Jennifer Lee JacksonPreponderance of Evidence
Follows is my response to a recent KSL editorial in support of the proposed marriage amendment
Mr. Cardall,
It is indeed sad when people such as yourself and your board members find irrational reasons to go against the intentions of important historical documents such as the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution was written to keep religion and worse, oligarchy from reigning. By your actions you are further dividing our nation in implying that all men/women are not created equal and ignore even today’s science that tells you bigotry is what we need to fight against not nature.
Mr. Jeffrey Nielsen in yesterdays Tribune said it best… “I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral.
Currently the preponderance of scientific research strongly suggests that same-sex attraction is biologically based. Therefore, it is as natural as a heterosexual orientation, even if rare. It seems it might be caused by environmental conditions in the mother’s womb, before birth, triggering the DNA to give the fetus a homosexual orientation. Neither the mother nor the child has any choice in the matter; it is a completely natural process.
Truly, God would be unjust if He were the creator of a biological process that produced such uncommon, yet perfectly natural results, and then condemned the innocent person to a life of guilt, while denying him or her the ordinary privileges and fulfillment of the deep longing in all of us for family and a committed, loving relationship.”
When we can truly become brothers/sisters and allow good people to flourish rather than be condemned, then I believe we can start concentrating on what families and marriage really is. It is love.
When KSL parrots the hierarchy of one religion rather than the community as a whole, you send a further message to those who are struggling in this society; that they do not have a right to live freely. It is my belief that you perpetuate hate of those who are bigoted and destroy those who are different, because of your fear. Your intent may be otherwise, but your actions perpetuate self deprecation of those you persecute. This then leads to less productive people and possible suicide.
If this is the result of your editorial Mr. Cardall, then it is my belief that you must personally, along with your board members take the responsibility of the deaths and hurt that you cause.
If there is to be an amendment to the Constitution, then let it be for the support of human life. Let the new amendment condemn war and hatred rather than seeking to destroy what God does not want to be put asunder; the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness of all men and women.
Jennifer Lee Jackson
June 5th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Duane Cardell is nothing but a parrot. His obvious attack on the constitution reveals either ignorance or treason, or a willingness to compromise HIS morality for a paycheck.
The first line of his editorial says. “It is time to add a definition of marriage to the Constitution of the United States!”
A simple reading of the constitution shows quite clearly that the constitution does NOT define things like marriage. Rather, it defines rights.
The rational that it is “essential to ending the confusion and preserving civilization’s most fundamental institution.” is so far outside of the purpose of the constitution as to suggest that Cardell and/or his masters suffer an utterly inexcusable appreciation for the very freedoms protected by the same.
The constitution is NOT a available to you bigots for your social engineering or misreading of the bible.
I am sickened by the behavior of a media supposedly charged with a responsibility to educate and inform, not pander to religious bigotry.
Cardell needs to be a man and either “come out” and apologize, or just apologize. And he should start with his wife and kids, less they suffer in silence and shame for his small mindedness.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
The KSL editorial in nothing more than circular reasoning that seeks to prove what it presupposes. The editorial thus fails to provide much else than baseless fodder.
Specifically, the editorial provides the premise that “a national definition of marriage is needed primarily because of a growing trend by some courts across the nation to redefine marriage and make it something it is not.” This statement, of course, begs the question “what is and what is not marriage?” And without so much as a scintila of analysis, the editorial provides the seeming answer to the question as: “civilization’s most fundamental institution.”
Great! Thanks KSL for your brilliant analysis. Marriage is “civilization’s most fundamental institution” and, as apparently follows, “civilization’s most fundamental institution” is mariage.
Now comes the hard part, KSL, and the challenge for you and the full-of-fear uninformed base that comprises your readership. What is “marriage”? Alternatively, what is “civilization’s most fundamental institution”? When you can provide an answer to one or the other of these questions, please let us know.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Should we interpret such an editorial as and expression of overwhelming popular sentiment, or as KSL corporate “group think” ?
As a strong Mormon with well-grounded Christian values, I do not agree that the government should be in the business of legislating morality. One need not have a gay son or daughter to appreciate the value of committed loving relationships.
The institution of marriage is an overwhelming interest of government and I see no evidence that gay marriage has any less value with regard to reducing the burden on the government.
KSL does not represent the majority religious community. It represents the small-minded vocal minority.
