In light of the recent protests by gay and lesbian activists who are upset with democracy and wish to use the Mormon church as a scapegoat, I thought that I would write a simple blog by which people may contrast the anger and hate of gays and lesbians with the humanitarian efforts of the Mormons. If you have watched the news reports at all, you have discovered the claims by angry protesters that Mormons are bigots, intolerant, hateful, ignorant and etc. I've also heard these activists yell that Mormons should be ashamed of themselves and should use their money for something good rather than in opposing same-sex marriage. Let me first point out that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) did not donate any money to the campaign for "Yes on Proposition 8." Individual members of the Church, such as myself, have donated that money. Furthermore, it should be noted that while I have donated money to this campaign because I believe in the traditional value of marriage and feel that altering the institution of marriage will lead to more social ills, I have donated far more in charitable contributions which is done through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please take a little of your time and view some of these videos and read through some of these articles that exemplify the humanitarian causes in which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is involved. Then decide if we are a hateful, bigoted, and intolerant people.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. . . wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7: 16-20).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Humanitarian Aid Video
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Measles in Africa
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Continent-Wide Day of Service--Africa
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Aid to Myanmar
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Aid to Texas--Hurricane Ike
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Hurricane Katrina Response
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Hurricane Katrina Relief
Here are some articles that exemplify The Humanitarian spirit of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (click on the title to be redirected to the article):
Muslims and Mormons Work Together to Provide Tsunami Relief
Muslims and Mormons Flying Aid to Indonesia Tsunami Victims
Neonatal Resuscitation Training
Church’s Wheelchair Initiative Turns a New Corner
LDS Church Providing Emergency Relief to California Fire Victims
Mormons Aid Flood Victims in Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin
Clean Water initiative
Mormon “Helping Hands” Clean Up After Hurricane Ike
PBS: The Mormons: Humanitarian Programs
Bishops' Storehouses Continue to Send Supplies to Hurricane Katrina Victims
Asia relief efforts
Europe Flood-Relief Efforts Receive Church Donation
Showing posts with label prop 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prop 8. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
A Truly Disturbing Ad
Regardless of your political persuasion or personal beliefs, any reasonable thinking human being would be offended by the content of this ad. It is discriminatory in nature and falsely attacks mormons with an inaccurate stereotype. If you do not recognize the offensive nature of this ad, simply plug in your own religion, race, or cause, and think about what the ad is saying regarding your own free speech. It is true that many mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) have contributed to the "Yes" on 8 campaign, but they are not the only ones. Additionally, if "Yes" on Prop 8 passes it will be due to the vote of each Californian--the overwhelming majority of which are not mormon. Furthermore, what does it matter what religious persuasion an American citizen happens to be? Aren't we all entitled to support the causes that we feel are just? Needless to say, in this ad two men (who are dressed to resemble mormon missionaries) force their way into a lesbian couple's home and ransack their belongings. It speaks of them taking away rights and looking for what other rights they may deny individuals. Now imagine if it were catholics and they had a priest invading the home. Or Christian with a pastor invading a home. Or Muslim with a cleric invading the home. Or Jewish with a rabbi invading the home. Would this not be offensive? Would it not be an attempt to silence the rights of individuals or groups to express an opinion and fight for a cause? Let's look at it from another angle. What if there was a commercial with a gay or lesbian couple breaking into a family's home and tearing children away from their parents with the caption: "gays and lesbians are attempting to destroy families--say no to gay and lesbian activists from taking over your government." Would this not be extremely offensive? This ad is reminiscent of the old Nazi propoganda demonizing Jews. The demonzing of a group has to begin somewhere and always plays upon the fears of others. It is the mormons now. If we do not stand up and condemn such propaganda, who will be next?
*Here are a few pictures that I am adding to this particular post, dated 11-6-08. As we see in these photos, those who claim tolerance and acceptance are not very tolerant or accepting in return. Here they are targeting mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) due to many of the church members' support of proposition 8. Interesting to note that mormons only make up 2% of the population in California and they are an easy target or scapegoat. These crowds are acting on the general mistrust of the population regarding the faith of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These protests that gay and lesbian activists are having throughout California is truly bringing out their true colors. They are certainly changing public opinion through their actions, but I don't think they are changing that opinion in the way that they would like.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Fundamentally Changing Society--The Prop 8 Debate
Same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter society whether you believe it or not. This is why it is such a charged issue in California's current political season, wherein we find the masses passionately supporting both "YES" and "NO" on California Proposition 8. Proposition 8 will officially define marriage in the state of California as being between a man and a woman. It is important that each individual consider the immediate issue as well as the ramifications of the issue, being well informed, before voting on this proposition. A "YES" vote will preserve marriage as it has always been and how it should always be--between a man and a woman. A "NO" vote will change marriage, open the door to further changes and will fundamentally and adversely change society. Ultimately, it comes down to what you personally believe marriage to be. You will obviously vote accordingly. But let us explore how society will be changed if same-sex marriage passes in California.
1. By redefining marriage we are bringing into conflict religious beliefs with religious practices. Those who promote same-sex marriage say that religion will not be affected. This is wrong. Apparently, they believe that religion is a sunday activity within the walls of a church and not a way of life. In essence, they are attempting to impose gay and lesbian rights on society while shoving religious rights into the closet. You may worship in private, but do not live your religion. And those who live their religion--they will be deemed discriminatory and will be sued for their opposition to the law. We will be forced to practice what we morally oppose or be fined, fired, incarcerated, or persecuted in other manners. Let me offer a few examples of how this will play out from actual cases that have already occurred:
a. Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
b. Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
c. Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
d. Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
e. Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
f. Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
All of these cases are truly unnecessary. These gay and lesbian individuals could have easily found an adoption agency that would allow adoptions by same-sex couples--instead, they sue and drive people of faith out of business. The parents of the lesbian girls obviously knew the rules and standards of a religious school, yet they sue when they break those rules (they could have easily enrolled their daughters in another school where it would not be an issue. Instead, they wish to impose their own beliefs over that of religious beliefs). The lesbian who wanted to receive in vitro fertilization was referred to a doctor who would be happy to perform the procedure, yet she chose to sue the doctor who made the referral because he would not compromise on his religious beliefs. And the list goes on and on. If we could trust people to be civil and understanding (dare I say TOLERANT) of people's religious beliefs, this would not be an issue. But because there are some within the gay and lesbian community that wish to impose their beliefs on others, same-sex marriage will take away the rights of individuals to live their lives according to their religious beliefs. You may view the article from which these cases are documented here.
2. Same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools. This has already happened in Massachusetts. The opposition to Prop 8 claim that what happened in Massachusetts will not happen in California. They are wrong. It is already happening as is exemplified with a school class taking a field-trip to a same-sex wedding. Also, with kindergarten classes being exposed to "Gay Appreciation." Another article on the matter may be read here. And you may wish to read through some of the California State Content Standards that require the teaching of families in 1st, 3rd, and 5th grade, which will undoubtedly lead to teaching same-sex marriage in public schools (you will have to download the document from this site--see my previous blog for the specific standards). The teaching of same-sex marriages will take away the rights of parents who oppose the teaching of their children concerning this practice.
3. The family is the most basic unit within society. By allowing same-sex marriages we are changing the very pillars of society. Marriage should be reserved for the promotion of the optimal or ideal family, which will offer children the best opportunity for success and happiness. Opponents of traditional marriage between a man and a woman use this article to support their position that children in same-sex families are not adversely affected. However, they fail to recognize this one key fact from the article--the comparison in the studies is to single mothers, not families with a mother and father. The article states: "Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress." The optimal conditions for children is a family with a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage fundamentally changes that condition.
