely because we have chickens, we also have snakes, though fortunately we don't have ducks! We do have a cat, two dogs and way more children than is sensible (we hoped they'd eat the chickens) and we do have a race car named The Duck.... Seriously Eli, I think you'd be happier in Palau than at my place in Australia. I wonder if any other Strangers have digs more suitable because I seriously can't agree to your request to surf on my couch... Sorry! Bridg

      Delete
  24. We call it gay marriage. We say it's about equality and rights and fairness to all. We argue with and name call the ones who don't agree with our views. But above all we are almost demanded to be tolerant of anybody and anything. You know who is the least tolerant of all? No, it's not the uber - conservatives nor is it the actual gays who can't stand that some people won't accept them. It's God. He doesn't stand for sin. Yes, you can call it what you want: abortion, gay marriage, divorce and remarriage, swearing, sex before marriage etc etc, but God calls it sin. And he is beyond simply being intolerant of it. Look at what happened in the Old Testament. People died. Sometimes immediately. Thankfully we live in a more forgiving time and he will forgive all if asked, however if he is not asked the day will come when you will be judged. Make sure you're ready for it. And no I am not a bitter old woman that hates all who don't believe like me. I am a 20 year old newlywed with a positive outlook on life. I don't hate anyone for who they are or how they act. Nor am I judging anyone. We all sin and there are no big or small sins... In God's eyes it's just sin and he can't stand it. So please guys don't hate on others. Love everyone as you love yourself. Be kind and tenderhearted. Forgiving one another as God will and has forgiven you. Study the truth and spread the truth. Thanks for reading.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eli, you're a good guy for posting this kind of message. Thanks for the perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm sorry Eli, but the answer to every question is not "cheesecake". It's "42".

    Sincerely,
    Arthur

    p.s. Please, please, please tell me you 'get' the reference, because if you don't I'm grounding you until you've read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

    ReplyDelete
  27. I seriously think you're my soul mate ;)

    ReplyDelete