Say It Ain't So, Tom

Tom Hanks, who is currently making a fair bit of money from producing a television show about an offshoot of the Mormon religion, fails to see the irony when he criticizes the church about their stance on California's Prop 8:

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

I'll grant it's one of the more calm and moderate criticisms I've heard, and I hope what we should read between the lines is a call for more dialogue and understanding on both sides rather than intimidation and violence. But still, the gist of his criticism is that donating money to unpopular causes is "un-American."

What, exactly, is un-American about backing unpopular causes? Gay rights was, at one point, extremely unpopular and considered by the mainstream to be immoral. So were the people who backed the cause then un-American? Were the Founding Fathers, who undoubtedly opposed "buggery" as it was known then, un-American? Bill McKeever of the Mormonism Research Ministry puts it best:

"Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience. Hanks said he doesn’t 'like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.' Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees. I may not agree with Mormon theology, but I certainly defend their right to express their opinion."

One look at the Mormon Research Ministry's website will confirm that McKeever is not a fan of the church.

So meanwhile, I have this to say to Mr. Hanks. I've appreciated your work. You've brought a lot of enjoyment into my life. I doubt I'm going to stop watching your movies just because of this. But I do have to say that it's rather hypocritical of you advocate denying Mormons of the right to political expression while simultaneously profiting from a TV show about Mormon splinter groups.

With the support of people like you, Mr. Hanks, how long will it be before Hollywood forms their own "Un-American Activities Committee" to snuff out dissent from people whose political opinions disagree with your own? And by the way? Where is your criticism of the also-un-American black and Muslim communities? Or does your courage not extend to criticizing those minorities?

But I will give you points for at least taking a more moderate line. When Hollywood is on a pogrom against anyone who would dare support Prop 8, being moderate is as close to dissent as some people can dare come.

Your Actions Shout So Loudly I Can't Hear What You Say

The Anti-Prop 8 Tantrum continues, this time at the LDS temple in New York City. What cracks me up is not the fact that they're demonstrating, but the sheer level of ignorance shown by the protestors.

For example, one demonstrator is holding a sign that reads "If you can have three wives, why can't I have one husband." Uh....we can't have three wives, doofus. The government outlawed that a long time ago and stripped anyone who refused to comply with voting rights and property.

People claim that opposition to gay causes stems from ignorance at best, so perhaps they might try NOT being ignorant themselves?

Another sign: "Did you cast a ballot or a rock?" I'm willing to bet that none of the LDS members in New York voted on California's Prop 8, for or against. It's like...illegal or something.

Another sign: "Church of Mormon", with the second M crossed out. Again, your ignorance is showing. We're The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But then it's only imperative that everyone else be fully informed on gay issues, not the other way around. I get it. Try "Book of Mormon" next time and you'll be closer.

These people are not helping their cause. But, to quote Levar Burton, you don't have to take MY word for it. How about GayPatriot, referring to a recent video of the protests:

Here, they try to prevent a reporter from interviewing an elderly supporter of the proposition. They don’t just harass this old lady; they pull the cross out of her hands and stomp on it.

Yeah, I get why people are upset. But, what explains this childish behavior? Didn’t their mothers teach them to be kind to old people? Why this refusal to understand their opponents? Why this insistence on silencing them? Do such people deserve the privilege of state sanction of their unions?

Where are the gay organizations condemning such conduct?

The gay movement needs some adult supervision right now.

As Instapundit points out, "At least it wasn't a Koran" they stomped on.

A common criticism about the amount of money donated to the Pro-Prop 8 groups is that the money should have been used to help the poor. Well, I'm sure the anti side spent a lot of money, too. I don't begrudge them that, frankly. But if all the money and time being funneled into these protests were donated to the poor it would not only significantly help the poor, but probably do much more to help their cause than these protests.

Compare these two conjectural headlines:
A) 10,000 Gays Converge on Mormon temple to Protest Prop-8
B) 10,000 Gays Converge in South Central LA to Help Clean Up Neighborhood

Just a thought.

Update: GayPatriot has more thoughts here.

No Vote For You!

I've been considering a series of posts outlining my various positions on issues surrounding same-sex marriage and the response to the California Proposition 8. I haven't gotten around to it yet, and may not at all. But there's one issue I can't ignore. Many protesting the results insist that religion should never play a role in politics.

