California's Proposition 8
71
Yes on Proposition 8 Ad
Gingrich for Proposition 8
Proposition 8
This fall, Californians will get to vote on how to define marriage.
Proposition 8 wants to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only.
What is the reason for this? Well, the California Supreme Court, earlier this year, overturned Proposition 22 (from 2000). Proposition 22 amended the state civil code to define marriage as between a man and a woman - husband and wife. In May 2008, judicial activism took hold in the California Supreme Court and they overturned the civil code definition as being "unconstitutional." Specifically, the California Supreme Court held that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples."
I tend to believe that the judiciary should interpret laws. What they did in this instance was judicial activism - promotion of a social agenda, or social change, through their decisions. 61% of the voting population in 2000 agreed that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. Don't you think that the judges should have respected that decision? This was a decision made by the voters. Rather than overturning it, the judges should have made the people vote to allow marriage between same-sex couples. Instead, voters are going to have to vote to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
It seems like a semantic difference. However, polling indicates otherwise. When the official definition of Proposition 8 read, "Will define marriage as between a man and a woman" the polling numbers showed it was about 50-50, with a somewhat good chance of passage. However, in another show of activism, the Attorney General Jerry Brown (a notorious leftist) re-worded this definition to read, "removes the right of same-sex couples to marry" - the Proposition is polling at only 38% favoring Prop. 8.
In the continuing legal saga, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected a lawsuit filed by marriage amendment opponents seeking to keep Proposition 8 off the November ballot. The lawsuit, filed June 19, sought to block the amendment from going before voters, alleging that it constituted a fundamental revision of the California Constitution, and thus required approval from 2/3 of the legislature. The court's unanimous ruling, without comment, rejected that claim, clearing the final roadblock to the amendment's appearance on the ballot in November.
The California and Federal Constitution
I am not a lawyer arguing this case. But here is what I would say if I were - the California Constitution is in violation of the federal Constitution, and therefore, the federal Constitution trumps.
The California Constitution provides that people shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. The federal Constitution does not include this in their protections. To that extent, the two are in conflict. The federal Constitution should trump.
Additionally, since when is bedroom behavior - that of who you choose to sleep with - something that should be adjudicated? I don't care who you sleep with. I don't want to know. I tend to believe that the homosexuals brought this upon themselves, by bringing their bedroom tastes into the public sphere. People will disagree with me - and you are welcome to - however it is true. If people just kept their private lives private, this wouldn't be such an issue.
The federal Constitution was designed to protect a minority - homosexuals - from the majority - heterosexuals. But now the heterosexual community is at the mercy of a small, but vocal, minority. Current statistics peg homosexuality at being present in less than 8% of the population. What protections does the Constitution provide for the majority against being taken hostage by a minority?
Additionally, equal protection clauses, which is what the homosexuals cited in their legal arguments, are traditionally applied only to immutable characteristics. These are characteristics that cannot change. Some are going to argue that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. I am going to ask you if you truly believe that. Gender, race, ethnicity - those are immutable characteristics. There are plenty of homosexuals who return to heterosexuality saying they made the wrong CHOICE. Homosexuals continue to say they should not be punished because of their CHOICE in who to sleep with. Does that sound immutable to you? Something that you choose - that is not an immutable characteristic.
Additionally, marriage isn't violating your rights, you are choosing not to participate in it. At birth, and growing up, and even as an adult, everyone has the opportunity to participate in marriage. You simply have to meet the requirements - marry a member of the opposite sex. It is a lot like getting into college, everyone has the opportunity if you only meet the entrance requirements.
There is no violation of rights in allowing marriage to be between a man and woman only.
Society and Marriage
But what is the reason for limiting marriage to between a man and a woman? Well, everyone has their own opinion on the matter. Some Christians will tell you that Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Jesus asked that men leave their homes and cling to their wives, and that wives trust their husbands. Mormons will point you to the Proclamation on the Family, which details their understanding that marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God, and that it is the basic building block of society.
Others claim that marriage is a protection of the family. Marriage, in its most basic form, was a protection for the furthering of the species - basically a reason to procreate. Now, if this is where marriage came from, it makes sense that it has been defined as between a man and a woman. A man and woman together can procreate. A man and a man cannot, nor can a woman and a woman. But a man and a woman can procreate, and need marriage to protect the children that result from that union.
Marriage is the building block of our society. Without marriage, we would not have families. There would be no link between a father and a mother, no way for the father and mother to claim their children. Marriage is a fundamental notion in our society. Why should that definition be changed?
Conclusion
These are simply my thoughts. I am trying to make you see that marriage is special, and to me sacred. It should be restricted to a man and a woman.
The homosexuals have something that grants them the same rights as married persons in California - civil unions. They say this is not enough. They say it is not recognized everywhere. But here's the thing - their marriage won't be recognized everywhere either. The federal government won't recognize their marriage, so there will be no tax or legal advantages for them in that arena. Many states won't recognize their marriage, so they will still need powers of attorney and civil union documents to be recognized as a couple in other states.
Why do they want to be married? It is simple - it is something they think will force their agenda to be recognized in churches, schools, and places around the state, and ultimately around the country.
I don't agree with their agenda, and I don't want it taught in school, or forced to be brought into my church.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman. End of story.
Progress By The Courts?
Another issue involved in this debate - and one I am not getting into in depth because it is a long and involved issue - is when the courts should be making law and advancing "social policy." When courts (judges) do this, it is generally called judicial activism.
Judicial activism can happen for many reasons. In this case, the judges decided that California's Civil Code requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman was "unconstitutional according to the California Constitution that says you will not discriminate...based on sexual orientation." That is certainly one way to read the law, and interpret this decision. There are other ways.
The court waited to act until 2008, when the social climate has changed. The court decided that the Legislature and the state were acting too slow - so they acted. This is much the same way the US Supreme Court acted in Brown v. Board of Education (before I get any comments, I am not saying the verdict was wrong - I am saying that it was judicial activism). These are times when the courts have decided that society is moving too slow - so they need to act.
That is judicial activism.
But separation of powers, which we have in California, means that the court interprets the laws. There is nothing vague or unconstitutional about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, they decided that society and the Legislature wasn't acting fast enough to give homosexuals the right to marry. Who are those judges representing? They should be interpreting the law, not making it. And furthermore - they GAVE homosexuals a right to marry. They didn't simply say the law was unconstitutional and kick it to a lower court for a remedy. The CA Supreme Court gave a right to people who didn't have it - they created laws. Which is the sole province of the Legislature.
Think what you will - but I don't like judicial activism. When does the court have the right to make social progress.
Here are a few articles:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-chemerinsky-church-2192934-people-gay
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081013/news_1n13partners.html
Links to Proposition 8 websites and articles
- Same-sex marriage battle comes to Oakland
- Wielding religion as a weapon against gay marriage
- Rivals on Prop 8 seek votes in black churches
- Voters split in many ways on Prop. 8
- California Provides the Most Rights to Gays of Any States
- Yes on Proposition 8
- The Bradley Effect and Prop 8
- Bride and Groom File Lawsuit
A bride and groom are filing a lawsuit over the changes to the CA marriage license that removed the words "bride" and "groom." - Bride and Groom are Back on CA Marriage License
- Yes on Prop. 8 Release First Television Ad
- Jerry Brown's Meddling
- PEW Forum on Legal and Political Prospect For Same-Sex Marriage
- More on the Prop 8 Debate
- A Pastor Preaches About Prop 8 and Tolerance
- More Gay Marriages in CA than in MA
There have been more same-sex couples married in California in the past few weeks than have been married in Mass. - Vote Yes on Proposition 8 to Protect Marraige
Additional Links
Here are some additional links to marriage resources. I don't endorse all of these views - but I thought I should provide them.
FREE: Rediscovering God in America (five parts on YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZzDLe2xhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Pn3aezcyI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrlxAT917ow&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyKoIPw5EkI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ_mPenVh0&feature=related
On July 4, 2008, Charles Stanley's church invited Newt Gingrich to speak on two threats to America. The first is the internal secular effort to remove God from our public squares, by preventing Americans from learning about our godly history. The second is external: radical Islam seeks to replace western civilization with oppression. "The question cannot be, 'Is God on our side,' " he says. "The question has to be, 'Are we prayerfully seeking to understand God's side, and to make sure that America is on God's side." He illustrates with colorful stories from our founding to the present. Please note that the first video begins with a five and a half minute music video.
CHRISTIANITY AND GOVERNMENT: HOW DO THEY RELATE?
