not this cute anymore!Many of you are familiar with the battle going on in California for/against gay marriage. On Nov 4th, California voters will have the opportunity to amend the state constitution by adding this sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By saying YES to Proposition 8, voters have the opportunity to ban gay marriage, keep same sex education out of our school system and stand up for our religious believe and freedom.
Proposition 8 is NOT about tolerance, prejudices or homophobia. It's about protecting the FAMILY and standing up for the children of this nation who do not have a voice. I have A LOT to say about this and may post more later because it's that important of an issue, but for now, I have three reasons why it would be detrimental to our country if this propositional fails to pass.
1. The MINORITY doesn't (or shouldn't) make the rules. In 2000, 61% of California voters said NO to gay marriage. Somehow the whopping 4 million Californians who agreed on the definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) was overruled by 4, yes FOUR, judges in the California Supreme court. These 4 judges threw the voters opinions out the window by overruling the law and legalizing gay marriage. By definition, Democracy means the RULE of the MAJORITY. What kind of country do we have that allows the minority to make the laws for the rest of society? We have the obligation to vote.. we need to take a stand and make our voice heard.
2. Public Education will be forced to teach same sex marriage to our children. Last Friday, a first grade class in San Fransisco went on a field trip to city hall. They were there to celebrate the marriage of their female teacher and her lesbian lover. The mayor performed the marriage and a class full of 6 year olds stood by to witness. This is just an example of what will most definitely happen in our school system if the definition of marriage is redefined. Text books will be changed, federal money will be spent, and teachers will be forced to give their students a "well-rounded" education. Right now, it is the California school districts who are affected, but what happens in California never stays in California.. If a trend is set in Hollywood, the rest of the country will most definitely follow.
3. Religious freedom will be jeopardized. If Proposition 8 fails, gays and lesbians will have the right to SUE religious institutions for discrimination. That's right. Religious entities will be striped of their tax exemptions if they refuse to recognize same sex marriages as valid. It has already happened to a church in New Jersey. A Methodist camp refused to allow a lesbian couple to marry on their private church property, and the courts ruled in favor of the lesbian couple. A church cannot discriminate and must allow all married couples (defined by law) the same privileges. If they won't comprise their religious beliefs, their tax exemptions will be taken away. This is millions of dollars for many religious institutions.. it is big news, and it would greatly effect the church I belong to.
Not only would religions have to tolerate same sex marriages, but they could not "discriminate" against those who chose to live in same sex unions. Many religions have private organizations who are able to make their own rules (for example, LDS social services will only adopt babies to married couples with both a father and a mother in the home.) If this law is not passed, we will most definitely see law suits against these organizations with the discrimination card being thrown. And who knows what may happen with temple marriages, because after all, you can't discriminate against who gets married where. It could be serious stuff for religious institutions and THIS is exactly why they are making such an effort to get the word out and raise money to get this law passed.Many people are outraged that the LDS Church would publicly speak in favor of Proposition 8, asking it's members to spread the word and VOTE. But they have EVERY right to take a stand for what they believe in.. especially when the outcome could be detrimental to their organization, members and the basic unit of society-- the Family.
For the record, John McCain adamately stands up for marriage only between a man and a woman. He is willing to take the heat and fight the fight. He was chewed out by Ellen Degeneres while on her show, but respectfully said that they have fundamental differences in this issue and that they would never be able to see eye to eye. I respect him for that. Obama has spoken out many times on gay marriage and openly supports not only legalizing it, but making sure that it is taught in every public school across the nation. His interview with Ellen Degeneres was very different.. much "cooler" of course.. but the cool guy isn't always right. To me, this speaks volumes about who I am voting for. (ps. I love Ellen..)
It's a morality issue and we could argue all day about whether or not it's a right for everyone to get married. When it comes down to it, it seems very simple to me. Marriage between a man and a woman is the ONLY way to create children. Fathers and mothers serve VERY different purposes in the family. A mom cannot be a father her children (vise-versa) because she doesn't have the physical, emotional, or mental capacity to do so. You cannot drive a car with two gas pedals and NO brakes. It would be disastrous for the people inside the car and anything in it's path. You can argue around it, but the facts remain the same. Men and women were made for each other and they each serve a vital, essential role in the family. Every child DESERVES the right to have both a father AND a mother. We need to stand up for the children who don't have the voice to say what they really need.