4. All those who oppose the practice of same-sex marriage will be demonized both in public schools and in society at large. They will be labeled bigots, intolerant, discriminatory, hate mongers, and plenty of other choice words. This will lead to further abuses within society. This will cause great confusion for children who are being taught religious principles by parents on the one hand and then are being taught in schools and by government (Diane Feinstein has already labeled us such) and society that their parents are ignorant, bigoted, Intolerant, and etc. Furthermore, the latest ads by opponents to Prop 8 presents the concept that those who support traditional marriage and the traditional family--father, mother, children--and who have not done anything ever in their lives to downtrodden gays and lesbians (truly tolerant people who simply disagree with some on how marriage should be defined), are the moral equivalent of racists and xenophobes. It exemplifies the fact that if you have a differing opinion on an issue, that opinion is not valid--you MUST think as they do or you are an intolerant bigot. Is this not the epitome of intolerance? It is quite hypocritical for opponents of Prop 8 to claim that they are for tolerance and fundamental rights when they are blatantly intolerant of digressing opinion and freedom of speech.
5. By redefining marriage to accept same-sex couples we are setting a dangerous precedent. The argument is that people love each other and we do not have the right to deny people of their love for one another. Supposedly, this is a fundamental right--if one loves someone, they should be allowed to marry that someone. As of now it will be same-sex couples. But what will happen a few years down the road when other groups with varying sexual preferences want their "fundamental right" of marriage? Do not those who practice or wish to practice polygamy have the same exact argument for marriage? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry whom they choose? What about incestuous relationships? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry whom they choose? What about people who practice bestiality? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry what they choose? What about teenagers? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry when they choose? And, of course, if we lower the age of marriages so as to not deny the fundamental rights of those who by nature are able to conceive, then what of more wicked and perverse groups such as NAMBLA. Will they not push for their "fundamental right" for dirty old men to marry young boys? Obviously, those who support same-sex marriage do not support polygamy, incest, bestiality, the lowering of the marriage age, or NAMBLA. But what they are doing by changing the definition of marriage is opening the door for all of these groups. The very logic which they are approaching the redefinition of marriage is the very logic that each of these groups will use in return. And those who claim at this time that it is discriminatory, immoral, unfair, and wrong to deny these supposed "fundamental rights" to same-sex couples, will be labeled the exact same thing when they in turn oppose these other groups. If we are considered to be prejudiced by opposing same-sex marriage, how would we not also be labeled as being prejudiced in opposing these other groups? If we are counseled to not be judgmental of others sexual preference, wouldn't that also mean that we should not be judgmental of all of these fringe groups? Can they not also make the argument that they are born that way, that they love, and that it is their "fundamental right" to be recognized by society as being nothing different than a mother and father in a marriage relationship? This is a slippery slope on which we stand. It would change the entire moral fabric and principle on which this nation was founded and will ultimately lead to the destruction of society as we know it.
6. Our ideals and values on sexuality will fundamentally change. Hollywood and various forms of media are already bombarding America with sexual messages, both heterosexual and homosexual. In my opinion, neither is appropriate for public consumption (I mean with easy access to children--one just has to flip on the television to be bombarded with sexual messages). Passing same-sex marriage emboldens this position. It will become wrong to make judgments concerning sexuality which will ultimately lead to the legalization of more perverse practices. This can easily be seen by looking at the Scandinavian countries where same-sex marriage has essentially been in existence for the past decade. The idea of being non-judgmental concerning sexuality has led to the legalization and popularity of such things as animal bordellos, as is evidenced by this article. and has led to an increase in divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and etc. This repercussions of which are not limited to the individual, but have an effect on society as a whole.
7. Same-sex marriage will entirely alter the way Americans view sexuality. Advertisers for wedding rings, wedding dresses, wedding suits, or anything at all dealing with weddings will have to promote same-sex marriage through its advertising. Once more, people who believe in the sacredness of marriage as being between a man and a woman will have this ideology working its way into our homes and will cause a conflict of interest as families attempt to teach their children their own values while society is promoting a contradictory perspective.
8. Marriage will lose its sacredness and meaning. Whether you would like to admit it or not, marriage is a religious issue. It began as a religious ordinance and it is ordained of God. Same-sex marriage will entirely sever the original origin and purpose of marriage from what it will become. The way Americans view marriage will change and its traditional purposes of maintaining chastity, promoting procreation, providing an ideal environment for rearing children, and our pursuits of patterning our lives and families after that of our Heavenly Parents will be undermined. People will view it as nothing more than a profession of love, and realizing that they may profess that love without marriage, the institution of marriage will become an unnecessary ritual in the mindset of many.
9. Same-sex marriage will set the precedent of seeking redresses with government by attacking institutions rather than seeking to change government. Many gays and lesbians feel that the denial of same-sex marriage strips them of "fundamental rights." When pressed about these rights and confronted with the concept of domestic partnerships, they claim that domestic partnerships do not allow for recognition of citizenship with foreign lovers, federal tax reductions, and the likes. Hence, their rights are being denied. If they wish to have such rights they should take it up with the government which is preventing those rights, not by trying to redefine marriage. They are attacking the wrong institution.
10. By allowing same-sex marriage to stand in California, we are legitimizing the California Supreme Courts decision for activist judges to create laws that overrule state law (prop 22 passed in 2000, defining marriage in California to be recognized only between a man and a woman). This is a bad precedent. People may agree with the judges decision, but what about the future? What happens when elite judges begin creating other laws with which you do not agree? If we allow judges to create law now, we will be allowing them to create law in the future. We live in a democracy. I do not wish my democratic rights to be trumped by the tyrannical rule of elite judges who feel they (the few) feel what they know is best for the whole.
These are the reasons I feel we should vote "YES" on Proposition 8. You may disagree and that is your right. I believe in democracy and it is time for each of us to decide for ourselves and vote accordingly.
Click here to read a summary of the French Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children
1. By redefining marriage we are bringing into conflict religious beliefs with religious practices. Those who promote same-sex marriage say that religion will not be affected. This is wrong. Apparently, they believe that religion is a sunday activity within the walls of a church and not a way of life. In essence, they are attempting to impose gay and lesbian rights on society while shoving religious rights into the closet. You may worship in private, but do not live your religion. And those who live their religion--they will be deemed discriminatory and will be sued for their opposition to the law. We will be forced to practice what we morally oppose or be fined, fired, incarcerated, or persecuted in other manners. Let me offer a few examples of how this will play out from actual cases that have already occurred:
a. Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
b. Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
c. Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
d. Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
e. Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
f. Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
All of these cases are truly unnecessary. These gay and lesbian individuals could have easily found an adoption agency that would allow adoptions by same-sex couples--instead, they sue and drive people of faith out of business. The parents of the lesbian girls obviously knew the rules and standards of a religious school, yet they sue when they break those rules (they could have easily enrolled their daughters in another school where it would not be an issue. Instead, they wish to impose their own beliefs over that of religious beliefs). The lesbian who wanted to receive in vitro fertilization was referred to a doctor who would be happy to perform the procedure, yet she chose to sue the doctor who made the referral because he would not compromise on his religious beliefs. And the list goes on and on. If we could trust people to be civil and understanding (dare I say TOLERANT) of people's religious beliefs, this would not be an issue. But because there are some within the gay and lesbian community that wish to impose their beliefs on others, same-sex marriage will take away the rights of individuals to live their lives according to their religious beliefs. You may view the article from which these cases are documented here.