Three Secular Reasons Why America Should Be Under God
William J. Federer, the tireless historian behind AmericanMinute.com (http://www.americanminute.com/), lists three questions that he asks secular people in debate. He documents the Christian basis for a "yes" answer to each question, using quotations from America's founding fathers, state constitutions, and every American president through Bush Senior. The questions are: Do you like having rights the government cannot take away? Do you like being equal? Do you like a country with few laws? Here is one teaser quote from John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address: "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." You can buy his book at any online store.
Updates On The Situation
There have been several things that have happened since election day. Much to my surprise - Prop. 8 passed. I hoped it would, but I thought that California was too liberal to pass it. But it passed. And then the wrath started.
- People started protesting in front of churches - mainly Mormon churches - to protest the involvement of church in political issues. Ok. But when you start getting so rowdy that the churches have to close services and hire security guards - that is too much.
- There is a black-list of people who gave money to Prop. 8. I don't mind that they listed people (although this smacks of McCarthy-ism), I mind that they posted people's private information so others can heckle them at home and work. That's just wrong.
- The No on 8 side is holding protests everywhere and screaming about the fact that Prop 8 passed. They don't like it - fine. But it is law now. Deal with it. The appropraite reaction is to try again. The parental notification measure has tried 4 or 5 times before passing. Redistricting has been on the ballot 3 times before passing. Try again. Don't try and void the decision because you don't like it.
- The No on 8 side is trying to get the CA Supreme Court to void the measure on the grounds that it "substantially" changes the CA Constitution. Good luck. A legal professor said they have no legal precedent to do this. But if they do, be sure the fight will go to the US Supreme Court, and they will uphold the will of the people of CA.
- The CA Supreme Court is actually considering overturning Prop 8. Judicial activism at its worst. It wasn't bad enough that it was judicial activism which caused the problem, but now they are going to be activist judges and over-turn the will of the people - as expressed on Election Day 2008.
I am just appalled at the level of hate that the No side has for everyone on the Yes side. If they are truely about tolerance - where is the hate coming from? I understand anger and disappointment, but when you cross over into vandalizing churches, prohibiting people from going to worship services, heckling people at their place of work, forcing people to resign because they gave money (participated in free speech) you are going too far.
When you blame one group - Mormons - for the passage of something that had 5.5 million votes - you are insane. I only wish Mormons were that powerful. If Mormons were that powerful in CA, don't you think there would be less alcoholism, more people working, less teenaged pregnancies and more parents who care about their children? Those are all Mormon values too. But instead of thinking logically - these people are blaming Mormons because they were supporters of Prop 8 and they are available to attack. Attacking others isn't politically expedient. Attacking Mormons is.
Well, that's the sate of things as they sit now. I will keepthis updated for those who are interested.
CommentsLoading...
It is a difficult position to take in California. But I also don't think that people should be afraid of expressing their unpopular opinions. Why else do I get freedom of expression - except to use it? Thanks for your support!
Thank you for sharing your position on same-sex marriage, of which many oppose - and also stand with you.
It is my firm belief that the more we discuss this issue in a a reasonable way that others are able to consider, the better chance we have to defend traditionally marriage, and ultimately preserve the family as intended.
I also stand with you on the fact, that same-sex marriage is not a right of a few individuals -- 8% -- and certainly has nothing to do with "true" equal rights.
tDMg
LdsNana-AskMormon
*I will be happy to add a link to this article from ALL of the Hubs I have published regarding this same issue. Thanks for a well-written resource on this very sensitive subject.
You can add a link to this one! That would be fabulous. Thanks for helping spread the word.
I SUPPORT PROPOSITION 8 MARRIAGE SHOULD BE AS ORDAINED BY GOD, ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
Your contention that the federal constitution should trump California's because California's extends greater liberties than the federal is absoultely absurd. States have long had the power to extend MORE protection than the US Constitution, they just can't give LESS protection. Whatever valid arguments there may be for Proposition 8, your legal analysis is dead wrong.
They have the power to provide more - but not provide more fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are done under the Federal Constitution. And to state that marriage is a fundamental right is dead wrong.
They perhaps do not have that right, however, no state, no government has nor should one ever have, the ability to create a second class of citizen. We are taxed the same, we obey the same laws, we vote for or against the same people you do. So, what is the problem with extending marriage rights to gay/lesbian couples? If you attempt the quote your Bible, I will insist that you explain to me first, why the Ten Commandments, do not mention same-sex marriages at all, yet indicts adultery THREE, not one, not two, but 3 times. Yet you do not find that so important. That should be where you focus your attention. Just why is it not a fundamental right? Do we not bleed when cut? cry when sad?lend help when it is needed? So much more so than the Christian Taliban does, that is demonstrably proven.
A fundamental right is a right based on a characteristic you cannot change. And before you tell me that homosexuality is a characteristic you cannot change - think about all the people who flip back and forth between being homosexula and not. Women don't flip between being women and not. African-Americans and Whites don't flip between being one and not.
I will quote the Bible - but not the 10 Commandments. You are mistaking the Old Testament and the covenant with Moses for the New Testament and the covenant that the Christians have with Christ.
1 Cor 7:2 - Each man shall have his own wife and each wife shall have her won husband.
1 Cor 7:10-11 - A wife must not leave her husband...and a husband must not leave his wife.
Matthew 19:4-6 - Haven't you read the scripture that says that in the beginning the Creator made people male and female? And God said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one.' So they are no longer two, but one. No human being must separate, then, what God has joined together.
You will notice that the pronouns used are he and she/his and hers - they are not hers and hers or his and his. There is a reason for that.
It is amazing to me that when two people go to the county court house to get a license to get married that this has an effect on your religious values. I don't even know you but you feel that you can determine who I am marrying, how I am to spend the rest of the my life beyond that last twelve years, 2 happy children, 2 dogs....I wonder is there is something I can find in the county office of our state to alien you? To tell you that you are not entitled to. Maywe we should change more laws and go back in time to add some more bigoted laws that we have outgrown all saying that you are CHRISTIAN.
I'm not saying my religious values are affected. I am saying homosexual marriage is against my religious values. If my religious values we affected by this, that would mean there would be some change in my values - which there won't be. Whatever happens, my teaching to my children will be that marriage is between a man and a woman - as Jesus taught and as God intended.
I'm not determining who you are marrying. When you made the choice to be a homosexual, you made the choice that you aren't getting married. I didn't make that choice for you - you made it.
The law isn't bigoted. There is some backing for the law. And if you truely want to complain about the law - why wasn't there this big outcry in 2000 when marriage was defined as between a mand and woman only? It passed with 61% of the vote. A bigot is someone who is irrationally attached to an opinion and refuses to consider any views but their own. I considered your viewpoint - and rejected it. My rejection wasn't irrational - it was rational. I don't have an irrational fear of homosexuals - I have plenty of friends who are that way. I don't hate them. I object to their lifestyle, but its their choice.
The problem is that you made a choice to be homosexual - and you knew you couldn't marry. But now you want to marry - and you want domestic partnerships. That isn't even something that heterosexual couples can do. You have domestic partnerships to give you the benefits. Marriage is something special, sacred and has a traditional meaning. There's nothing wrong with this traditional meaning. To change it in CA because of a small but vocal minority is absurd. You have your way of defining your life (homosexuality and domestic partnerships) and others have theirs (heterosexuality and marriage).
You made a choice - now you have to deal with the consequences.
I already voted: YES on 8
I voted yes on 8 as well. I am encouraging all my friends and family to vote this way.
And for those who never thought that it would be taught in public schools - a SF teacher took her class on a SCHOOL SPONSORED FIELD TRIP to her gay wedding at city hall. Parents could decide to have their children not go, and a few did. Can you imagine the ridicule those kids are going to be subject to simply because they don't believe in homosexula marriage (or their parents don't). In what world is that right? The teacher can also grade them lower, and who is going to stop her. Not the school - which allowed the field trip in the first place.
I have voted: NO on 8.
You are entitled to vote however you like, and even use your religion to support your decision. However, civil marriage as a secular, governmental institution does not rely on the support from religious institutions, which have the right to support or deny couples the right to marry depending on their strictures.
I would find your arguments more compelling if you supported civil unions - with ALL the same rights and obligations of marriage - to same-sex couples. But, as an LDS member, I'd imagine you don't support gay couples having any rights at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually, I do support civil unions. I tend to think that homosexuality is wrong - morally - but I do know it exists and I support civil unions. I don't support marriage. And in Ca the rights and obligations in a civil union are those of a marriage. Except that civil unions are restricted to homosexual couples.