Proposition 8 is NOT about tolerance, prejudices or homophobia. It's about protecting the FAMILY and standing up for the children of this nation who do not have a voice. I have A LOT to say about this and may post more later because it's that important of an issue, but for now, I have three reasons why it would be detrimental to our country if this propositional fails to pass.
1. The MINORITY doesn't (or shouldn't) make the rules. In 2000, 61% of California voters said NO to gay marriage. Somehow the whopping 4 million Californians who agreed on the definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) was overruled by 4, yes FOUR, judges in the California Supreme court. These 4 judges threw the voters opinions out the window by overruling the law and legalizing gay marriage. By definition, Democracy means the RULE of the MAJORITY. What kind of country do we have that allows the minority to make the laws for the rest of society? We have the obligation to vote.. we need to take a stand and make our voice heard.
2. Public Education will be forced to teach same sex marriage to our children. Last Friday, a first grade class in San Fransisco went on a field trip to city hall. They were there to celebrate the marriage of their female teacher and her lesbian lover. The mayor performed the marriage and a class full of 6 year olds stood by to witness. This is just an example of what will most definitely happen in our school system if the definition of marriage is redefined. Text books will be changed, federal money will be spent, and teachers will be forced to give their students a "well-rounded" education. Right now, it is the California school districts who are affected, but what happens in California never stays in California.. If a trend is set in Hollywood, the rest of the country will most definitely follow.
3. Religious freedom will be jeopardized. If Proposition 8 fails, gays and lesbians will have the right to SUE religious institutions for discrimination. That's right. Religious entities will be striped of their tax exemptions if they refuse to recognize same sex marriages as valid. It has already happened to a church in New Jersey. A Methodist camp refused to allow a lesbian couple to marry on their private church property, and the courts ruled in favor of the lesbian couple. A church cannot discriminate and must allow all married couples (defined by law) the same privileges. If they won't comprise their religious beliefs, their tax exemptions will be taken away. This is millions of dollars for many religious institutions.. it is big news, and it would greatly effect the church I belong to.
Not only would religions have to tolerate same sex marriages, but they could not "discriminate" against those who chose to live in same sex unions. Many religions have private organizations who are able to make their own rules (for example, LDS social services will only adopt babies to married couples with both a father and a mother in the home.) If this law is not passed, we will most definitely see law suits against these organizations with the discrimination card being thrown. And who knows what may happen with temple marriages, because after all, you can't discriminate against who gets married where. It could be serious stuff for religious institutions and THIS is exactly why they are making such an effort to get the word out and raise money to get this law passed.Many people are outraged that the LDS Church would publicly speak in favor of Proposition 8, asking it's members to spread the word and VOTE. But they have EVERY right to take a stand for what they believe in.. especially when the outcome could be detrimental to their organization, members and the basic unit of society-- the Family.
For the record, John McCain adamately stands up for marriage only between a man and a woman. He is willing to take the heat and fight the fight. He was chewed out by Ellen Degeneres while on her show, but respectfully said that they have fundamental differences in this issue and that they would never be able to see eye to eye. I respect him for that. Obama has spoken out many times on gay marriage and openly supports not only legalizing it, but making sure that it is taught in every public school across the nation. His interview with Ellen Degeneres was very different.. much "cooler" of course.. but the cool guy isn't always right. To me, this speaks volumes about who I am voting for. (ps. I love Ellen..)
It's a morality issue and we could argue all day about whether or not it's a right for everyone to get married. When it comes down to it, it seems very simple to me. Marriage between a man and a woman is the ONLY way to create children. Fathers and mothers serve VERY different purposes in the family. A mom cannot be a father her children (vise-versa) because she doesn't have the physical, emotional, or mental capacity to do so. You cannot drive a car with two gas pedals and NO brakes. It would be disastrous for the people inside the car and anything in it's path. You can argue around it, but the facts remain the same. Men and women were made for each other and they each serve a vital, essential role in the family. Every child DESERVES the right to have both a father AND a mother. We need to stand up for the children who don't have the voice to say what they really need.
Posts
74 comments:
God bless you for taking a stand!
Janet-
Thank you for post. I actually had no idea about the proposition. Thank you for making me aware and for your voice.
Thank you for making it simple for me to understand!
I loved your car analogy with two gas pedals and no breaks. it just doesn't work that way. Hope it passes!
Amen!
Your comments on your blog are so very, very impressive. I'm grateful to you for posting them and I stand proudly with you in voting YES! On Prop. 8.
THANK YOU!!!