2. Same-sex marriage will be taught in public schools. This has already happened in Massachusetts. The opposition to Prop 8 claim that what happened in Massachusetts will not happen in California. They are wrong. It is already happening as is exemplified with a school class taking a field-trip to a same-sex wedding. Also, with kindergarten classes being exposed to "Gay Appreciation." Another article on the matter may be read here. And you may wish to read through some of the California State Content Standards that require the teaching of families in 1st, 3rd, and 5th grade, which will undoubtedly lead to teaching same-sex marriage in public schools (you will have to download the document from this site--see my previous blog for the specific standards). The teaching of same-sex marriages will take away the rights of parents who oppose the teaching of their children concerning this practice.
3. The family is the most basic unit within society. By allowing same-sex marriages we are changing the very pillars of society. Marriage should be reserved for the promotion of the optimal or ideal family, which will offer children the best opportunity for success and happiness. Opponents of traditional marriage between a man and a woman use this article to support their position that children in same-sex families are not adversely affected. However, they fail to recognize this one key fact from the article--the comparison in the studies is to single mothers, not families with a mother and father. The article states: "Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress." The optimal conditions for children is a family with a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage fundamentally changes that condition.
4. All those who oppose the practice of same-sex marriage will be demonized both in public schools and in society at large. They will be labeled bigots, intolerant, discriminatory, hate mongers, and plenty of other choice words. This will lead to further abuses within society. This will cause great confusion for children who are being taught religious principles by parents on the one hand and then are being taught in schools and by government (Diane Feinstein has already labeled us such) and society that their parents are ignorant, bigoted, Intolerant, and etc. Furthermore, the latest ads by opponents to Prop 8 presents the concept that those who support traditional marriage and the traditional family--father, mother, children--and who have not done anything ever in their lives to downtrodden gays and lesbians (truly tolerant people who simply disagree with some on how marriage should be defined), are the moral equivalent of racists and xenophobes. It exemplifies the fact that if you have a differing opinion on an issue, that opinion is not valid--you MUST think as they do or you are an intolerant bigot. Is this not the epitome of intolerance? It is quite hypocritical for opponents of Prop 8 to claim that they are for tolerance and fundamental rights when they are blatantly intolerant of digressing opinion and freedom of speech.
5. By redefining marriage to accept same-sex couples we are setting a dangerous precedent. The argument is that people love each other and we do not have the right to deny people of their love for one another. Supposedly, this is a fundamental right--if one loves someone, they should be allowed to marry that someone. As of now it will be same-sex couples. But what will happen a few years down the road when other groups with varying sexual preferences want their "fundamental right" of marriage? Do not those who practice or wish to practice polygamy have the same exact argument for marriage? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry whom they choose? What about incestuous relationships? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry whom they choose? What about people who practice bestiality? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry what they choose? What about teenagers? They love. Is it their "fundamental right" to marry when they choose? And, of course, if we lower the age of marriages so as to not deny the fundamental rights of those who by nature are able to conceive, then what of more wicked and perverse groups such as NAMBLA. Will they not push for their "fundamental right" for dirty old men to marry young boys? Obviously, those who support same-sex marriage do not support polygamy, incest, bestiality, the lowering of the marriage age, or NAMBLA. But what they are doing by changing the definition of marriage is opening the door for all of these groups. The very logic which they are approaching the redefinition of marriage is the very logic that each of these groups will use in return. And those who claim at this time that it is discriminatory, immoral, unfair, and wrong to deny these supposed "fundamental rights" to same-sex couples, will be labeled the exact same thing when they in turn oppose these other groups. If we are considered to be prejudiced by opposing same-sex marriage, how would we not also be labeled as being prejudiced in opposing these other groups? If we are counseled to not be judgmental of others sexual preference, wouldn't that also mean that we should not be judgmental of all of these fringe groups? Can they not also make the argument that they are born that way, that they love, and that it is their "fundamental right" to be recognized by society as being nothing different than a mother and father in a marriage relationship? This is a slippery slope on which we stand. It would change the entire moral fabric and principle on which this nation was founded and will ultimately lead to the destruction of society as we know it.
6. Our ideals and values on sexuality will fundamentally change. Hollywood and various forms of media are already bombarding America with sexual messages, both heterosexual and homosexual. In my opinion, neither is appropriate for public consumption (I mean with easy access to children--one just has to flip on the television to be bombarded with sexual messages). Passing same-sex marriage emboldens this position. It will become wrong to make judgments concerning sexuality which will ultimately lead to the legalization of more perverse practices. This can easily be seen by looking at the Scandinavian countries where same-sex marriage has essentially been in existence for the past decade. The idea of being non-judgmental concerning sexuality has led to the legalization and popularity of such things as animal bordellos, as is evidenced by this article. and has led to an increase in divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and etc. This repercussions of which are not limited to the individual, but have an effect on society as a whole.
7. Same-sex marriage will entirely alter the way Americans view sexuality. Advertisers for wedding rings, wedding dresses, wedding suits, or anything at all dealing with weddings will have to promote same-sex marriage through its advertising. Once more, people who believe in the sacredness of marriage as being between a man and a woman will have this ideology working its way into our homes and will cause a conflict of interest as families attempt to teach their children their own values while society is promoting a contradictory perspective.
8. Marriage will lose its sacredness and meaning. Whether you would like to admit it or not, marriage is a religious issue. It began as a religious ordinance and it is ordained of God. Same-sex marriage will entirely sever the original origin and purpose of marriage from what it will become. The way Americans view marriage will change and its traditional purposes of maintaining chastity, promoting procreation, providing an ideal environment for rearing children, and our pursuits of patterning our lives and families after that of our Heavenly Parents will be undermined. People will view it as nothing more than a profession of love, and realizing that they may profess that love without marriage, the institution of marriage will become an unnecessary ritual in the mindset of many.
9. Same-sex marriage will set the precedent of seeking redresses with government by attacking institutions rather than seeking to change government. Many gays and lesbians feel that the denial of same-sex marriage strips them of "fundamental rights." When pressed about these rights and confronted with the concept of domestic partnerships, they claim that domestic partnerships do not allow for recognition of citizenship with foreign lovers, federal tax reductions, and the likes. Hence, their rights are being denied. If they wish to have such rights they should take it up with the government which is preventing those rights, not by trying to redefine marriage. They are attacking the wrong institution.
10. By allowing same-sex marriage to stand in California, we are legitimizing the California Supreme Courts decision for activist judges to create laws that overrule state law (prop 22 passed in 2000, defining marriage in California to be recognized only between a man and a woman). This is a bad precedent. People may agree with the judges decision, but what about the future? What happens when elite judges begin creating other laws with which you do not agree? If we allow judges to create law now, we will be allowing them to create law in the future. We live in a democracy. I do not wish my democratic rights to be trumped by the tyrannical rule of elite judges who feel they (the few) feel what they know is best for the whole.
These are the reasons I feel we should vote "YES" on Proposition 8. You may disagree and that is your right. I believe in democracy and it is time for each of us to decide for ourselves and vote accordingly.
Click here to read a summary of the French Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children
Friday, October 31, 2008
Offensive Ads
I know that I had promised that my next blog would be about how same-sex marriage would fundamentally change society, and I will address that this weekend, but at the moment there is one issue that I feel I must address immediately--the most recent advertisements for the "No on Proposition 8" campaign. I am not sure if anyone else has seen the most recent ads, but I was appalled by their content when I saw them televised while watching the news last night.