What country do you live in?! Obviously not this one, as--if that were true--we'd still be a Royal Commonwealth. Your lack of historical knowledge is amazingly acute and you should be sent back to elementary school.

But all that aside, the notion is utterly ludicrous and dangerous. To imply that there should be any test to qualify for voting is fascist, not democratic. I may not like how people vote, I may not like why they vote a particular way, but to state that any particular way of reaching one's conclusions is wrong is anathema to the very principles this country was founded on.

This idea is forwarded by small-minded individuals who simply cannot endure the idea that anyone would disagree with them. The most common excuse I've heard to justify this idea is that "I come by my opinion based on logic and common sense, while religion is irrational at best, and hate-mongery at worst."

For one thing, that is only an opinion. You see the logic in your opinion, but it does not necessarily follow that your logic is irrefutable. Chances are you only refuse to hear counter-evidence.

For another, logic can be used to justify nearly anything. For example, I could (and do) present the following argument: Prove to me that there is no God. What responses might you give? You've never seen him? *Buzz* So? Borneo exists regardless of my lack of personal oggling thereof. And there are at least a few people who claim to have seen God.

How about many of the claims of the Bible being refuted by science? Does that disprove the existence of God, or just prove either the incompleteness of science or the failure of the Bible to state religious beliefs in scientifically verifiable terms? Either way, that fails to really address God's existence.

Please don't even bother raising the argument, "Well, if there was a God, why does he let so many bad things happen?" That's simply a ludicrous way of saying "If God were God he'd agree with me!" I would posit that if God is God he's got a totally different perspective on things that none of us are likely to grasp without a similar frame of reference.

You might get farther arguing "If God is God, why are there so many different religions, and why does he allow them to do such terrible things in his name?" But ultimately it's the same argument as above. You think you know how God should work, as if his perspective should somehow match yours. That only questions the nature of God, not his existence.

If someone has some really good, solid, verifiable proof that God does not exist I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, I can logically argue that without proof that God does not exist, it's completely logical and acceptable to assume that He does. It is also logical to assume that God has a plan for what He is doing, because we have no proof to the contrary.

And if that is accepted, then it logically follows that God's plan includes an opinion on how we should behave. Prove otherwise. Now here you might have some rational ground for bringing up the multiplicity of religions and their contrary beliefs. However, for every argument here there is a counter-argument. Ultimately you can no more disprove the idea of "commandments" than I can prove their veracity--though there is evidence on my side. Eventually it all returns to the idea that God, for whatever reason, wants us to operate on faith, whether we like it or not.

So perhaps it is not incontrovertable for me to say that "X is a sin", but it is also not incontrovertable for you to argue "no X is not, because there is no sin, because there is no God." Logic insists that there is at least a chance that I am right. Therefore there is also a chance that you are wrong in claiming I am irrational.

Are you willing to bet your presumed eternal soul that I'm wrong? I'm already betting mine that I'm right. If you're right, then really, what does it matter how I behave? If there is no God, then man is the only moral authority. So who is to say that you are any more right than I am? Oh, sure, society has its conventions, but then on the question of gay marriage, who is the one overturning convention?

In fact, in the absence of God, the only moral authority--at least in America--is majority rule. And what has the majority been saying so far about same-sex marriage? Like it or not, until you convince a majority to support it, you at the very least cannot question my right to oppose it.

But to get back to my point, you cannot exclude religious people from the political process simply because you believe we are irrational. For one, you cannot irrefutably prove that we are. For another, the law of the land only insists that you be eighteen years of age and a U.S. citizen. Until it says otherwise, that is the only grounds on which you can refuse political franchise.

For my part, I don't care if a person flips a coin, listens to a rock, prays to satan, or numerologically calculates the ideal candidate based on his middle name in choosing how to vote. That's their business. I may not like the result, but I'll defend their right to do so until death. The minute we claim one method is superior to another and therefore grounds to disenfranchise anyone we are on very shaky ground.

For all the charges of hate and bigotry against "my side" of the issue, I would never attempt to deny anyone on "the other side" the right to vote on the issue. On any issue. Should someone seek to amend the Constitution to acknowledge satan as supreme lord of the universe I would still insist that every legal voter be allowed their vote.

I'm just funny that way.

You Got a License For That?