It's so important to keep emotions and opinons OUT and look at solid HARD CORE FACTS.
Thank you! You are soooo right :) The real issue here is about FREEDOM for all peoples. Why some are demanding us to give up our freedom is very strange and the cost in $$$ is so much...
Prop. 8 is about American Freedom. If prop. 8 fails, it will hurt all of us, including same-sexuals, because it is a direct attack on basic freedom. And once a special interest group is allowed to make new laws, other special interest groups will be quick to follow. See these sites: www.whatisprop8.com, www.preservingmarriage.org, www.iprotectmarriage.com and www.ifprop8fails.org
Vote Yes! Prop. 8.
Vote Yes! American Freedom
Let's you, me, and same-sexuals work together to restore freedom of voice in our beautiful California and use the millions of dollars to help the hungry and poor instead of trying to force new laws that will cost even more and take even more away from those truly in need of basic life support like food and medical care, especially in this economic storm.
Very well written Janet. Thank you for posting about this!
very well written, and I am interested in what all the deleted comments said. Your boys are lucky to have a mom like you!
Janet-
Hooray. I did an interview for prop 8 for a student studying broadcast journalism here. I was on BYUTV!!
Just for the future- judges DO have power to overturn rulings. They have since the beginning of the US. We aren't 100% democratic. A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC is a government that is not 100% ruled by the people. We just elect officials that make the rules. You already know that, though.
Love you. I hope I can see the family soon.
Little Kevin
Did you seriously just write that off the top of your head? Well written and well informed. That's what I like. I love this video. Can I still it for my blog? Why, thank you Janet.
Here, here! Loved the two gas pedals analogy. I PRAY that Prop 8 passes! Beautiful post.
Well done Janet! You did a great job of explaining your position.
I am also interested in what those two comments said that you deleted. I know that many others think that we are a bunch of homophobes for standing up for this. Good for you for posting it on your blog. I think people think it is just about two people getting married, and they don't realize the ripple affects that will be caused by the legalization of gay marriage.
Thank you! I couldn't agree more. I wish I could cast MY vote too - but I hope all those Californians get out there and VOTE. I will be calling my inlaws who live there and make sure they are making themselves heard too! (By the way it's wonderful to hear you talking SENSE about Mccain!) Did the LDS church make the video?
Hi Janet. I enjoy looking at your blog. You say it how it is and I love it. Great job on the post and way to make a stand. We need more people to stand up and say how it is without worrying about what other people may think.
Great post. Amen. Sam
I agree. Must Pass. I was in California on a Sunday when a Stake President informed and urged a congregation to take a stand on this issue. It was SO NOT an issue of church and state- it is an issue of fighting for our own rights and the protection of the family.
And, no matter what anybody believes... the truth is- this law was passed and it wasn't passed thru votes by the people. That is the FUNDAMENTAL reason why what is happening in California is unlawful, and unamerican. The only way laws should be passed is by the people, for the people. Not because 4 people want it, and deem it on the whole.
Freakin Californians. Fix this crap before the rest of the nation starts dictating!!!
I'm not sure if I agree with you or not, based on your arguments, but I will think about it before I vote.
I keep getting caught up on #1. I like G.W.Bush, but since he was declared president 5 to 4 via the Supreme Court, while losing the popular vote, it seems to discredit your point.
Janet, I support the ban, but I believe the bill in support of gay marriage contains language that protects religious freedom and says that no church would be required to recognize gay marriages and no clergy would be required to solemnize a same-sex marriage.
A lot of people were saying that if the ban does not pass, it could result in discrimination lawsuits closing temples and such, and based on the reading I've done, I'm not sure that's the case. I only bring this up because we need to be careful not to fear-monger and spread false information. (I don't think you're doing that, but other members of the church are.)
Your hubby's a lawyer, maybe he could shed some light on all this?
I never said that temples would be closed down. I said that the tax exemption could be stripped from all religious organizations if courts see it as discriminatory to allow only certain people to be married in/on their property. I am sure they could still operate, but losing that tax exemption is a big deal and that is why they are fighting so hard to get the word out (that and their concern in the decline of the family, of course.)
I will ask what my husband thinks about it and see if he can make it back to my blog. I am not so sure though, because he DID comment yesterday and has a "check it once a month" kind of rule. Maybe I will get lucky with all this political talk.