I wonder at times of our church leadership is as in touch with the brethren as they assume.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Having followed this debate over the past few weeks, I am struck by the dearth of respectable intelligent people who support this amendment. By contrast, a great many highly pedigreed an respected thinkers have argued with great and sober reasoning why this amendment is a terrible idea.
Who is Duane Cardell, and for ehom does he speak? Is he a consitutional scholar. Is he anyone to whom we should listen?
How has Cardell served his community? What is his resume?
June 5th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
I still don’t see the point in Govt involved in marriage at any point. I don’t need to let the govt. know that I have found someone and choose to spend my life with them and have children do whatever. Those days are gone, marriage is something between the two people, maybe there families, unless your family is like mine, and if you have religion, your church. Don’t see Uncle Sam in the formula.
June 5th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Jenniffer, I agree with every word. You write with passion and intellect and moral commitment. We have the high ground. The Far Right, the most reactionary of the Republican Party at Prayer, have sponsored this proposed amendment as a wedge issue. And shame upon any church that misuses the Constitution of the United States, and their own privileged position in the Town Square, to propose the elevation of ignorance and disgraceful meanness of spirit, into our Constitution. They will fail. The cosmos is tilted toward peace and justice. Keep writing and speaking, my friend.
June 6th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
You go girl!
June 6th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Jennifer
My reading of the Constitution shows that KSL is exercising its Constitutional right of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. I included the 1st amendment so you could give it a read and understand that the Church, KSL, and every other citizen of this great country have the same right to speak out against any issue that you have.
You say that speaking out against “gay marriage” is bigotry, but I could also argue that criticizing the church and using phrases such as “oligarchy from reigning” and “parrots the hierarchy of one religion” is bigotry on your part. Also having an opinion opposite of yours does not make it irrational. Believing that is truly irrational in of its self, and you have shown that to a tee.
June 7th, 2006 at 9:17 am
A little off base are we, Ken?
I don’t recall anyone taking issue with KSL’s first amendment right to say what it wants, or when it wants. The issue concerns, instead, the unsupportable and blattantly false positions asserted in the editorial. Worse yet, as Nephi correctly points out, the editorial reflects the same circular reasoning used by many who support the amendment. Look below the surface, and you, too, will see that the amendment is bigotry, plain and simple.
Jennifer got it right, while you got it wrong.
June 7th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
My Dearest Friend - Ken,
With only love in my heart for you, I must point out a fundamental problem with your logic.
Indeed “speaking out against gay marriage” [in favor of the amendment] IS bigotry because is attempts to single out a class of truly wonderful people and exclude them from having the same rights as others.
But “criticizing the church” does no such thing. Our constitution prevents the unequal treatment of bigots under the law.
I hope you will read Ed’s bio and take this unique opportunity to learn from him rather than splashing constitutional interpretation with poisonous secular rhetoric.
Fortunately no court, judge, or scholar has EVER interpreted the 1st Amendment as you have here. To do so would be a complete reversal of its meaning starting with its authors and up into the present.
Any professor outside of maybe - MAYBE - John Jones University would have to flunk you in a Constitutional law course for your misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment and if you went to a law school that didn’t flunk you for that, no law firm would hire you if you could even pass the bar.
This is reality Ken. Keep your religious beliefs SEPARATE from government.
June 13th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Let us consider the phrase Bigot:
Wikipedia - A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.
I’ll admit that I am a bigot. I am intolarent of the lifestyle of homosexuality, because it is a lifestyle that I see as inconsistant with what is natural. (P.S. The science regarding homosexuality genetics is still in its infancy, so lets stop making this a racism issue) I will always be a bigot until the science regarding this issue is concretely and inconclusively proven (it isn’t).
Now does that mean that I hate homosexuals. I’m sure all of you other bigots assume yes. You would be wrong. I went to college as a Theater student and I have lived with Gay men, worked on the stage with them and I agree with Cliff that they are wonderful people. One of the relatives that I am most proud of is my second cousin, and great Utah artist the late Danny Baxter. However, I don’t support the lifestyle and I can’t sanction the choice.
Regarding the LDS Church and this issue, I do support their decision because it is an issue they have never waivered on. They have openly said they believe governments should be careful of this this for 11 years. You maynot agree with them, but you cannot acuse them of political pandering.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Very well written response! I take comfort in that the people most opposed to gay marriage and homosexuals are old. Young people are very open to it.