There are two new ads running which literally left me shocked and entirely offended. I cannot imagine any decent person with a brain not being offended by these ads. Let me explain.
The first of the two ads has Senator Diane Feinstein speaking of how she has seen discrimination before and that anyone who votes "Yes" on prop 8 is simply discriminatory. The second ad shows Japanese-Americans in internment (concentration) camps, followed by footage of physical abuses of African Americans in the 60s during the civil rights movement, while the commentator speaks of the discrimination of all who support a "Yes" vote on prop 8.
I take great offense to this message and find it quite hypocritical of those who are airing it. Essentially, they are saying anyone who supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman is morally equivalent with racists and xenophobes who have beaten and incarcerated people. I cannot understand how the average citizen would not be deeply offended by this comparison. Anyone who feels that a child should have the right to have a mother and a father is now considered a vile monster of the worst sorts? Unbelievable!
These ads promote hate and anger towards those who support a "Yes" vote on proposition 8. Quite ironic considering that it is coming from a campaign that claims to promote tolerance.
I shall be waiting for the "No on 8" campaign to start running ads against both Barack Obama and John McCain, considering they both support traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. After all, how can we have someone in the office of the Presidency who would be so morally corrupt!
And what about the rest of America? I suppose that the majority of Americans are morally corrupt for believing marriage to be a sacred institution designed for a man and a woman.
I honestly believe that these latest ads will backfire on their own campaign as most Californians will recognize the vitriol and intellectual dishonesty behind it. If not, then let this be a warning to the rest of America--anyone who believes in tradional values will be demonized and will be discriminated against by those who pretend to irradicate such discrimination.
I seriously cannot understand how people who promote family values which actually support and build up a positive influence in society can be deemed evil. . . A great example of calling good evil. . . I guess that I have to hand it to the "No on prop 8" campaign on this one issue--they certainly know how to fulfill scripture!
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8!!!!
There are two new ads running which literally left me shocked and entirely offended. I cannot imagine any decent person with a brain not being offended by these ads. Let me explain.
The first of the two ads has Senator Diane Feinstein speaking of how she has seen discrimination before and that anyone who votes "Yes" on prop 8 is simply discriminatory. The second ad shows Japanese-Americans in internment (concentration) camps, followed by footage of physical abuses of African Americans in the 60s during the civil rights movement, while the commentator speaks of the discrimination of all who support a "Yes" vote on prop 8.
I take great offense to this message and find it quite hypocritical of those who are airing it. Essentially, they are saying anyone who supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman is morally equivalent with racists and xenophobes who have beaten and incarcerated people. I cannot understand how the average citizen would not be deeply offended by this comparison. Anyone who feels that a child should have the right to have a mother and a father is now considered a vile monster of the worst sorts? Unbelievable!
These ads promote hate and anger towards those who support a "Yes" vote on proposition 8. Quite ironic considering that it is coming from a campaign that claims to promote tolerance.
I shall be waiting for the "No on 8" campaign to start running ads against both Barack Obama and John McCain, considering they both support traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. After all, how can we have someone in the office of the Presidency who would be so morally corrupt!
And what about the rest of America? I suppose that the majority of Americans are morally corrupt for believing marriage to be a sacred institution designed for a man and a woman.
I honestly believe that these latest ads will backfire on their own campaign as most Californians will recognize the vitriol and intellectual dishonesty behind it. If not, then let this be a warning to the rest of America--anyone who believes in tradional values will be demonized and will be discriminated against by those who pretend to irradicate such discrimination.
I seriously cannot understand how people who promote family values which actually support and build up a positive influence in society can be deemed evil. . . A great example of calling good evil. . . I guess that I have to hand it to the "No on prop 8" campaign on this one issue--they certainly know how to fulfill scripture!
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8!!!!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Fundamentals of Marriage--the core argument of Prop 8
Between all of the information presented from both proponents and opponents of proposition 8, it is easy to fall prey to a focus on the tangents of the issue rather than the core. As the final days before the election pass, I feel that it is necessary to return to the core issue concerning the definition of marriage. While side issues may prove interesting, it is the core of the matter which matters most.
There have been many comments left upon my blog by individuals who are both pro and anti proposition 8. I appreciate each of you taking the time to leave comments, and I have left all of them on my blog for all to read. There have been individuals who have made astute observations for both sides of the issue. There have also been individuals who have made comments that are inflammatory for both sides of the issue. I should like to respond in a respectful manner, recognizing that people are entitled to their opinions and that while our opinions may differ, we may be civil to one another. At the end of the day, we are all Americans, we are all human beings, and we are all children of God. I hope that each of you will take the time to read through the entire argument that I am about to present. You are free to comment and I will be sure to read and consider your arguments. What I do ask is that each person who reads this entry, will do so with an open mind and an open heart, simply considering the perspective from which I am coming, making an attempt to understand my perspective, just as I will attempt to understand others perspectives in return.
Let me preface my remarks with this one fact: I do not support nor harbor any ill-will toward anyone who happens to be gay or lesbian. I am religious and sincerely believe that every human being is a son or daughter of a loving Heavenly Father who cares for each of his children, whether they be gay or straight. I am not homophobic and I do not live in an isolated bubble of conservative values. I am acquainted with many individuals who happen to be gay or lesbian. I have been camping with and slept in the same tent as an acquaintance who happens to be gay--believe me, I do not fear such people and I do not treat them differently. That having been said, I am in support of a "YES" vote on proposition 8, and I honestly feel that it does not make me intolerant, bigoted, hateful, homophobic, anti-gay, or any other derogatory term that some have labeled me. Nor do I believe that voting "Yes" on proposition 8 denies anyone of any basic human rights. Allow me to explain.
To come to an understanding from both sides of the issue, we must first and foremost explore what constitutes the institution of marriage. A simple appeal to the dictionary states: "Marriage (n): the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." This has been the basic definition of marriage for thousands of years, recognized by billions of people, and extending through a multiplicity of cultures. Marriage, traditionally, has been a religious ceremony, which has been extended into civil practice. Many view the institution of marriage as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, in connection to God. ". . .Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God and the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of his children" (The Family: A Proclamation to the World). The primary purpose of a traditional marriage in a Judeo-Christian society is to promote chastity (according to the laws of God), promote procreation between a man and a woman (the perpetuation of the species), provide the optimal environment for child-rearing, create a stable financial environment for an individual who may choose to stay home in order to rear children, to teach and promote the time-honored and tested values that promote one's greatest chances for success and happiness, and for a man and woman to enter into a covenant with one another to love, support, and cherish one another, whereby they may work together in the process of perfecting one another in the pursuit to become like one's Heavenly Parents. Obviously, this is not what everyone thinks of marriage, but it is certainly the roots of its institution. Knowing this, we may begin to understand why some feel that the institution of marriage is under attack.