As far as the DELETED comments up top. They were really rude. They said that I was ugly and stupid and that my kids were in danger if I continued to post this sort of thing on my blog again... psyche. It was the same comment that ended up posting several times. Don't y'all worry. It would take a lot for me to delete a comment. I welcome the debate on the other side and don't get offended easily (unless you call me ugly.)
And to the anonymous commenter, thank you for speaking up. I understand the system and never said we lived in a complete democratic society. All I said was with the situation as it is, we need to make sure we DO get out and vote so that our voices can be heard. We also need to be aware of WHO is taking the bench and making the important court decisions because it can REALLY effect our country!
I realize the government is set up the way it is for a reason.. The election in 2000 was an interesting one, where Gore got the most votes but still didn't take office. At least we are weighing the issues and trying to make a conscientious decision about what we vote for and why.
Very well written. Couldn't have said it better myself. Wish I could say something more profound, but unfortunately, like most things, I'm quite the idiot when it comes to talking politics.
Marriage is our culture’s ultimate expression of equality–it takes one man and one woman to create a family. Even if a marriage can’t have children or choose not to have children the definition of their relationship expresses this equality.
One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/legislation-and-social-issues/
Janet, I didn't mean that you said temples could be shut down. I've simply heard that said many times during this whole thing, and i wanted to address it in case any ofyour readers had heard it and believed it.
I agree that the loss of the Church's tax exempt status would be devastating, but I wonder if the language about freedom of religion would protect churches in that regard as well. It's not something I would be interested to see play out, though.
I commend you for taking a public stand on this.
I enjoyed your post on this. I have to say that I have had mixed feelings on the subject. In some ways I feel that people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others, and didn't really see how gay marriage hurt anyone else.
I have had several conversations about this topic with different people, and I appreciated your ideas as well. I liked your argument for protecting the family, as before I read your post I had not heard one that really made me feel the family was threatened...
Anyway, I am dumb about politics, and as usual I am in awe of your gift to write so well and make yourself understood, and I am glad you take a stand for things that are important.
minorities should have a say, even if it's inconveniencing the minority.. especially if they feel their rights are being taken away.
I meant inconveniencing the majority, not minority.
Wendy--
I never said that you said that I said... :) I absolutely 100% agree that we need to get our information straight and not spread hyperactive fear throughout the country when it's not based on actual facts. I tried hard to base my post on things that have already happened.. but they it's probably a little overly dramatic too. I just really want it to pass so it will always be in the "this COULD happen" stage and nothing more.
Dear Anonymous #2-
I think the fundamental argument for this entire proposition is this: is Marriage a RIGHT? The gay community would most definitely say yes. Others would argue only under certain conditions. It's not a right for a man to marry two or three women. Some would disagree, but the majority of our country would say that it's not natural or good for the traditional family to have more than one spouse. If you open up the marriage clause to same sex couples, I can guarantee you will we have polygamists fighting for the same RIGHT.
And now I am going to make this the longest comment EVER by relating a story about inconveniencing the majority.. bear with me here.
In high school, I was a student-anchor for our morning news program. One day in the winter of my senior year (ten years ago) I was called into the principal's office and scolded for saying "Merry Christmas" over the air to our studentbody. In a kind manner, I was told that I was no longer allowed to say "Christmas" at any school function. Instead, I could say "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" and even "X-mas" but the word CHRIST was not allowed in any form. I was dumbfounded because I wasn't bearing my testimony of Christ over the announcements, I was just mentioning the name of a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. What was the problem, really? The reason behind it was one atheist student in my school who was threatening to sue the school district if he/she heard the word CHRIST during school. This infuriated me because my school was predominately Christian, and the majority of our students were "forced" to hear Christ's name taken in VAIN every single day. Of course, the students who chose to swear in the halls were protected by the first amendment/freedom of speech.
I understood the separation between church and state, but this was too much. One student had power over the entire school district. I see the same scenario happening everywhere. Yes it's a little "inconvenient" to change the way you wish others a happy holiday season, but it's more than that. It's the wiping out of God in all that we do so that we can accommodate the few who appose. It just doesn't seem right to me.
Do I win a prize for the longest comment on my own blog?
Hi Janet,
I have a friend with a lesbian mom. If you are interested in a different perspective go to her blog at http://wadewillclan.blogspot.com/
It is interesting to see different points of view.
XOXO
Annie
Thank you janet! You are awesome and I commend you for taking a stand on this! You are a great writer, i even read this to my mom. We both thank you!
It doesn't take a man and a woman to raise a healthy, intelligent child - it takes two GOOD PEOPLE, whether they're different genders, or both the same.