I don't say you shouldn't have any rights as a gay couple. I just don't think that marriage is one of those rights. I am fine if you want the alternative - a civil union. But if you think that you should be married, then you should support the concept of civil unions for heterosexuals who don't want to be married too. I find it a little hypocritical when homosexual couples argue for their right to be married, but that heterosexuals shouldn't have a civili union.
First, I am not against heterosexuals getting a civil union, if that's what they want (I'm not sure why they would, when they have access to a full civil marriage). Furthermore, I have yet to hear of any gay couple being against any right for heterosexuals. Gay people don't have problems with heterosexuals. I do think, however, prejudice and judgment are morally wrong, but I know that not all heterosexuals are guilty of this.
California domestic partnerships only allow those rights that are under state purview. Since there is no federal law recognizing civil unions, same-sex marriages, or domestic partnerships, that leaves out hundreds of benefits available to same-sex couples. That won't change until the federal law changes, and unfortunately, most same-sex marriage foes also are against extending any benefits to same-sex couples via civil unions or domestic partnerships.
I know that civil union law only applies to the state. I cannot imagine that the law will be extended at the federal level. There are too many who are against it for religions, moral and social grounds. There is a saying - that as goes California so goes the nation. But I don't think that is true in this case. The federal government will never change. And I don't think it should.
I want a marriage, I want others to be able to be married - so long as it is between a man and a woman. I feel bad that you think that this is prejudiced and judgemental. And it is. I am biased towards one viewpoint, and that is a prejudice. Just as you are prejudiced towards extending rights. Everyone has a prejudice, or no one would have an opinion.
I'm not making a judgement on your lifestyle. Quite frankly, the lifestyle of a homosexual ahouls never have become a matter of the magnitude. It is a bedroom behavior, and regardless of my religious views, my political view on the matter is that it is a bedroom behavior and I shouldn't have to acknowledge it as a characteristic. No one judges people on the way they have sex - so why should this issue be any different? The issue should never have come forward. It is a bedroom and private behavior and should stay that way.
It is not a bedroom behavior. Homosexuality is a fundamental, inborn orientation, and determines the gender of the person that a person chooses to partner with. As you and your husband do more than just have sex and procreate, so do gay couples do more than just have sex. They build lives together, are dependent on each other during times of need, and form a unit of interdependence and love. It is not a lifestyle - it is a fundamental facet of one's being.
And I do believe that at the federal level gay couples should enjoy the same rights as straight couples do. There is no reason, besides prejudicial religious views, why the state, a secular institution, should not grant the same rights to same-sex couples as it does opposite-sex couples.
Please remember that prejudice is a view *against* another group of people. Being against gay people is a prejudice. Being for gay people is *not* a prejudice.
I don't think its an inborn orientation. There has yet to be a consensus that it is an inborn orientation. In fact, from the evidence, it is not an inborn orientation. Many people switch from being gay to being straight and back and forth. if you can switch back and forth, it is not an inborn orientation.
I still believe it is a lifestyle and a choice, and not something fundamental to a being.
Also - the state isn't really a secular institution. There is no law prohibiting expression of religion in views of the state. There is a law prohibiting the state from forming a religion and making it the national religion of the state. But there is religion - and Judeo-Christian religion - every where in the government. The founding fathers were Judeo-Christian. The idea that man was instilled with inalienable rights is a Christian idea - that God has instilled people with inalienable rights that rulers cannot take away.
And besides religious views, there are a few other good reasons why not to allow homosexuals marriage. You may not agree with them, but they are there. (1) The government cannot afford to pay out benefits to the survivors of a homosexual couple, (2) marriage is culturally seen as between a man and a woman - not just religiously seen that way - but culturally seen that way, (3) that defining marriage is a right of the states and not a federal issue and so the list goes on. These may not be acceptable reasons to you, but they are other reasons.
Homosexuality is an inborn thing, look it up. Also you can't choose who you love.
Yes there is a law about the expression of religious views of the states. The governement set up more than two hundered years ago made it very clear that there will be a seperation of church and state. Sorry hun, God or culture can't tell me who to marry.
Oh and here is something else.
1) So let's also take away the "traditional" marriage couples benefits it should takes us out of this finacial crisis, why limit it to one group? Plus not all of them want just the benifits of marriage, but to be regonized as a married couple in the eyes of everyone. 2) before it was culturally seen that marriage or even relationships between different races was taboo and not accepted, until new laws made it acceptable. plus in a few cultures stoning and burning to death for loving someone your people don't like is accepted but none the less wrong. Culture changes, it always will. 3) It doesn't matter if it's not a federal issue the states still have to follow the laws of our government and this actually can become a federal issue, plus this collides with our "pursuit of happiness" right which no state can take away. I'm not about to let "tradition" tell me who I can and cannot marry. God loves all of his creations, even homosexuals.
Ma'am it may not be right to you, but would you take this away from many people? You say we must keep marriage sacred, but don't you think that to homosexuals that marriage is just as if not more sacred too? You are granted the right of marriage to whoever you want how ever many times you want, they have to fight for it.
http://mormonsformarriage.com/
Proof that not all Mormons (to your religion's credit) are intent on treating gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.
Personally I believe that government should offer civil unions for any couple, straight or gay, that wants one (provided consenting adult requirements are met, obviously), and leave the question of marriage entirely to the churches. However, Proposition 8 isn't going to require your church to marry homosexuals if it's against your religious beliefs, so I really don't understand how this is a case of the "minority holding the majority hostage." If your church doesn't believe in homosexual marriage, mine shouldn't have the right to force you to perform them, but if my church does, yours shouldn't have the right to prevent us either.
I also have to comment on your repeated statement that homosexuality can't be inborn because "many people switch from being gay to being straight and back and forth." If people switch from being gay to straight and back, it's not because homosexuality is a "choice," it's because they're bisexual. Only a small percentage of people identify themselves as bisexual, but studies have found, for example, that nearly half of men have had sexual "reactions" or even experiences with members of both sexes, even though the vast majority would consider themselves primarily or purely hetero- or homosexual.
Ok - Let me respond to some things.
I'm not saying all Mormons believe that gays shouldn't be married. But those Mormons who do believe that gays should have access to marriage are standing in direct opposition to the teachings of the church. The same is true for Catholics and Jews. I am going to say the same is true for most Christian religions - but there are some individual clergy out there who believe in gay marriage. I don't know how they justify it - but they do. The belief in gay marriage - for or against it - is a personal belief and I acknowledge that it is out there, I just don't agree with it. I also don't think that churches are using misleading statements when they tell their parishoners not to vote for gay marriage.
When I say that a small minority is holding the majority hostage - I am speaking about the homosexual agenda. The latest reports have shown that AT MOST 7% of the population is homosexual. There are no other groups of people with 7% of the population who are capable of forcing an agenda and viewpoint on the rest of the country, state, city etc. The minority is the gay population who have done a wonderful job of working the system in CA to get what they want. It has truely been a case of wonderful political usage. I just don't think that it is a good case. I think the agenda stinks.
And no one knows what the consequences of Prop. 8 passing or not passing are. There are hypotheticals. But for those who argue that schools won't teach it - a SF teacher took her 1st grade class to her gay wedding as a school sanctioned field trip. I know teachers, and my cousin is one, and none of them have ever invited their classes to their weddings. So why now? Why this wedding? Will a straight wedding also be a school sanctioned field trip? Where are the assurances that heterosexual marriage is gonig to have the same exposure?
I don't think we need this taught in schools and classrooms. The matter of marriage is for parents to teach their children and everyone else needs to let parents teach it. A new definition of marriage in CA would negate that ability.
You lost me at "homosexual agenda." The homosexual "agenda" is to have the same rights and privileges as everyone else, no more, no less.
In SF, the "school-sanctioned field trip" had an opt-out option for parents who didn't want their children to attend. Those children stayed with another first grade class. If the other parents didn't have a problem with their kids attending a homosexual wedding, why should you?
As for the question of heterosexual marriage having the same "exposure," I really don't think that will be an issue. By your own figure of 7%, even if every single homosexual in the nation got married and had kids, the vast majority of children would still be raised in heterosexual households and therefore "exposed" to heterosexual marriage every single day of their lives from birth-18. I hardly think heterosexual marriage is in danger of losing its status as "the norm," nor will the law prevent you from telling your kids that you disagree with homosexual marriage.
The agenda is to have homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Here's the thing - you already do. Until there is conclusive evidence and a scientific consensus that homosexuality is an inborn and unchangable trait - like race and gender, I don't believe that you should be granted any special protections because you are homosexual.
You have the same rights as anyone else. You are a human. Homosexuality cannot be the defining characteristic of your rights. You have a right to life, you have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race or religion. You have the right to vote, to drive, to buy things, to have a house, go to the doctor, have a job (although some of these are priviliges and not rights).