Nobody denies that there are inherent qualities that are unique to both men and women. There is much that the sexes have in common, but there are also many differences. The optimal care of children, the ideal, the standard, as is proclaimed both by God and nature is for a child to have both a mother and father. David A. Bednar states, "[Gender] in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different, distinctive, and complementary. . ." (Ensign Magazine, October 2008, 67). While there is much good that a same-sex couple may bring to a child's life, there are innate qualities that are complimented by two parents of the opposite sex that cannot be duplicated from a same-sex couple. Every child deserves to be reared in such an environment. It is the optimal environment and will afford the child the best chance for happiness and success. Some would argue that there are families with single parents--the tragedy that comes with the death of a parent, divorce, out of wedlock births, and etc. We sympathize with such, and many single parents are doing a remarkable job with the circumstances that they have been given. But just because single parents exist, does not make single parenthood the standard nor the ideal. It would be ludicrous for us to promote single parenthood to children. Can you imagine: "Sally, when you grow up you should strive to be a single mom." That is not to say that we are degrading single mothers or single fathers. We appreciate the work that they do. But it is not the standard--it is not the goal. We should promote the institution that will best accommodate the needs of children. That institution is marriage between a man and a woman. Likewise, it is ill-advised to promote same-sex marriage. This creates a new standard for which individuals may strive--a standard that is not the optimal.
Some claim that by denying marriage for same-sex couples we are denying one of their basic human rights. This is an interesting argument and I can understand why they would think this way. On the surface it has the appearance that human rights are being violated, but the reality is to the contrary. In a comment to one of my blogs, Merrie stated: "Is Proposition 8 a human rights argument or a legal rights argument? Let's look at the differentiating characteristics between the two. 1) Human rights are considered to be of a purely moral or ethical character, which hold that we obtain certain rights from nature that cannot be legitimately modified by any legislative authority. 2) Legal rights are considered to be of an artificial, man-made character, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and always subject to change. Proponents of Proposition 8 assert that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and therefore is a divine or natural right. Opponents of Proposition 8 assert that marriage is a man-made concept and therefore subject to legislative change. This leads us to [the] essence of the argument: should human/natural rights take precedence over legal rights? In the case of Proposition 8 the answer is an unequivocal yes." If one is still not convinced that same-sex marriage is a legal right rather than a human right, then we must consider this question: is it a human right for a child to be reared by both a mother and a father? I proclaim that it is. Just as one would say that human rights are being violated by disallowing same-sex marriages, another may say that human rights are being violated by denying a child of a mother and a father. After all, same-sex marriage is man made while child-bearing is natural and requires both a male and female. Whose rights then trump the other? If there are two rights that seem conflicting in nature we must side with the rights of a child over the rights of an adult. The child is still developing and needs the protection of the law, whereas an adult, relatively speaking, can cope with the situation without any adverse effect.
Furthermore, marriage is an institution. Like all institutions there are requirements that are associated with the institution. For example, a university is an institution. Not everyone may obtain a degree simply at the wanting of one. Each individual must follow the rules, procedures, and requirements to obtain the desired degree. Some choose not to pursue a degree while others may not have the natural ability to obtain a degree, yet we do not say that universities are denying human rights to those who do not participate. Only those who have followed the requirements of the institution are permitted to dress in the ceremonial gowns and participate in the graduation, having their degree conferred upon them. Universities do not lower their standard in order to be inclusive. Rather, they strive for the optimal performance of those who choose to participate. we do not call them intolerant, bigoted, prejudiced or the likes simply because there are those who do not have the ability to participate. Marriage, likewise, has its own requirements. These requirements are not meant to be prejudiced or mean-spirited any more than a university or any other institution's requirements are designed. They are in place in order to create the optimal environment for a child's upbringing, to foster love in a traditional family relationship, and to promote the design and function that God has deemed essential to the destiny of humanity throughout the eternities. There are those who may not like for what this institution stands. But that is no reason to change the fundamentals of the institution.
An individual's rights are not impeded by disallowing same-sex marriage. As Jennette has pointed out on her blog: "Registered domestic partners share the same legal rights, protections, and benefits as married couples under the California Family Code Section 297.5." This is already in place for same-sex couples. Why then must we redefine marriage? All rights and privileges have been extended to same-sex couples and they have equal protection under the law. Hence, there is no need to fundamentally change the institution of marriage. There is no need for redefining marriage. After all, what purpose does the redefining of marriage serve?
Lastly, think on this argument. Let us turn the table to see this issue through another lens. There are many institutions and causes that exist throughout the world. Some good and some bad. Let's take one that many feel is a just cause--a free Tibet. While many may work to bring about human rights in Tibet and allow its people its own autonomy, it is not the same as the movement to promote gay and lesbian rights. Now imagine if those people promoting a free Tibet, having generally the same motivation in promoting human rights, decided to demand that their movement be titled "gay and lesbian rights" and to use the existing symbols and platforms of the gay rights movement. This would fundamentally change what it means to promote gay and lesbian rights. It would change the focus from one group, who has established their ideals and what they choose to promote, to a new set of ideals. Those promoting a free Tibet might claim, "you can still promote your values while we promote our own," but the effectiveness of the message would be lost, drowned out by a new philosophy or movement. So it is with marriage. By redefining marriage, the message of marriage is lost, the sanctity is lost, the foundation is lost, and hence marriage is truly under attack.
Keep in mind, this is just one perspective on marriage, and obviously one that is rooted in religion. There are others who promote "YES ON PROPOSITION 8" for other reasons, many of which are not religious at all. The point is this, everyone must research the issue carefully, looking at all angles, and vote according to both knowledge and conscience. Whether that is a "Yes" or a "No" is up to the individual. My humble plea is that we do not change the traditional meaning of marriage. I truly believe that it is ordained of God to be between a man and a woman and anything other mocks marriage and by extension mocks God. While I understand the opposition's argument that we should not impose our beliefs upon another, I do not see how their promotion of same-sex marriage is anything different than imposing their own beliefs upon another in return. This is truly an issue of morals, values, and ideals, and each of us must figure out where we stand.
*In my next blog I shall address a comment left on one of my blogs asking how same-sex marriage will fundamentally change society.
There have been many comments left upon my blog by individuals who are both pro and anti proposition 8. I appreciate each of you taking the time to leave comments, and I have left all of them on my blog for all to read. There have been individuals who have made astute observations for both sides of the issue. There have also been individuals who have made comments that are inflammatory for both sides of the issue. I should like to respond in a respectful manner, recognizing that people are entitled to their opinions and that while our opinions may differ, we may be civil to one another. At the end of the day, we are all Americans, we are all human beings, and we are all children of God. I hope that each of you will take the time to read through the entire argument that I am about to present. You are free to comment and I will be sure to read and consider your arguments. What I do ask is that each person who reads this entry, will do so with an open mind and an open heart, simply considering the perspective from which I am coming, making an attempt to understand my perspective, just as I will attempt to understand others perspectives in return.
Let me preface my remarks with this one fact: I do not support nor harbor any ill-will toward anyone who happens to be gay or lesbian. I am religious and sincerely believe that every human being is a son or daughter of a loving Heavenly Father who cares for each of his children, whether they be gay or straight. I am not homophobic and I do not live in an isolated bubble of conservative values. I am acquainted with many individuals who happen to be gay or lesbian. I have been camping with and slept in the same tent as an acquaintance who happens to be gay--believe me, I do not fear such people and I do not treat them differently. That having been said, I am in support of a "YES" vote on proposition 8, and I honestly feel that it does not make me intolerant, bigoted, hateful, homophobic, anti-gay, or any other derogatory term that some have labeled me. Nor do I believe that voting "Yes" on proposition 8 denies anyone of any basic human rights. Allow me to explain.