Classical Values has some interesting thoughts on marriage and licenses that lends credence to the idea that government should get out of the marriage business in the first place:

Well, licensing is, after all, a government restriction. When people speak of marriage as a "right," they really are not speaking of a right to marriage, but a "right" to a marriage license. Yet true rights (such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion) are not -- and by their nature cannot be -- subject to licensing.

If marriage were treated as a right, it would not be subject to licensing.

In the normal scope of things, activities that are licensed -- cutting hair, flying planes, driving 18 wheelers, practicing law, medicine, etc. -- are not rights at all, but occupational choices that require training, which are regulated by the state.
...
I'd hate to think all this fuss is over a desire for official state imprimatur, but I worry that it is. Like almost everything else (soon including the auto industry), marriage is seen as something you get from the government. Maybe it would be better to see it as something that the government cannot interfere with, the way genuine rights are.

Same-Sex Marriage

One not-entirely-overlooked aspect of this election was the number of initiatives to block same-sex marriage in several states, including California.

For the record, I do oppose it on religious grounds, just like our President-elect. I don't necessarily view it as any worse a sin than adultery, for example, but it is a sin none-the-less. And until someone can prove to me that there is no God, I intend to continue viewing it that way. And therefore I'm opposed to anything that would encourage and normalize sin.

That said, I also oppose it on political grounds. While many proponents may not intend such consequences, the "progress" on that front so far has not just opened up marriage to gay couples, but has also resulted in the government telling religions what they can and can't do. Such laws have already resulted in religious-oriented adoption agencies closing down rather than be forced to adopt children to same-sex couples. It's only a matter of time before similar efforts result in churches being forced to accept and even perform same-sex marriages.

That is completely wrong, if not unconstitutional. If someone sued an adoption agency that only dealt in Asian children to force them to accept children of other ethnicity I'm sure it would raise an uproar. So why can't an agency have control over which parents are suitable for the children they are helping?

Why can a woman choose to end the life of her baby but not have control over what kind of upbringing her child will receive if she gives it up for adoption? That doesn't make any sense.

And how can you force a church to recognize or perform an act it views as sinful, especially when there are other options available? I'm sure they could find a church that would perform the marriage. Why force one particular one to do it?

How is allowing prayer in school unacceptable while forcing same-sex marriages on a church acceptable? Where does freedom of religion end and freedom from religion begin? And vice versa?

From a strictly sectarian, political view I could accept gay marriage so long as it was never used as a lever to force churches into accepting something they view as unacceptable. But since not only can no one guarantee that it would not be used in that way, but actually IS being used that way, I have to say no. They're forcing me to say "not one inch" when I normally might have been willing to grant an inch or two.

Glenn Greenwald feels that the recent defeats are wrong, and that the new administration needs to respond by overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. That's his perogative, I suppose. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were him, though. The democrats are perfectly fine using the individual desires of special interest groups like the gays to get into office, but not so good about actually delivering on their promises once there.

After all, once you've lost your lever for controlling that particular group, then what are you going to do? You might very well lose them to your opposition. Instead, if they can keep putting them off indefinitely while acting sympathetic, they can sew up that voting block for years to come.

One last point. California was an interesting case. The people of California already voted against same-sex marriage once--and quite strongly. That vote was overturned by legal challenge. So Californians expressed their will again. No same-sex marriage.

The homosexuals of California do not seem to understand that when you live in a democracy you sometimes have to accept that the majority do not want something you want. Live with it. The majority elected Obama. I'm living with it. I'm not looking around for a judge to overturn the election.

What if the situation were reversed? What if the first time California had approved gay marriage? And what if the judiciary then overturned that decision? Would you accept the ruling then? You can't have it both ways. Either the voice of the people trumps all or it does not.

Based on the lower margin of approval this time around, I suspect it's only a matter of time before California accepts gay marriage. I'm sure its proponents will view it as some grand, wonderful evidence of right prevailing over prejudice and hate. But you know what? Someday the shoe will be on the other foot. Something they believe is immoral and a threat to their way of life will be imposed on them in the same manner.

Whatever mechanism you use for getting your way can and will be used by someone else to get theirs. If you believe that people of religion should sit down, shut up, and stay out of your way, then why didn't you sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way when we went to war in Iraq? Or banned government funding of stem cell research? Or re-elected George Bush?

You can't have it both ways. Our system of government allows for opposition on any and every issue. Sometimes you'll get what you want. Sometimes the answer is no. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got. If you don't support that system it will be replaced by something else. You may find you like that one even less.