Many rapists, murderers, drug addicts adulterers, etc. are also parents - so is it better for a child to be brought up in a house where yes, there are two parents of different genders (but say, the father's a wife abuser and alcoholic), or a place where there are two loving, caring, well-adjusted people (who may both be the same gender)?
I am not a homosexual (I have a husband and two kids), but I was taught TOLERANCE growing up - that it's important to love everyone as we love ourselves. I believe that WHAT is in your heart is truly more important than WHO is in your heart.
(k)
'K'-
As Janet said at the beginning of her post, it is not intolerance or prejudice against homosexuals- it is about protecting our families and our churches. I have no problem with homosexuals and I completely understand their desire to marry their partner.... but not at the expense of my children.
-Brooke
Dear Anonymous #3--
This is EXACTLY the reason why this is such a difficult topic to cover and discuss because we have big differences in the way we see morality.. It's hard to take a stand on a touchy subject like gay marriage without coming across as "better than" or "holier" than others who chose to live their lives differently than I do.
The truth is, it doesn't take TWO GOOD PEOPLE to raise a family. There are MILLIONS of single parent families in the world. Many children are raised by their grandparents or foster parents and some children do just fine living their entire lives in orphanages. Teenagers are able to have babies and raise them on their own if they chose, but is that what is BEST for the child? Absolutely not. The problem with legalizing gay marriages and allowing children to be raised in such families is when it is taught to a child that this way is ideal and okay. I highly doubt there is a single mother (or father) out there who teaches their child that this is the best way to live.. and that they should grow up wanting to have a family without a father/mother. Studies clearly show that children raised without a father are more likely to drop out of school, do drugs, commit crimes, etc, etc, etc. And it is not being taught in schools that being raised by a single mom is best. I believe a child knows that when they are being brought up in such a home. By not sticking up for the traditional family unit, we are saying that it is not necessary for a child to have a father or a mother.. that by substituting one for another of the same sex is just as good as being in a home with BOTH a father and a mother. And it's not. No matter which way you look at it. If you were to make a batch of cookies and decided to omit the flour and instead added double the amount of sugar, it WILL NOT turn out to be cookies.
With that said, I am not implying that people who chose to live in same sex relationships aren't good people. I have dear friends who chose to live this way and I am not ignorant or closed minded to think they don't have rights, feelings or a chance to live the way they chose. But by changing the laws for our country we are teaching our children that it is the same. And it's not.
I am not trying to stand on a soapbox or condemn anyone. I am just standing up for what I believe to be morally correct. I am NOT stating that children who are raised in abusive homes are better off than children raised by same sex parents.. If I had a chance to vote on whether or not kids should be forced to be raised in homes with murders, adulterers, or drug addicts, you better believe that I would do EVERYTHING I could to protect those kids!
Sincerely,
Janet
WOW! Your post was powerful & inspiring. I would vote yes anyway, I just wish that we could vote!!
I can't believe that I'm commenting twice in one week... I'll probably upset the universe somehow but I gotta say... I can't wait until all of this political stuff is over so we can go back to hearing about two year old troublemaking, adorable intelligent comments from way too mature for their age Shumz boys!
I actually think being vocal and taking a stand for the family is paramount right now and commend you for your research and putting yourself out there for the peanut gallery..
it doesn't matter what side I come from. I just want to say that your arguements are some of the best i have heard. I am a straight man living in california and i am undecided on the issue. i really appreciate your point of view and felt like a light went on in my head when you mentioned making cookies and leaving out a major ingredient. did you come up with that yourself?
I am not a mormon and do not read blogs often, but I am bookmarking your blog and will definitely be coming back to read what you have to say. you are a very intelligent writer and I think you have a voice that needs to be heard. I will be forwarding your blog address to others who still need help deciding what to do. because it's definitely a difficult issue.
thanks for explaining things clearly and for not being judgmental or egotistical.
ps you and your family are beautiful. your husband is a lucky guy!
Hi Janet ... Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. You still haven't changed my mind, though. :)
For the record, I grew up for a long time with a single mother, and she did a terrific job with me and my sister. I honestly don't believe either of us would have turned out better if we'd had a mother AND a father all those years - my mom made sure we always had what we needed and that we grew up knowing what was important. We were a family unit - without my father.