To come to an understanding from both sides of the issue, we must first and foremost explore what constitutes the institution of marriage. A simple appeal to the dictionary states: "Marriage (n): the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." This has been the basic definition of marriage for thousands of years, recognized by billions of people, and extending through a multiplicity of cultures. Marriage, traditionally, has been a religious ceremony, which has been extended into civil practice. Many view the institution of marriage as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, in connection to God. ". . .Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God and the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of his children" (The Family: A Proclamation to the World). The primary purpose of a traditional marriage in a Judeo-Christian society is to promote chastity (according to the laws of God), promote procreation between a man and a woman (the perpetuation of the species), provide the optimal environment for child-rearing, create a stable financial environment for an individual who may choose to stay home in order to rear children, to teach and promote the time-honored and tested values that promote one's greatest chances for success and happiness, and for a man and woman to enter into a covenant with one another to love, support, and cherish one another, whereby they may work together in the process of perfecting one another in the pursuit to become like one's Heavenly Parents. Obviously, this is not what everyone thinks of marriage, but it is certainly the roots of its institution. Knowing this, we may begin to understand why some feel that the institution of marriage is under attack.
Nobody denies that there are inherent qualities that are unique to both men and women. There is much that the sexes have in common, but there are also many differences. The optimal care of children, the ideal, the standard, as is proclaimed both by God and nature is for a child to have both a mother and father. David A. Bednar states, "[Gender] in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different, distinctive, and complementary. . ." (Ensign Magazine, October 2008, 67). While there is much good that a same-sex couple may bring to a child's life, there are innate qualities that are complimented by two parents of the opposite sex that cannot be duplicated from a same-sex couple. Every child deserves to be reared in such an environment. It is the optimal environment and will afford the child the best chance for happiness and success. Some would argue that there are families with single parents--the tragedy that comes with the death of a parent, divorce, out of wedlock births, and etc. We sympathize with such, and many single parents are doing a remarkable job with the circumstances that they have been given. But just because single parents exist, does not make single parenthood the standard nor the ideal. It would be ludicrous for us to promote single parenthood to children. Can you imagine: "Sally, when you grow up you should strive to be a single mom." That is not to say that we are degrading single mothers or single fathers. We appreciate the work that they do. But it is not the standard--it is not the goal. We should promote the institution that will best accommodate the needs of children. That institution is marriage between a man and a woman. Likewise, it is ill-advised to promote same-sex marriage. This creates a new standard for which individuals may strive--a standard that is not the optimal.
Some claim that by denying marriage for same-sex couples we are denying one of their basic human rights. This is an interesting argument and I can understand why they would think this way. On the surface it has the appearance that human rights are being violated, but the reality is to the contrary. In a comment to one of my blogs, Merrie stated: "Is Proposition 8 a human rights argument or a legal rights argument? Let's look at the differentiating characteristics between the two. 1) Human rights are considered to be of a purely moral or ethical character, which hold that we obtain certain rights from nature that cannot be legitimately modified by any legislative authority. 2) Legal rights are considered to be of an artificial, man-made character, which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and always subject to change. Proponents of Proposition 8 assert that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and therefore is a divine or natural right. Opponents of Proposition 8 assert that marriage is a man-made concept and therefore subject to legislative change. This leads us to [the] essence of the argument: should human/natural rights take precedence over legal rights? In the case of Proposition 8 the answer is an unequivocal yes." If one is still not convinced that same-sex marriage is a legal right rather than a human right, then we must consider this question: is it a human right for a child to be reared by both a mother and a father? I proclaim that it is. Just as one would say that human rights are being violated by disallowing same-sex marriages, another may say that human rights are being violated by denying a child of a mother and a father. After all, same-sex marriage is man made while child-bearing is natural and requires both a male and female. Whose rights then trump the other? If there are two rights that seem conflicting in nature we must side with the rights of a child over the rights of an adult. The child is still developing and needs the protection of the law, whereas an adult, relatively speaking, can cope with the situation without any adverse effect.
Furthermore, marriage is an institution. Like all institutions there are requirements that are associated with the institution. For example, a university is an institution. Not everyone may obtain a degree simply at the wanting of one. Each individual must follow the rules, procedures, and requirements to obtain the desired degree. Some choose not to pursue a degree while others may not have the natural ability to obtain a degree, yet we do not say that universities are denying human rights to those who do not participate. Only those who have followed the requirements of the institution are permitted to dress in the ceremonial gowns and participate in the graduation, having their degree conferred upon them. Universities do not lower their standard in order to be inclusive. Rather, they strive for the optimal performance of those who choose to participate. we do not call them intolerant, bigoted, prejudiced or the likes simply because there are those who do not have the ability to participate. Marriage, likewise, has its own requirements. These requirements are not meant to be prejudiced or mean-spirited any more than a university or any other institution's requirements are designed. They are in place in order to create the optimal environment for a child's upbringing, to foster love in a traditional family relationship, and to promote the design and function that God has deemed essential to the destiny of humanity throughout the eternities. There are those who may not like for what this institution stands. But that is no reason to change the fundamentals of the institution.
An individual's rights are not impeded by disallowing same-sex marriage. As Jennette has pointed out on her blog: "Registered domestic partners share the same legal rights, protections, and benefits as married couples under the California Family Code Section 297.5." This is already in place for same-sex couples. Why then must we redefine marriage? All rights and privileges have been extended to same-sex couples and they have equal protection under the law. Hence, there is no need to fundamentally change the institution of marriage. There is no need for redefining marriage. After all, what purpose does the redefining of marriage serve?
Lastly, think on this argument. Let us turn the table to see this issue through another lens. There are many institutions and causes that exist throughout the world. Some good and some bad. Let's take one that many feel is a just cause--a free Tibet. While many may work to bring about human rights in Tibet and allow its people its own autonomy, it is not the same as the movement to promote gay and lesbian rights. Now imagine if those people promoting a free Tibet, having generally the same motivation in promoting human rights, decided to demand that their movement be titled "gay and lesbian rights" and to use the existing symbols and platforms of the gay rights movement. This would fundamentally change what it means to promote gay and lesbian rights. It would change the focus from one group, who has established their ideals and what they choose to promote, to a new set of ideals. Those promoting a free Tibet might claim, "you can still promote your values while we promote our own," but the effectiveness of the message would be lost, drowned out by a new philosophy or movement. So it is with marriage. By redefining marriage, the message of marriage is lost, the sanctity is lost, the foundation is lost, and hence marriage is truly under attack.
Keep in mind, this is just one perspective on marriage, and obviously one that is rooted in religion. There are others who promote "YES ON PROPOSITION 8" for other reasons, many of which are not religious at all. The point is this, everyone must research the issue carefully, looking at all angles, and vote according to both knowledge and conscience. Whether that is a "Yes" or a "No" is up to the individual. My humble plea is that we do not change the traditional meaning of marriage. I truly believe that it is ordained of God to be between a man and a woman and anything other mocks marriage and by extension mocks God. While I understand the opposition's argument that we should not impose our beliefs upon another, I do not see how their promotion of same-sex marriage is anything different than imposing their own beliefs upon another in return. This is truly an issue of morals, values, and ideals, and each of us must figure out where we stand.