There is nothing that you don't have the right to. You even have the right to marry - assuming you marry a member of the opposite sex. I feel like marriage should be equated to getting into college. Everyone has the ability to get married when they are born - just like everyone when they are born has the ability to go to college. It is the choices you make along the way after that which determine if you are going to go to college. So long as you meet various entry requirements- you can go. Same with marriage - so long as you meet the various entry requirements you can go.
I'm not worried about homosexual marriage being the norm. It won't be. I am simply worried what it says about a society that believes that traditional marriage is bad. Why? What is so wrong? I say the solution is to provide something other than marriage for homosexual couples. And here's the kicker - why isn't that sufficient? Being married provides federal protections and tax breaks and inheretence rights that homosexual married couples won't be entitled to anyways. So why do you have to call it marriage? If the homosexual political agenda would've done anything else - pushed for more rights for domestic partners, created a seperate institution not called marriage - then there wouldn't have been this big backlash. Why do you want it to be called marriage? You knew, when you chose to be homosexual - that you couldn't get married. So why is it such a big deal now? Why wasn't there an equal backlash in 2002 when Prop. 22 was going through the process?
I am just saying - leave marriage between a husband and a wife.
I have no illusions that Prop 8 is going to pass. I wish it would, and I despeately hope it does. But it won't.
"I am simply worried what it says about a society that believes that traditional marriage is bad."
Who believes that? Surely not people fighting for the right for it. Maybe you mean divorcees. Divorce really does treat marriage with contempt.
"But those Mormons who do believe that gays should have access to marriage are standing in direct opposition to the teachings of the church."
Your church also believed that black people weren't allowed to become priests or pray in Mormon temples because they were the "cursed" children of McCain. Until 1978. I'm sorry, but your church has been on the wrong side of right and wrong before.
"A new definition of marriage in CA would negate that ability"
Not true. Completely not true. Parents will continue to have control over what their children are exposed to in school.
"I have no illusions that Prop 8 is going to pass."
Thanks to the heavy lobbying by your church, and misinformation spread in commercials, it's more likely to pass than fail now.
Uhm - they weren't the cursed children of McCain. And all churches have periods in their history they are not happy about. That happens to be one of the LDS' church's moments. It is simply because our moments are closer to the now that people focus on them. Other church's moments are just as bad.
But the LDS church isn't in the wrong on this one. They are in the right.
And I wonder why everyone reading this dismisses my views on the basis of my religion? People only do that to Mormons on this issue. When my sister talks about it on the basis of religion, people listen to her and she says at the begining she's Catholic. I say at the begining I am Mormon and so everything is immediately discounted as "one of those mormons."
Christian churches and Jewish churches believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. A man and a woman. Nothing else. The Bible - Old and New Testament - confirms this. Those who say the Bible isn't relelvant and needs some updating to meet with our social times - welcome to the need for revelation. But when revelation comes that the Bible is correct about this - there shouldn't be more questioning from people who believe in the Bible.
The commercials aren't misinformation any more than the No on Prop 8 commercials are. The commercials are gear towards the voter who doesn't care, or who cares only enough to watch TV/radio and vote on those grounds. It's a 30 second spot that has to be geared towards bringing the greatest response. They picked a tactic - showing what has resulted in Masa. - and are runing with it. Much the same way the early "No on 8" commercial showed a woman walking to the altar where a man waited for her to be married. If it was truely an informative campaign, why wasn't the woman walking towards a woman? And the answer is - the visual might have been too polarizing. So the "No on 8" campaign is going strong on misinformation as well.
As for heavy lobbying by the church - the church is doing no lobbying. it is the people in the church who believe in what they are fighting for that are lobbying. Let's keep that distinction clear. Blaming a church or organization is the wrong idea in this debate. The church has its views, and encouraged people to do what they could. The PEOPLE are the ones out there doing the work. Not the church.
Sorry, McCain, Cain... ;-)
No one cares if your church will not approve of same-sex marriage. The problem is that the LDS is spending a lot of money trying to affect *civil* marriages, the provenance of government (not church). Catholic, Jewish and other churches are not.
But I agree with you on your final point: it's people's choices to vote one way or another, to buy in to the allegations and give in to the fear. And they do so selfishly, since marriage to their loved one will never be something they will have to fight the state for.
Well there are a few things that moroms see for their "traditional marriage" that the majority of the country doesn't see the same way. But we tolorate them anyways.
There have been studies that sugest that homosexuality is in fact a thing your born with. Your horomones leans to one side more and there's nothing you can do about that. Those who have "choose" to be gay were either in denile, bi, or their hormones are jumping around.
I just want to make clear - the LDS church isn't speding money on the Prop. 8 - its the people in the LDS church who are spending money - granted it is a lot of money. But celebrities are spending money on the other side - a lot of celebrities.
I just want to say that I am so happy that this conversation is occuring. And that people are interested. It gives me hope foe the future of having an intelligent and involved electorate so that we can get away from those horrible commercials that no one likes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397
"Between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by the "Yes" campaign has come from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supporters of the measure say."
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Det
The money hasn't come from the church. It has come from individual Mormons. The church itself hasn't donated any money. I checked all the "Yes on 8" donations for the official church donation - and there wasn't one. The money has come from individual mormons who feel that they should support the measure.
Thank you for the clarification. But it does seem that the two biggest groups as a whole that are supporting the Yes on 8 vote are Mormons and Christians, even though their churches are not officially supporting them through funding (I suppose that would not be legal for tax-exempt institutions).
It is true that those are probably the two biggest groups - although I would point out that Mormons are Christians, so really it is one big Christian group. But that is who is interested in the movement - for the most part.
One of the problems with the initiative process in CA is that it can be very polarizing, and that interest groups get involved, and in general citizens get left out. It is how we got Prop 98 - the teacher's union supported it and said it would be great for our schools (it isn't and hasn't performed as promised).
Prop 8 got started because judges decided to make laws. So then the people who disagree with the laws get involved. In this case, it makes a big difference to Christians. So they are the ones supporting Prop 8. Big Hollywood types don't like it and gay people don't like it - so they are the big contributors to the other side. It's just how propositions work. They take what they can get, and run with the money. The "Yes on Prop 8" has been great at getting individuals to be motivated and donate, so they have a lot of money.
Mormons seem to consider themselves Christian, but non-Mormon Christians don't seem to:
http://www.cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormon
(I don't particularly care, since I am neither, but I seem to remember that this was one major stumbling block for Mitt Romney. The Christian base refused to support him, claiming he was not a Christian.)
I'm not a big fan at all at the referendum process of California. Why do we have representative democracy when any group who has a million dollars to get enough signatures for a ballot measure can flout it?
I agree that the initiative process in CA stinks. It is totally run by money. And create crappy laws that have consequences no one thinks of (Prop 98).
As a side note - Mormons are Christians. All Christians believe that Jesus is the Savior, he died and rose from the dead to redeem us, and you need Baptism. Mormons believe all this.
I would add as a similar side note - gay and lesbian Americans are Americans. We pay our taxes, work hard, and try, like heterosexuals, to establish committed relationships and contribute something to the world.
Ironically, the same people who deny this (and they do so by denying us equal rights) are those who deny that Mormons are Christians.
BTW ProtectMarriage is now resorting to extortion:
Funny how you deem this extorition. All they are doing is saying that by contributing to one campaign, you are saying you are backing that stance. Contributing to both says you are of no position on the measure.
Earlier in this battle, the No on Prop 8 group staged boycotts and published a list of companies and businesses who contributed to the "yes" side of Prop 8 and said they would continue to publish this list and boycott until the donations were withdrawn or equal amounts were given to the other side. Same tactic, yet no outrage over this one - only outrage over the "Yes on Prop 8" side using the same tactics.
Bias you think?
You make it sound as if gay/lesbian marriage is somehow a "threat" to heterosexual marriage. Where is the threat? Prop 8 does not say, "And the gays shall marry and henceforth no heterosexual couples will be allowed to marry because of it." This is a completely false insinuation. Gay marriage in no way puts heterosexual marriage or the concept of a traditional family at risk. It does NOTHING to heterosexual marriage at all. In fact, it's not even ABOUT heterosexual marriage.
And you keep quoting the Bible to defend your position (which is fine when defending your personal opinion) but this is not your personal marriage. It's other people's. There's this thing called "separation of church and state" that we have in the U.S. and what that means is that the government doesn't get to impose the rules from one religion on everyone else.