Soon, the old fogies will croak and younger people will turn 18 and be able to vote. We shall win. It is inevitable.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:44 am
PoliticalCritic, you need to visit BYU and universities in the bible-belt region. I like the way you think, but we have a lot more work ahead of us than you suggest.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Mr. Bell,
It is regrettable that you should use the tired canard that you need conclusive scientific proof to accept something that contradicts an utterly soft faith-based opinion.
Homosexuality is as natural as the day is long. We know this from observation. There will likely never be genetic evidence on homosexuality or heterosexuality because the no science points to hormonal issues.
I would challenge you to identify anything you consider incontrovertible scientific proof.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:10 am
LOL Cliff. Bell is the type that finds scientific proof where ever and whenever convenient. Indeed, something tells me that Mr. Bell equates the warm and fuzzy feeling periodically felt in his gut with scientific proof the the LDS church is true.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Your right. Your right. I’m just a Jonestown coolaid drinker. I’m a strong supporter of evoultion in science classes, even there is no shread of impirical proof. The only medicine I ever need is oil and hands on my head. Blah, blah, blah.
Wait a minute, Cliff…..
“There will likely never be genetic evidence on homosexuality or heterosexuality” By your response I assume you must be advocating for legalized bigomy as well. In response to your challange to identify anything I consider “incontrovertible scientific proof”, I’d have there isn’t much.
1. For children to be born there needs to be a man and a woman. Hows that.
Charley Foster had an interesting idea in compromise or opposition to the failed ban. I’ve posted on it, if anyone is curious.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I’m so confused Phillip. Are you against gay marriage for lack of scientific evidence, per the counsel of your religious leaders, fear of liberal judges, or because gay unions can’t produce children naturally?
They are all mutually exclusive.
But the your revealing statement was found on your excellent blog, “I’ve grown very tired of the Marriage Amendment debate.” And therein lies the best argument for leaving the issue alone, because you really don’t care.
But here’s why you should…”Tyranny of the majority” was a concept at the forefront of the founding fathers’ minds when they wrote the constitution. This happens when the beliefs of a majority of people has a harmful effect on a minority group.
Both liberal and conservative ideologies agree that if what you do in private harms no one, gov’t should stay out of it.
So yes, I do believe people should be allowed to love in any way they want. If that means bigamy or polygamy, as long as no one is harmed by it, it should be legal.
Adherence to these principles will insure the perpetuation of our fundamental liberties. Exceptions like banning gay marriage or flag burning, made for political or religious expediency are quite dangerous.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Cliff,
I can deal with what you are saying. The realist side of me, feels that fighting gay marriage is likely a losing proposition. Logically I’m pretty sure that the Federal government will have to define marriage - congressional or judicially. Religiously, I feel that gay marriage would have some serious impact on the morals of our society. Imperically, even with state amendments, the courts will likely take a look at this one and I’m pretty sure that court presidence will have to allow gay marriage as a defined marital relationship.
I confuse myself sometimes
So the debate is tiresome because I feel that what I feel is morally right, will likely be shoved aside.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Cliff and Phil,
The below appeared as a letter to the editor in the June 19, 2006 edition of the Deseret Morning News (the link is below the letter). I agree with Phil - the debate is tiring, and after awhile one wonders what the argument is really all about (shifting sands of political mish-mash). Nevertheless, I thought the letter did a good job of crystalizing at least one argument against a principle position of conservatives and, at the same time, exposing the hypocricy that permeates the position. The letter makes a valid point, to say the least. Enjoy:
Hypocritical about marriage
It baffles me how blatantly hypocritical the conservative movement and many heterosexuals have been throughout the entire gay marriage debate. If this issue were actually about preserving the sanctity of marriage and family, not just a definition in the dictionary, then I say we ban heterosexuals from being able to marry as well.
After all, who are the ones really responsible for the rotting state of the contemporary family? Don’t blame me, a gay man prohibited from even having a family of my own, for the destructive threat to your families.
Take a good look in the mirror and realize you only have yourselves to thank. Take a good look at your marriages of convenience and painless, here-today-gone-tomorrow divorces, the rampant, sickening incidence of spousal and child abuse and the never-ending cycle of infidelity and deceit that destroy the lives of your children. Where is the real threat here?
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640187706,00.html
June 20th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Touche, marriage in America has been on the rock for years. While I don’t live my marriage in the way the article depicts, I can’t argue that Congress or state legislatures have an ounce of moral authority to define holiness in any regard.