*In my next blog I shall address a comment left on one of my blogs asking how same-sex marriage will fundamentally change society.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Misleading Comments of Jack O' Connell--California Superintendent of Public Schools
In recent commercials, Jack O' Connell, the California State Superintendent of Public Education has made some interesting comments with which I, as an educator and citizen of this great state, would like to take issue. As a teacher of English Language Arts, it is my job to instruct students in the use of language, and to explore its uses in written or verbal communication. Here is what I have discovered in the sophistry of Mr. O' Connell's remarks:
Mr. O' Connell states, "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." I suppose that Mr. O' Connell is making this statement based on an argument over semantics within the California Teaching Content Standards. It is true, to my knowledge, that there is nothing in the actual wording of the content standards that says "requires" in connection to the word "marriage." But there are a lot of standards that would lead to the teaching of marriage in public schools, which, in fact, are required. Furthermore, it is preposterous to think that Mr. O' Connell really knows what is going on in each school district across the state of California and within the individual school sites and classrooms. Each district, while conforming to the standards, creates its own curriculum in connection to the standards. Each district adopts its own textbooks and creates its own pacing guides which cover specific standards and themes. How can he claim that some districts do not have themes dealing with family and marriage? Has he visited each district and reviewed the individual documents? Furthermore, textbook publishers will be pressured to include works dealing with same-sex marriage by special interest groups who will undoubtedly sue the textbook publishers for discrimination if they refuse to include such diversity (we have already seen them sue other individuals who have been opposed to their position--see the link to the NPR article on my previous blog).
The proof of Mr. O' Connell's errors may be found from his own website. Granted, it will take a lot of digging in order to find the information that you are searching for (which the average voter will not be willing to do). As such, I have done a little, though not entirely exhaustive, digging myself. If we explore the document "HEALTH EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Kindergarten through Grade 12)" we will discover the following standard for Grade 1: "Describe how members of a family have various roles, responsibilities, and individual needs" (Standard 1.1.G.4). While this standard does not mention marriage, it does mention the role of family members, which implies marriage, and will lead to a discussion on the roles of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and etc. If same-sex marriage is passed, this will include the teaching of two mothers or two fathers in the roles of families. Either Mr. O' Connell is not aware of this state standard or he chooses to play ignorant over what it really means. If he is not aware, then he is simply uninformed with the falsehood he has made in his latest commercial (which is completely irresponsible of a public official). If he is aware of the standard, then he is straight lying to the people of California (which is completely shameful and a cause for removal from office). Other standards that do not explicitly say "marriage" but would lead to its discussion include: Grade 3, Standard 3.2.M.5, which states, "Describe internal and external factors that affect friendships and family relationships," Grade 5, Standard 5.1.G.6, which states, "Recognize that there are individual differences in growth and development, body image, and gender roles." and others include Grade 5 standards 5.1.G.7 and 5.2.G.11; Grade 7/8 standards 7/8.1.G.8, 7/8.2.G.15, and 7/8.5.G.30. And these are just a few within the Health Education strand. If we were to look at the History standards and the English Language Arts standards, we will not find anything that states "marriage" in the standards themselves, but an event such as adopting same-sex marriage will be one that is considered important enough to adopt into history books (thus being taught in public schools) and will be justified in reading materials for language arts (if parents object to stories that contain characters involved in same-sex marriage, they will have no right to act on their objection because it is state law). These stories could be introduced at any grade level and nobody would have a right to object. I have a friend who teaches 2nd grade who has informed me that she has already come across such a story in a supplemental reading book. While the story is not mandatory to read, there would be nothing that parents could do if a teacher chose to read such a selection. Hence, while the opposition to prop 8 claims that it will not be "mandatory" to teach same-sex marriage in public schools, they knowingly cannot say that it will not be taught in public schools. The reality is that some classrooms will teach it while others will not. If your child happens to be in one of the classrooms that teaches it, you have no right to object.
Furthermore, same-sex marriage will be taught in lessons dealing with tolerance. Unfortunately, there will be no tolerance for those who are opposed to the practice. Students will be taught that anyone who expresses disapproval over the practice would be considered intolerant, ignorant, hateful, and a bigot (I've already been branded such by people who oppose my views. I do not call them such names because I am respectful of other people's points of view. It is unfortunate that so many who claim to be advocates of tolerance are, in fact intolerant to dissenting points of view).
Needless to say, same-sex marriage will radically change the fundamentals of our society. Opponents of prop 8 claim that same-sex marriage will not affect anyone. They are wrong. Use your reason and inform yourself on the issue and VOTE YES ON PROP 8.
Mr. O' Connell states, "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." I suppose that Mr. O' Connell is making this statement based on an argument over semantics within the California Teaching Content Standards. It is true, to my knowledge, that there is nothing in the actual wording of the content standards that says "requires" in connection to the word "marriage." But there are a lot of standards that would lead to the teaching of marriage in public schools, which, in fact, are required. Furthermore, it is preposterous to think that Mr. O' Connell really knows what is going on in each school district across the state of California and within the individual school sites and classrooms. Each district, while conforming to the standards, creates its own curriculum in connection to the standards. Each district adopts its own textbooks and creates its own pacing guides which cover specific standards and themes. How can he claim that some districts do not have themes dealing with family and marriage? Has he visited each district and reviewed the individual documents? Furthermore, textbook publishers will be pressured to include works dealing with same-sex marriage by special interest groups who will undoubtedly sue the textbook publishers for discrimination if they refuse to include such diversity (we have already seen them sue other individuals who have been opposed to their position--see the link to the NPR article on my previous blog).
The proof of Mr. O' Connell's errors may be found from his own website. Granted, it will take a lot of digging in order to find the information that you are searching for (which the average voter will not be willing to do). As such, I have done a little, though not entirely exhaustive, digging myself. If we explore the document "HEALTH EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Kindergarten through Grade 12)" we will discover the following standard for Grade 1: "Describe how members of a family have various roles, responsibilities, and individual needs" (Standard 1.1.G.4). While this standard does not mention marriage, it does mention the role of family members, which implies marriage, and will lead to a discussion on the roles of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and etc. If same-sex marriage is passed, this will include the teaching of two mothers or two fathers in the roles of families. Either Mr. O' Connell is not aware of this state standard or he chooses to play ignorant over what it really means. If he is not aware, then he is simply uninformed with the falsehood he has made in his latest commercial (which is completely irresponsible of a public official). If he is aware of the standard, then he is straight lying to the people of California (which is completely shameful and a cause for removal from office). Other standards that do not explicitly say "marriage" but would lead to its discussion include: Grade 3, Standard 3.2.M.5, which states, "Describe internal and external factors that affect friendships and family relationships," Grade 5, Standard 5.1.G.6, which states, "Recognize that there are individual differences in growth and development, body image, and gender roles." and others include Grade 5 standards 5.1.G.7 and 5.2.G.11; Grade 7/8 standards 7/8.1.G.8, 7/8.2.G.15, and 7/8.5.G.30. And these are just a few within the Health Education strand. If we were to look at the History standards and the English Language Arts standards, we will not find anything that states "marriage" in the standards themselves, but an event such as adopting same-sex marriage will be one that is considered important enough to adopt into history books (thus being taught in public schools) and will be justified in reading materials for language arts (if parents object to stories that contain characters involved in same-sex marriage, they will have no right to act on their objection because it is state law). These stories could be introduced at any grade level and nobody would have a right to object. I have a friend who teaches 2nd grade who has informed me that she has already come across such a story in a supplemental reading book. While the story is not mandatory to read, there would be nothing that parents could do if a teacher chose to read such a selection. Hence, while the opposition to prop 8 claims that it will not be "mandatory" to teach same-sex marriage in public schools, they knowingly cannot say that it will not be taught in public schools. The reality is that some classrooms will teach it while others will not. If your child happens to be in one of the classrooms that teaches it, you have no right to object.