Furthermore, your assertion that homosexuality is not inborn is illinformed. There is a gene that has been associated with male homosexuality in numerous studies. It's primary function is that it gives better adhesion to the womb in zygotes, but has and end effect of imbuing male children with homosexual behavoir patterns. Genetically, it's an intersting phenomenon because homosexuality on its own seens counter evolutionary as a reproductive strategy, but increased likelihood of making it to gestation seems to make perfect sense. You need to read more before you make some of your blanket statements.
I am not gay. I'm heterosexual, think women rule, and guys are gross. The thought of a man in my bed makes me shudder. However, just because I feel that way does not give me the right to tell people who see things differently that they don't get to have all and exactly the same priveleges I do. That is not only wrong, its despotic and, perhaps even evil. If God has a real problem with it, and if you have faith in your God's ability to run his universe, let him be the final arbiter. Why risk making people's one life on this Earth miserable just because you think you have the singular "truth?"
Homosexual marriage is a threat to traditional families. By definition a traditional family is a mother and father (who are married) and their children. If a family becomes something else, then the traditional family is at risk. It can become something else. So I believe it is at risk.
And here's the thing that people don't understand about the church and state seperation (I am going to write another hub on this this weekend since it is such a common misunderstanding) - it doesn't mean the state has no affiliation with a church. It simply means that there cannot be a "national" religion, the state cannot establish a religion, and that a religious fever isn't supposed to be substituted for patriotism. Religion - especially Judeo-Christian religion - was a HUGE part of the Founders' lives and is intertwined with our government today.
How can you believe man "was endowed with certain unalienable rights" if there was no one (God) to do the endowing? Why do you have any rights to anything - who gave you those rights?
Its use in American Government stems from Thomas Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
The most important thing for people to recognize is that this principle extended to: the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free excersice thereof.
Restricting marriage doesn't put laws or principles from one religion on another. I think you would find, after doing a lot of research, that marriage in ALL (I haven't been able to find one that doesn't) religions is between a man and a woman. There is no concept in any religion that has a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, being married. It just doesn't fall into religion. So its not one religion's laws, or the practices of one religion, its a practice in all.
And here's the other thing - they aren't imposing a religious law on you at all if Prop. 8 passes. If you think that marriage for homosexuals is constitutional, then you have a problem. THe extremely liberal CA Supreme Court might have thought so, but the US Supreme Court (before this one) didn't strike down the law that the federal government passed saying that homosexual marriages from one state don't have to be recognized in another state, and that the federal government doesn't recognize homoesexual marriage. There was no action to strike down this law. It stands as constitutional, and so to think that marriage is a right that all people should have, and that marriage is a fundamental right - is incorrect. It just plain isn't.
I base my personal views on several things - and one of the great things about publishing this hub is that I get to write it and use my personal view - and one of them is my belief in God, Jesus and the Bible. I am not saying that your view has to be my view. I am just saying that I think your view - that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry - is wrong. And you think mine is wrong.
So this is what informed debate is about :) I love it!
Asking for *money* in order to avoid punishment is extortion. The No on 8 people never threatened 8 supporters to get money out of them.
nwunderlich,
What an incredibly informed and educated debater you are. I applaud you for your efforts at facilitating an informed debate on the issue of Prop 8 in California. I am a supporter of Prop 8 for many reasons, but my faith based reason should be enough to stand by itself, that is my RIGHT.
Even in this conversation alone, where tolerance is being cried by those who feel persecuted by being denied rights, intolerance is at an all time high. The intolerance shown to citizens who are 'Mormons" is so blatantly obvious even now, what happens if Prop 8 fails... will 'Mormons" simply have to be the next minority group to shout "RIGHTS"!
If you think that "Mormons" are not being targeted by NO on Prop 8 supporters I suggest you check out this link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/20/01429
Talk about Mafioso extortion type tactics... Paleeeze!
Where is the love? Is it only required to be given one direction?
No - asking for money to avoid being listed as a support of prop 8 isn't extortion. Extortion involves asking for money to avoid violence. It is the unlawful obtaining of money through coersion. What the Yes on Prop 8 people are doing isn't extortion. It neither promises violence, or is obtaining money through illegal means. It is simply saying that if you donate to one side and say that you are not for or against Prop 8 - then you should donate to both sides. It is a reasoned argument. You don't like it - and that's fine. You have a right to not like the tactics involved. But this is politics - it tends to get dirty.
Also - the comment behind the letter is that it is made to target big companies who shouldn't be involved in a moral issue like this. What right does PG&E have to get involved? They are not a voting person who will be harmed or benefited by this - PG&E is a corporation. So the "Yes" side wants to publish their names if they truely aren't nuetral. The only way they can prove to be nuetral is to donate to both sides. Ok. Where's the problem with that?
As for the whole never threatening aspect - you obviously didn't read the stories where the No on 8 people boycotted businesses and threaten people's livelyhoods. Yes on 8 isn't boycotting anyone, they are simply publishing and letting people choose what to do. No people with signs, no line outfront, no picketing. No boycotting. Simply publishing. You decry your right to freedom of religion (which isn't the same as freedom from religion) and then say the Yes on 8 people have no right to free speech. Interesting.
As for my faith-based reason - I'm not solely for it because of my faith. I think it is bad for society to say that a lawful married family can be between two men or two women. The fall of Rome started when their moral standards became loose. America's moral standards are beyond loose - and I don't want them falling any further. I want a strong country, and that starts with a strong society which starts with strong families.
I don't have a problem with them threatening to publish their names and tell other Yes folks to not patronize their businesses. I do have a problem with them telling them they must PAY UP or face a boycott. The fact that you can't see the difference is a little scary to me.
I have a very, very strong feeling that if the tables were turned, you'd be the first ones calling foul. But that's just my belief. I don't know for sure, because it hasn't happened.
We understand your faith-based reasons for not supporting marriage equality. And your non-faith-based reasons. I would feel more convinced by that argument if, for example, you and other LDS activists would take up the cause against divorce, for instance. That has been on the rise, and the only thing "protect marriage" activists would like to fight is gay people *contributing* to the institution of marriage. Yes, let's exclude as many people possible from marriage, until it really is dead.
I agree strong marriages and strong families form the foundation of society. But gay couples and gay families already form part of that. If you think they're taking away more than they're contributing to society, you have an unfortunate, pessimistic outlook on families that are simply different from yours.
Nwunderlich, first I would like to agree with you wholeheartedly on the fun factor of a respectfully conducted and informed debate. I am very delighted to encounter someone of your beliefs so willing to examine the issue with the fair handedness you have done here on your hub, not only allowing opposition, but engaging with it. I salute you.
That said, (lol)
You wrote:
"Homosexual marriage is a threat to traditional families. By definition a traditional family is a mother and father (who are married) and their children. If a family becomes something else, then the traditional family is at risk."
I think for me this is the part I least understand. The word "threat" implies some sort of danger... like violence or destruction or even death. When you say the "traditional family is at risk" and in conjunction with the "threat" I have to look around, wide-eyed and wonder where and what are you talking about?
What is the traditional family at risk of? Are you saying that if gay people get to have the same legal rights as you and I do, somehow men and women are no longer going to get married and have babies? That somehow men will no longer look across rooms at women and find them beautiful and be drawn to them as they always have, and did long before the Bible or any other books were written? As they did before there was writing at all?
There is just no attack on "traditional" family in this concept of gay marriage. First off, "tradition" is a matter of perspective. In some places, polygamy still takes place (someone was talking about Mormons up there), and in some times it was far more acceptable than others. Sparta had a different view on "family" and so did many Pharaohs. Frankly, the "tradition" you speak of is highly, highly subject to carving out a precise religious tradition and brief period of time out of all of human experience. (Which is fine, I'm not saying you can't do that, Im' just saying, it's a harsh way of justifying telling 9% of the population they don't get to be happy like everyone else because they don't fit into that particular, and carefully constructed perspective of what "family" gets to mean.)
As for "inalienable rights" if you really want to examine that, the set up to that line refers to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He then goes on to write:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. --"
The use of the term "all" not some means something. In addition, he says endowed by their "Creator." He doesn't mention which creator, and doesn't even name the Bible prior to this, he is referring back to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Jefferson was Christian, but he was also a deep thinker and an incredible writer, which means he did not choose his words carelessly. That phrase is completely absent of any mention of the Bible or Jesus Christ and were it not for the Christian majority in play then and now, that line "Nature's God" could just as easily have been written by a pagan or a Native American.
And lastly, the part about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ends not only with a period, but with a giant dash, separating that core idea from its justifications. A conversation about what constitutes appropriate forms of happiness does not follow, beyond (eventually) the understanding that one man's pursuit of happiness cannot prevent others from finding theirs.
