A marriage proposal we can all agree to
The aftermath of Proposition 8 is a quagmire of jeopardized freedoms. Same-sex couples have lost equal protection, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, while the demand to strip the Church of Latter-Day Saints of their tax-free status ““ made by a tiny but vocal minority of “No on 8″ proponents ““ could threaten the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Thankfully the debate over these issues is being held in largely peaceful, democratic forums. Still, it seems that the two sides are doing more talking, or yelling, than listening.
“No on 8″ supporters want their constitutionally granted equal rights. They want to uphold the ideals set forth by our founding fathers: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That would include marriage, which offers a myriad of protections involving joint taxes, adoption rights, medical decisions, etc. At the same time, many people of faith, including Mormons, wish to follow their religious beliefs regarding the sacrament of marriage.
It would seem that these two views are irreconcilable, but I have a proposal. Abolish marriage within the state and replace it with universal domestic partnership. That way everyone has equal privileges and religion is not involved. Then, those wishing to be married could do so through their church without state entanglement either direction. Equal protection and freedom of religion both would be upheld in one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
Brian Teng
First-year, undeclared life sciences
Letter-writer’s anger misguided, unfounded
I recently read Ziv Kaufman’s letter calling for the support of the Jewish community in legalizing gay marriage (“Jewish community must support all,” Nov. 12). While I empathize with the pain he and other gay individuals have experienced, and applaud his efforts, the letter illustrates a breakdown of discourse and understanding.
First and foremost, the constant use of the term “rights” is muddying the issue. To characterize Muslim and Christian groups as not believing in the rights of Jews because they wish they would convert is dishonest. I wish more people would think the way I do, and so does Kaufman, and so does everyone else. That is hardly disrespect for the rights of others. Also, no one has curtailed the right of any individual to form a union, have a ceremony, and call himself or herself married. The state’s recognition of one’s self-definition is not a matter of rights, but semantics.
More importantly, Kaufman’s anger at the Jewish community is unfounded. Frankly, there is absolutely nothing in religious Judaism that would translate into support for any sort of homosexual behavior. Judaism is heavily based upon the traditional family, and most religious Jews do not see deviations as acceptable. To become enraged at Jews for supporting Proposition 8 is foolhardy. One might as well get incensed at a Christian for believing in Jesus, a Muslim for stating allegiance to Allah, or a Democrat for voting for Obama.
There are more liberal forms of Judaism that are more in line with mine and Kaufman’s beliefs (I am on the fence regarding gay marriage, leaning toward state recognition). He should focus on those people, not on the extremely religious. The best way to convince people to fight with you is to appeal to commonalities, not by chastising or trying to induce guilt for beliefs that have existed for millennia. How can one gain respect for their point of view while feeling malice for those who think differently?
Joel Schwartz
UCLA alumnus, class of 2003
Follow the Daily Bruin on twitter for breaking news alerts.