Furthermore, same-sex marriage will be taught in lessons dealing with tolerance. Unfortunately, there will be no tolerance for those who are opposed to the practice. Students will be taught that anyone who expresses disapproval over the practice would be considered intolerant, ignorant, hateful, and a bigot (I've already been branded such by people who oppose my views. I do not call them such names because I am respectful of other people's points of view. It is unfortunate that so many who claim to be advocates of tolerance are, in fact intolerant to dissenting points of view).
Needless to say, same-sex marriage will radically change the fundamentals of our society. Opponents of prop 8 claim that same-sex marriage will not affect anyone. They are wrong. Use your reason and inform yourself on the issue and VOTE YES ON PROP 8.
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Difficulty of "Rights" Based Arguments
I am a firm believer in protecting human rights. I imagine that most human beings would agree that basic human rights are not to be compromised or denied to anyone. However, in Proposition 8 we have a proposition which pits rights against rights. Opponents of prop 8 claim that gay and lesbian rights are being violated by upholding traditional marriage. This message is resonating with many Californians as is seen in the latest polling data which shows support for "NO on Prop 8" at 52% and "YES on Prop 8" at 44%. What people are failing to recognize is that voting "No on Prop 8" is also violating peoples' rights. Let me share with you a few examples:
1. Voting against traditional marriage will lead to teaching same-sex marriage in public schools and will deny parents of their rights to determine what is appropriate to teach their children. This is proven by the one model we have in the United States: Massachusetts. The courts in MA have ruled that parents have no right to pull students from schools when teaching same-sex marriage. Parental rights are being denied as a result, as also is the right for children to grow up in a state of innocence.
2. Voting against traditional marriage will lead to religious rights being denied. Once again, in MA, Catholic Charities was denied their rights as a religious organization to act upon their religious principles of helping the less fortunate. By MA law, Catholic Charities was forced to offer equal adoption of children for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. Placing children in a home with a mother and a father is their religious right, yet the courts said it was discriminatory. Not willing to compromise on its religious teaching, Catholic Charities was forced to close its adoption agencies in MA. This is stripping people of their rights to practice their religion and is also stripping children of their rights to be reared in a home with a mother and a father.
3. Voting against traditional marriage will lead to a loss of freedom of speech. People who fundamentally oppose the practice of homosexuality will be deemed discriminatory. Teaching our own children our own valued principles will be considered hate speech, and intolerant.
The opposition will state that I am being paranoid, but the reality is that these things have already begun to occur both in MA, CA, and elsewhere around the country. Please take a minute to read this article from NPR and learn for yourself.
Please consider the big picture. I truly want human beings who happen to be gays or lesbian to be happy, but not at the expense of traditional marriage which has been practiced for thousands of years, and not at the expense of others' rights. Read up on the issue and vote accordingly.
YES ON PROPOSITION 8!
1. Voting against traditional marriage will lead to teaching same-sex marriage in public schools and will deny parents of their rights to determine what is appropriate to teach their children. This is proven by the one model we have in the United States: Massachusetts. The courts in MA have ruled that parents have no right to pull students from schools when teaching same-sex marriage. Parental rights are being denied as a result, as also is the right for children to grow up in a state of innocence.
2. Voting against traditional marriage will lead to religious rights being denied. Once again, in MA, Catholic Charities was denied their rights as a religious organization to act upon their religious principles of helping the less fortunate. By MA law, Catholic Charities was forced to offer equal adoption of children for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. Placing children in a home with a mother and a father is their religious right, yet the courts said it was discriminatory. Not willing to compromise on its religious teaching, Catholic Charities was forced to close its adoption agencies in MA. This is stripping people of their rights to practice their religion and is also stripping children of their rights to be reared in a home with a mother and a father.
3. Voting against traditional marriage will lead to a loss of freedom of speech. People who fundamentally oppose the practice of homosexuality will be deemed discriminatory. Teaching our own children our own valued principles will be considered hate speech, and intolerant.
The opposition will state that I am being paranoid, but the reality is that these things have already begun to occur both in MA, CA, and elsewhere around the country. Please take a minute to read this article from NPR and learn for yourself.
Please consider the big picture. I truly want human beings who happen to be gays or lesbian to be happy, but not at the expense of traditional marriage which has been practiced for thousands of years, and not at the expense of others' rights. Read up on the issue and vote accordingly.
YES ON PROPOSITION 8!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
CA PARENTS RESPOND WITH SCHOOL SIT-OUT MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008
The California Teachers Association (union) is designed to offer protections to teachers' employment. They extract heafty dues from each paycheck with the promise of protections from such things as false accusations (providing legal representation) and the likes. As a teacher, I have no problem with having part of my paycheck used in a pool to protect employment rights of fellow teachers. However, when these funds are used for political purposes, especially ones that do not relate to teachers themselves, it is quite disturbing. The CTA has donated approximately 1.25 million dollars to the "No on Proposition 8" campaign and has allowed the "No on Prop 8" campaign to claim that teachers are opposed to the proposition. As a teacher and a member of the CTA I am appalled that my hard earned money is being used to promote a political agenda with which I do not agree and is saying that I support a "no" vote on proposition 8. All of their adds say that California teachers oppose the proposition. Well, I am a california teacher and I support a "YES" vote on proposition 8. What they should claim, if they are honest, is that the liberal teachers union, who is raiding teachers wallets, is opposed to the proposition, not the teachers themselves. I have no doubt that many teachers are lining up on both sides of this issue--let the teachers speak for themselves, not the union which we disagree with more often than not.
In response to the CTA's decision, many parents will be protesting by keeping their children home from school on Monday, October 27th. Here is the information that has circulated via email:
"CA PARENTS RESPOND WITH SCHOOL SIT-OUT MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008.
Parents throughout CA are keeping their kids out of school on 10/27/08 to counter the actions of the CA Teachers Union. CA schools are paid on average $33. per student per day for attendance. The goal of 100,000 kids missing school for one day erases the donation made by the Teachers Union and sends a message that parents will hit them where it hurts to protect our children. We're being asked to call the schools to let them know why our children will be absent on Monday. The "sit-out" will be announced at each of the YES ON 8 tour bus stops through the media. Please pass this along to every parent you know in CA."
In reallity, this action will not hurt the union financially (they make their money off of the teachers' set salaries), but it will send a message nevertheless. As for myself, I will be going to work on October 27th--it is my duty and responsibility to my profession and my students, but I must say, I would love to see a whole lot of empty desks (and if I had children of my own, I would keep them home that day in order to send a message of my own dissatisfaction with the CTA for supporting politics to which I am fundamentally opposed).
In response to the CTA's decision, many parents will be protesting by keeping their children home from school on Monday, October 27th. Here is the information that has circulated via email:
"CA PARENTS RESPOND WITH SCHOOL SIT-OUT MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008.
Parents throughout CA are keeping their kids out of school on 10/27/08 to counter the actions of the CA Teachers Union. CA schools are paid on average $33. per student per day for attendance. The goal of 100,000 kids missing school for one day erases the donation made by the Teachers Union and sends a message that parents will hit them where it hurts to protect our children. We're being asked to call the schools to let them know why our children will be absent on Monday. The "sit-out" will be announced at each of the YES ON 8 tour bus stops through the media. Please pass this along to every parent you know in CA."
In reallity, this action will not hurt the union financially (they make their money off of the teachers' set salaries), but it will send a message nevertheless. As for myself, I will be going to work on October 27th--it is my duty and responsibility to my profession and my students, but I must say, I would love to see a whole lot of empty desks (and if I had children of my own, I would keep them home that day in order to send a message of my own dissatisfaction with the CTA for supporting politics to which I am fundamentally opposed).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