Which leads me to believe that if this is the ideology that is being "threatened" by gay marriage, I return to my original point that is, "How is gay marriage threatening heterosexual marriage" or, more succinctly, "How is the pursuit of happiness by gays actually causing the pursuit of happiness by heterosexuals (or even Christians) from taking place?"
well- Jefferson originally wanted the wording to be "life, liberty and the pursuit of property. But that got changed to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness because all the other statesmen present there didn't want everyone to think that they are entitled to property. Property ownership was a right of the few - not of the many.
And if a Creator isn't God - who is it? I can only assume, based on when this document was written, that Creator certainly doesn't mean the single-celled ameboa we are all evolved from. It means God - and to deny that means that you are denying the principles on which the Founders wanted this country founded. It was meant to be a place of Judeo-Christian beliefs - otherwise the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment doesn't make any sense. There were moral dimensions to the Constitution, and Creator menaing God is one of them.
You cannot seperate a core idea from its justifications. Otherwise it becomes a logically fallacy. The reason those assumptions are there is that they are rights from God. Not from someone else. Not from a ruler who was seen as divine, but from God - the Creator.
I am not going to argue with you that homosexuals think that marriage will give them happiness. I am going to say that I don't think it will bring happiness for society. I think that the downfall ofa society comes when you are willing to redefine what the building blocks of society are. The basis of society has been familes - a mother, father, relatives and their children - for much longer than you or I has been alive - and for much longer than the Constitution has been around. Those great men involved in the founding wouldn't have been there except for their wives. I see homosexual marriage as a threat to these basic building blocks because you are destroying it. Marriage is now - between a man and a woman. When you begin to destroy that, you being the downfall of a society. That is my personal belief.
The problem with this issue - unline ones like taxes - is that it is a very personal belief to many people. For me, it is wrong. For you, you may not see any harm in it. No one will know until the social experiment is over one way or the other.
You're right about the social experiment being "over" being the only way to know something conclusive. So far, after 40 or so thousand years of it, we still dont' know much about how it's "supposed" to be which is why new sets of rules pop up every few thousand years, still trying to find a way to legislate out the variety of human traits.
You still keep making this giant leap from "families being the building blocks of society" to gay marriage threatening it. I am certain gay people are not going to ban together and start blocking heterosexual marriage or trying to stop the breeding process or even trying to foment even higher divorce rates than we already have, which already seem to unravel the "sancticty of marriage" thing pretty hard the way I see it as practiced by many of the very people who so vociferously oppose gay marriage on that very ground. I'm still not seeing the threat from gay marriage. If two gay guys move in next door to me married, I'm not going to leave my wife or something. My son isn't going to tear down all his super model posters, dump his girlfriend and start liking boys all of a sudden. You talk about fallacious arguments, but you appear to be stuck in a faulty one yourself. I get that you "feel" it's wrong, and if the whole point is that because you don't like the way gay marriage makes you feel, and you want to mandate how others get to live based on your feelings, then I get that. It's scary, but I understand it. However, your argument isn't sound logically in regards to a "threat."
And I would get into the sort-of criss-cross Declaration of Independence / Constitution thing you're working at, but it would take up too long and had been done so many times that there's no point. I'll just say that when they wrote "all men were created equal" they did not at the time mean "all" and they certainly did not mean "men" as in "man kind" either, so if you want to start speculating on what was in each framer's heart vs. what they wrote based on reason and philosophy and forethought, and in many cases quite aside from their own personal beliefs, well, you open up a whole can of stuff about which there are millions of pages already written.
:)
Yeah - there has been a ton written on the Constitution, and the debate is so large it would be hard to do here. And even better - it's a debate that can go on forever because there will be no conclusive answer unless the Framer's come down and let us know what they were thinking. And should that happen - I think that there might be a few other concerns that people would have rather than getting married or not :)
I know you don't see the threat, and that is part of the problem. It is somewhat hard to quanitfy and explain, but I will do my best. And here's the other part - it is subjective. So I know I am going to take some heat for it.
My main point reason to be against homosexual marriage is that I believe that marriage was set by God to be between a man and a woman. I believe that people who divorce (for reasons other than spousal abuse and other health/welfare issues) are in violation of the sanctity of marriage. It is partly because society seems to have lost the idea that marriage is sacred and decreed by God. Instead, they believe that marriage is a temporary thing, and can be discarded at their discretion. These people don't believe in hard work. A marriage is hard work, and it takes a lot of work between the people, and between the people and God, for a marriage to work. So I agree - the divorce rate is staggering and horrible and there needs to be something done.
But what needs to be done isn't to violate the sanctity of marriage even more, by allowing homosexual couples to marry. Just because some of the people in the instituions (of marriage) don't take it seriously, doesn't mean that we shouldn't take it as seriouslly as God intended. This means working on it, and not letting homosexual couples marry. They can have something else.
I find it funny that everyone who wants homosexuals to marry seems to think that this will grant them the same rights as a heterosexual marriage. It most definately will not. So regardless of the passage of Prop 8 or not - there are 2 classes of "marriages." If Prop 8 passes, there will be one class of marriages, and a civil union class - if Prop 8 fails, there will simply be 2 classes of marriages.
I see the threat this way: a family (mom and dad in marriage with kids) as the building block of society. When this building block is eroded (non-traditional families), then society erodes. When we start to loosen morals and not take spiritual things serisoully - as marriage is starting down this slope - we lose some of the moral and ethical things that make a society work. People believe murder is ethically wrong - not because the law says so, but because somethng inside most of us believe that it is wrong to take a life. People believe that marriage is sacred - not because the law says it is - but because there is something inside of us that says a long-term relationship, blessed by God, with your husband/wife and the possibility of creating children in this relationship, is a moral thing to do and is special. When we start to blur the lines of what is moral and what is not - then we begin an ethical slide.
You might tell me that I am working with a slippery slope. I don't want this taught in school. There was a bill in the CA Senate last year that said schools now have to teach about sexual orientation of historical figures. But you cannot know the sexual orientation of historical figures. The reason this was done is so that homosexual peole can have role models. But here's the thing - do you want your role model to be based on the way that they behave in the bedroom? And the argument was made that Pres. Lincoln was gay because he shared a bed with another man - ignoring the societal context of the time - which is that is what was done because beds were expensive, and heat was expensive, and so when 2 men shared a bed it might not be sexual, but be practical. So my children are going to be exposed to that in CA public schools - which is horrible. So the claim that I can object to teachings that are against my morals is absolutely wrong. I can only do that if they are taught in a health class. If they are taught in a history or lit class- then I am stuck. I don't think that the state has any role in teaching children about sexual orientation - this is a parent's job. But this is what is happening. So those who claim it will never be in schools are lying.
So back to my point - the slippery slope is something that we are sliding down. It is just the way it is working. As our morals and ethics are eroding, so does our society. The distinctions between acceptable and not are eroding. So much so that it is now appropriate to show - on Prime Time TV - sexual acts between teenagers. So let's just not let them erode any further and pose a threat to the foundations of society - which are moral and ethics. Does that make some sort of sense?
I hope it does. It is kind of hard to explain.
Great hub. I agree with you and I'm glad your church is giving to support the moral and ethical side. God will bless you for this. I don't think the country understands what it would mean if the laws were changed. Stay strong!
Thanks for the support. We have a huge effort planned for the last 100 hours before the election. So we are all working hard.
That makes it much more clear. It's a religious belief, a morality born of your religion. I totally respect that. I'm just opposed to legislating one religion's morality onto others. I'm still a separation of church and state guy. But, you explained it very clearly and I can see where you're coming from totally.
I'm even with you the teaching sexuality in class. I don't have a problem teaching kids where babies come from in health class. And I guess I don't mind the conversation, again in Health class, about sexually transmitted disease. But I'm with you not seeing the point, particularly in elementary and, frankly, anything prior to college, in teaching about the sexual proclivities of historical figures. At the level of high school and lower, that is only a distraction. Benjamin Franklin was a lecherous old goat (and I think it's hilarious and adds character and humanity to him) but kids don't need to know that till college. Oscar Wilde, one of my all time favorite writers, was gay. But what's the point of focusing on that rather than on great literature. Kids aren't interested enough in the origins and subtlety of literature in high school to waste time on that stuff anyway. They still have to be taught how to read carefully and engage with a text.
My wife and I have talked about that "teaching gay marriage" in schools. I think part of the campaign for Prop 8 is to create a false firestorm of terror amongst Christians and other religous groups that the evil gays are conspiring to corrupt their children by teaching this aggressively in school. They even have onesey-twosey examples of activist teachers/schools that have. But I really think that the "danger" is over stated.
Frankly, I believe, and will be in support of, legislation that takes all that marriage conversation out of health class. It's all religious and none of it belongs in school. You are absolutely right that this stuff should be taught at home. So if Prop 8 doesn't pass (and I hope for the sake of equality, it does not), we can still get a bill passed that takes all that religous stuff and homosexual stuff out of schools. Keep the agenda's out, put more reading, writing, math and science in.
I really hope to get most of that stuff out of school. When the kids cannot read and write and do math - why do they need that stuff? I mean, the are complaining that the High School Exit Exam - which is based on 8th and 9th grade material - is too hard for a senior to pass. That says something about what should be taught in school.
I think that you are right about what Prop. 8 is doing - they want parents to recognize that this could be an issue at school. I don't think they are overstating the case - but I think they are trying to bring up a concern.
As for legisaltion without morality - that would mean eliminating disability and welfare benefits. Those are legislative issues that are based on a morality thing - that we should take care of those who cannot (or in my belief will not) care for themselves. This is a distinict moral concept. Also, provision of notificaiton to parents/guardian/adult relative before an abortion is done on a minor child is a moral/ethical thing - but I don't see anyone worked up about that issue.
Prop. 8 is simply a case where morality/ethics and legislation are combining in an obvious manner. I don't believe that the seperation of church and state means that you are free from legislation about religion, jus that you are free to practice what you want. If legislation were enver made on the basis of religion, we wouldn't have Christmas as a federal holiday where we all get to take work off and get paid for it. I think that taking religion out of society and laws creates bigger problems that letting some of it in, within the boundaries of the US Constitution - not the state constitution.
You are right about what seperation of church and state are. Liberals like to say that it's all about the church remaining quiet in policial matters. They are wrong. It's about giving American's the right to worship as they want to without the government having any say in it. Liberals can be great spin doctors. If you don't believe me, turn on CNN or MSNBC. Seperation of church and state is the government staying out of the way American's worship.
I think the government definately needs to butt out of religion. As long as they are not plotting bomb attacks or victimizing children, I'm with you 100%. This country was founded by people who were tired of the government telling them how and what to believe.
I don't think the government does tell people what to believe in terms of religion. However, people do accept the government's views on what to believe in other places. People accept the government's statement that we need welfare and subsidy programs to help homeowners who are losing their houses because they made bad choices. People accept the government's view that an Army is needed. I am not disputing that some of these things are needed. I am just saying - that the government does tell people what they should belive by issuing press releases and stuff on various topics.
The government does butt out of religion. They don't say that someone cannot establish a religion, or be a certain religion. I know that a friend of mine started a religion around his stuffed gecko, got it recognized and organized as a tex exempt organization and "donates" his money to it. But then he is the sole priest and governor of the religion and so he then gets all his money back to spend, tax exempt. So I am for the government stopping that abuse of religion. I am also for the government keeping Christmas as a holiday, and Easter too. But those are all religious things.
What you want is the freedom to worship as you want - which is what the founding fathers wanted. And you have that.
But that shouldn't mean that religion cannot be in other places. It is in the Pledge of Allegience, the money, and in some courthouses and other places around.
I just wanted to point out tactics that the No on 8 is taking - since everyone is agains tthe tactics of the Yes on 8 side. And by the way - the Yes on 8 side doesn't go picket or protest outside of anyone's holy grounds or sacred place like the No on 8 side is doing at the LDS temples.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL
To redefine the covenant of marriage is to degrade the value that sacred institution. The entire concept was created by God, he makes the rules, it's not marriage if men choose to define it according their own will. It would be like saying a prayer and ending in the name of Karl Marks.
Onusonus,
I'm glad that traditions change, and so should every American.
If you really think that "To redefine the covenant of marriage is to degrade the value [of] that sacred institution," then you should be really unhappy with the definition of marriage before the CA Supreme Court's decision!
I've devoted an entire hub to this very subject: http://hubpages.com/hub/Taking-Down-the-Straight-O nly Sign.
Read it for a walk down marriage's "Memory Lane." It may make you want to drop the "traditional" line of reasoning.
What is wrong with peaceful protest at the LDS temples?
It's not as if they were private buildings. The one here in Oakland is ornately decorated, and open to everyone to visit.
Actually Sage I've already read it and let me just say that the traditional point of marriage was still conceived by God. Just because the people of history have turned it into something for which it was most definitely not intended for does not make it a traditional view.
Jesus didn't tell the crusaders to go around killing people in his name, they just did it on their own recogniscence. does this mean that traditional Christianity is based on killing? Of course not, it's just another classic example of the human race displaying their bad judgment like enforcing same sex marriage rules.
I wanted to say that a LDS temples are private lands. They simply invite everyone to visit in the spirit of learning.
I don't object to the concept of peaceful protests. I think they serve a good point. But here's the thing - the No on 8 group is only protesting at LDS temples. The Catholics, other Christians and some Jews are against this as well. There are no protests at Catholic cathedrals and churches, other Christian churches and Jewish houses of worship. Instead, they are focusing on the LDS church. And here's why - it isn't politically "correct" to protest the other churches which all have considerably more political power than the LDS church. So they are picking on the LDS church. No one is picking on the Catholics for having the same stance as the LDS - that marriage is defined by God as between one man and one woman. Instead, lets pick on the LDS.
Also, I find it abhorrent that they are protesting at a holy place. The Oakland temple is a holy place for LDS church members, and is meant to provide a sense of peace for all who enter. Have you ever been there? I went there before I was LDS because it was calm, quiet, gorgeous, and a good place to think. That's what temple grounds are for.
You want to protest in front of the LDS shops or whatever - go ahead. But the fact that they are protesting in front of the holiest place for LDS members - the temple - is simply disgusting. Or - protest in front of all the holy places of everyone who objects to Prop 8. I mean, the new Catholic Cathedral of Christ the Light is only a few miles away in Oakland - they better be there next.
See - those people are trying to ignore the First Amendment freedom to worship as you please. Instead, they want everyone to worsip in accordance with their views. If this wasn't true, then they wouldn't be protesting at the temple. I knew it would come to this.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you (unless they were legally trespassing, of course). You might not like the disturbance of calm at the LDS temple (which is certainly open for would-be converts, naturally), but the LDS has been the primary church supporting and assisting in the bankrolling of Proposition 8, which aims to disturb the California Constitution and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of gay couples in the state. If the LDS were only interested in peace and quiet reflection, it wouldn't have chosen to intervene so strongly in a civil political matter.
And yes, I have been to the LDS temple around the Christmas holidays, and it is very pretty.
The protesters are not telling people to stop worshipping as they please. They are protesting the church's intervening in political matters. You know, not all Mormons are pleased with the church doing so.
This country has a long history of peaceful, public protest. It is meant to be noisy and a disturbance. That's how it works. As long as people don't violate the law, then they are well within their rights to do so.
The temple is open to all - not just would-be converts.
And lets get this straight - the LDS church is not bankrolling anything! I am sick and tired of people saying that. There are members of the LDS church who are giving money - the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic group) gave a ton of money too - and no one is protesting at the Catholic cathedral. The LDS church did not give money. Some members of the LDS church did.
As for not all Mormons believing in Prop 8 - well - they have to work out how to square that with their beliefs all on their own.
And all churches intervene in political matters. If only by providing a set of guidelines of moral beliefs for their members to follow. All churches do it. It is part of what a church is there for.
I don't say they aren't within the law - I think they are singling out the LDS church because it is easier and more politically expedient. Trying to raise hell against the Catholics or Jews is harder because they have more political power.
Let me reiterate this again - the LDS church has given no money to the Prop 8 group. They have simply endorsed the idea - along with Catholics, Jews and other Christians.
And Prop 8 doesn't disturb the California Constitution. The Constitution is meant to be amended in this manner. otherwise there would've been a "no amendment" clause in it.
I said "assisted in bankrolling", not "bankrolling." And, I'm sorry, but the LDS is definitely doing some heavy-lifting in favor or Prop 8:
"The church largely stays out of politics. But in this case, the Salt Lake City-based church has sent letters, held video conferences and in church meetings asked for volunteers to support the campaign."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1
And it's working. 40-70% of the Yes on Prop 8 donations are coming from Mormons, despite being 2% of the population.
Your comment about political power and Jews/Catholics sounds reminiscent of what you'd hear in 1930s Europe, so I'll disregard that. Especially when it doesn't square with the facts with regards to the funding of Prop 8.
Prop 8 will amend the constitution for the first in a way that it's never been amended before - to take away rights. It's a shame, and, I'm sorry, just another example of where the LDS has been on the wrong side of things.
I think that you are wrong about them being on the wrong side of things. And my statements are not reminicent of the 1930's - they are a political reality today. Those two churches hold enormous political power in the US. It's not a bad thing - its just a real thing.
The things the LDS church has done on Prop 8 are about marriage being sacred between a man and a woman. The church is simplt informing members of the beliefs of the church, and commenting on Prop 8. There has been no official fundraising done at the churches. Instead, we have been asked to help in whatever way we can. For some, that is money. For others - like me - it is something I would've done anyways and walk precincts.
And so what if those donations are coming from Mormons - and the only way you know is to ask or make estimates. There is no offical way to know. There is no box when you are donating that says, "check here if you are LDS." It is purely from their impressions. Mormons are just well organized at a grass roots level, so when you pick an issue they care about, they are going to mobilize at the grass roots level.
This seems to have turned away from the topic of the hub. Back to the topic of the hub, I think if anyone is a Christian, they cannot vote for same-sex marriage. I think it's that simple. If you are saved, you know what God says about this. If we go against Him, we are only destroying our nation. Stay strong!
I understand all that. But the 40% figure was estimated by the Yes to Prop 8 organizers, so it's a lowball figure. I have no idea how it was estimated.
What the LDS has been wrong about:
- polygamy
- racism (denying African-Americans to pray in their temple or become priests)
- suppression of freedom of thought/speech
- historical revisionism
Need I go on? Maybe the LDS will regret its work against equality one day, too.
First, they will only be rewarded for doing what the Bible says it right about this proposition.
Second, This hub is about the Proposition 8 vote. Not if you believe what the writer does about her beliefs.
Live longer, you just spewed out the same anti-Mormon propoganda that has existed since the begining of the church, Polygamy has existed since biblical times and is only to be consecrated at the command of God as is with the priesthood ban which was lifted after years of ferverent prayer among the leadership of the church, we are commanded by God to obey the laws of the land. as for your claim to suppression of freedom and historical reinventing, they are blatant displayes of intolerance on your behalf. What you don't seem to understand is that the Church is governed by God not men, he makes the rules not you, but it is your choice to accept or reject it.
Allshookup: I'm simply proving that the LDS has been wrong plenty of times in the past, and has in time seen the error of its ways and changed.
Onusonus: This is not propaganda; it's well-documented fact. Check out the Wikipedia entry (and its supporting sources). I don't know why you insist on anything other than a claim that the LDS has never made a mistake is intolerance. All churches have made egregious policy decisions they've come to regret later, and your church is no exception.
Live longer, consider the priesthood ban from a biblical account, Peter and the other apostles likewise misunderstood the timing of gospel blessings to non-Israelites. Even following a revelation to Peter, many members of the early Christian Church continued to fight about this point and how to implement it—even Peter and Paul had disagreements. Yet, Bible-believing Christians, such as the Latter-day Saints, continue to consider both as prophets. Critics should be careful that they do not have a double standard, or they will condemn Bible prophets as well.
The Latter-day Saints are not scriptural or prophetic inerrantists. They are not troubled when prophets have personal opinions which turn out to be incorrect. In the case of the priesthood ban, members of the modern Church accepted the change with more joy and obedience than many first century members accepted the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles without the need for keeping the Mosaic Law.
And that we may turn out to be wrong about our position on marriage as being between a man and a woman only. But with the best information we have avaiable in this time - we know that God has said that marriage is between a man and a woman only. If a prophet - somewhere down the line - says that so long as it is only the civil definition that changes, then it doesn't matter - the the LDS population will believe that their prophet has been guided by God to believe this.
It is the same way that the Pope for the Catholics can change doctrine and position on issues and the Catholic accept it because the Pope is the voice of God for them.
I have no problem with the concept that at a later date we may be proven wrong. In fact, I am sure that at a later date God will reveal more to the human race, and maybe that will entail a lot of our previous assumptions being wrong. But I am doing my best with what I have at the moment - which is my Bible and the Prophet.
Also - I know many Mormons who aren't voting yes on Prop 8. Not because they don't believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only, but because they don't believe they have the ability to say who should live with who in a civil setting. Or because they believe it won't impact their marriage and their belief on marriage.
I know it won't impact my marriage. It also won't impact my belief about marriage. But I think I have a duty to stand up for what I believe in. Even if it turns out to be wrong at a later date. I mean, eventually the world was proven to be round and not flat right?
If you believe that people other than yourself who have a different sexual orientation should not have the same rights as you, then yes, you should vote your beliefs. But, suffice it to say that I find that line of reasoning prejudicial and hurtful against people who would never do that to you.
They would do that to me. Letting same-sex couples get married in CA does make me mad. They have civil unions - which grant them the same rights as married couples in CA. Nothing they can do will grant them the same rights at the federal level. So instead of asking for something they can get, they want what I have. Forget it. I don't believe that marriage should be between anyone other than a man and a woman. It may be hurtful, and I am sorry that people are hurt that I don't want them to marry - but that is my belief, and the belief of many other people.
I am not a narrow-minded person. I think there are lots of things that should be done that aren't being done. I believe in rehabilitation over incarceration and education before all. But I think that this issue is polarizing. It is also creating the impression that religious people are right-wing wackos - which we aren't. We are simply people who believe in things and don't want to see what we beleive in distorted.
Good hub! I agree that it is a shame that we have to go this far. I don't want to know what goes on in your bedroom. But I also admit that everyone has a choice. It's when that choice has to be forced on others. One comment was made earlier about it being a civil union. Yes, that is civil and if the courts want to allow that I can respectfully disagree. My biggest fear is that they will begin to force ministers and churches to follow suit. In that I would not be able to stand for. If a church has a particular stance from a moral perspective, the courts need to be careful on treading on that - they have a freedom, too. Anytime laws are passed for morality there are fine lines that anyone on either side dangerously thread. All need to carefully consider the impact for today and those in the future. In the end all the government entities have to be on board for something so explosive and that can touch everyone.
Well, it passed! And now there are claims that it will be challenged. The problem with this is that it will have to be challenged in Federal Court, and the Supreme Court has already said that the federal government doesn't have to recognize homosexual marriage (when they upheld the definition of marriage act a few years ago).
The opponents say there will be a new and innovative legal argument. But I don't see what that argument could be.
It passed? right on!
I voted for 8 not because of any views I personally have on homosexuality, I could care less if you are gay and I believe most people share my sentiment. Be gay, don't be gay, nobody cares. NOBODY. I voted yes because when a small special interest group like the homosexual community makes an ultimatum to the greater majority that you are entitled to be married you are wrong. You are not "entitled" to get married, changing the very meaning and definition of marraige just because you feel you are entitled to do so. This isn't about any "right" you had or didn't have. You never had the right to get married. This issue isn't about discrimination either. Shame on the politicians that used that message in the days leading up to the election. I found that inference in the campaign against 8 personally offensive and I believe it did not help the "no" side message.
I agree with you. There are protections for the minority against a tyrannical majority - namely the checks and balances. But there is nothing to protect a minority from being tyrannical.
Did you hear - the California Supreme Court is reviewing the issue (again). Legislators in California - instead of dealing with the massive budget failure - are passing resolutions in support of gay marriage. I am glad to see they are putting their energy where it matters.
Don't get me going about the budget. For too long certain groups have dominated the airwaves during elections with ads for or against everything from clean water to more room for a chicken in a cage. The current economy is a major factor in the state's fiscal condition but so is the legislators that argue rather than doing their jobs to reach a consensus on the state's budget. Last minute ideas like raising the sales tax rate and increasing DMV fees does not address the real underlying problem of state government waste and inefficiencies. Just think of all the good that could have been done for Californian's that really need help with the money spent on the 8 campaigns both for and against. Only in America.......
The budget situations sucks. It is also the fault of the people of California -who vote for the Legislators and the bonds. But I agree - too much time spent on minutea and too little time solving the problems. The budget has too problems: excessive waste and weak structure for revenues. So good luck with that. I just think the legislators get side-tracked.
Notorious leftist? You're a notorious goon! "choose"? Even Pat Robertson, one of your idols has admitted that it's genetic. Get over yourselves, and stop taking rights away from your fellow Americans.
In The Doghouse 3 years ago
nwunderlich,
I would like to applaud you for stating your reasons in support of proposition 8 in California. I believe that marriage should remain as defined, between a man and a women. You have stated some very strong reasons that this should be, procreation being one of them. It is unbelievable to me that it has come to a point where we are forced to vote on this point of redefinition of marriage, that has been defined so well since the beginning of time. Thank you for being brave enough to share your idea and uphold your personal values toward the definition of marriage. You go girl!