I know you weren't trying to condem single moms, but there's a chance here for me to make a point - what if my mother had fallen in love with another woman? (No, she is not gay - just an example.) Wouldn't the important thing would have been that there was someone else there to love me, to make me feel secure? Why did that person have to be a man? There were plenty of men in our lives (uncles, grandparents, family friends, teachers) who gave us good, positive male role models (which is what the father is supposed to do, right?).
One of your commenters said "it is about protecting our families and churches" - but what are we "protecting" against by prohibiting gay couples from marrying? I think that's the heart of my argument - letting "nontraditional" couples marry isn't "threatening" (i.e., to "protect against" something there must be some real or perceived "threat" - and I just don't see one here).
Prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is like saying African Americans shouldn't marry Caucasians or there should be a ban on May-December marriages as well. It all comes down to the fact that these groups of people are different - and what's so threatening about that? We are all free to choose our own paths and teach our kids what we think is right and wrong. Shouldn't we be teaching them to love others as we love ourselves, that we're all the same in God's eyes? We teach them that skin color doesn't matter - so why should gender?
I do understand you want children to grow up believing that a family unit should consist of a mother, father and children, not two adults of the same gender. But so what if homosexuals marry, as long as YOUR kids understand your values? Same-sex couples are not hurting anyone, and, as I said yesterday, I believe kids grow up happy and well-adjusted when they are LOVED - the source of that love doesn't matter.
Thank you again for letting me voice my opinion. ~ k.
Thank you for coming back on K and responding. I honestly value and respect your opinion and praise your mother for raising such great daughters as a single mother..
I have a lot to say, but we have guests coming over for dinner and I need to hurry, so I will have to leave my longer response for later. I just wanted to say this:
By changing the definition of marriage (which is exactly what Prop 8 will or won't do) we are essentially changing a recipe and calling it the same thing. It would be taught in our schools to all children as the same.. when in reality it is not. I have never been against rights for gays.. This proposition doesn't change ANY of the legal benefits they are already receiving. But why can't they call it something else? Why do we have to change the definition of one of the most fundamental units in society and change it to include everyone in which ever union they chose? By redinfining what makes up a marriage, we are really opening the door to a variety of "unions" so that we're not excluding anyone. This is absolutely a threat to our society, especially on a moral level and by demanding whatever it may be to be taught in schools is not what most of us want.
For example-- There are thousands of illegal unions in this country called Polygamy. Many more thousands of children are raised in homes where they have one father and multiple mothers. I do not really condemn them for what they do or how they live because it is their choice.. I recognize them as people and respect them for the rights and privileges they should receive by being citizens of a free country. However, I do not agree with legalizing polygamy and recognizing their "marriages" as the same as a union between one man and one woman. I do not think they should receive governmental benefits like social security or welfare in circumstance that are not legal. This does not mean that I think they are bad people or not taking care of their children. They can do as they please. The minute it is legalized and their unions are equal to what I see as a traditional marriage is where I have issues. Not because I can't teach my own children what I see fit for them to learn, but that society as a whole is affected when you start teaching it in schools as the same and when religious institutions have to recognize it as the same.
Would you, K, vote to legalize polygamist unions and allow it to be taught in our schools as normal, right, okay, good, no different than any other marriage? Very interested in what you have to say!!
Great post Janet. I'm happy to see that your voice is being heard and helping others realize the impact this could have. I'm going to put a link to your blog, because I don't think I could explain it any better.
Excellent post. I have a friend in Cali. that posted the same video. Loved it! Thanks for your thoughts:)Too bad there are so many mixed feelings about this. I hope it passes.
Here's that good article that Clay was talking about the other night, if you need any resources or information:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story
I read an article at Newsweek dot com about how our country's "left" ideologies are actually quite conservative compared to "left" in many countries in Europe. It's interesting to me that as a nation we are more conservative socially than elsewhere!
In a book co-authored by Adrian Wooldridge, "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" he talks about this as it relates to your post: "If you compare the Democratic Party to European Labor, in lots of ways [the Democrats] look quite conservative," says Wooldridge. Will a Democratic administration, he asks, "ban handguns? No. Will it throw its weight behind legalizing gay marriage in every state? No. So even if you have, as we will, a Democratic Washington, America will remain a fundamentally conservative country."
So when it comes to the issue of redefining what a marriage is, most Americans from both political parties support the traditional definition of marriage. Is this because we are one nation "Under God?" I think it is. Many people believe, as I do, that God had a hand in the creation of our nation.
The cry of discrimination is what makes this issue such a tough one. It's hard to paint black and white these days. Janet, I don't think that your perspective looks down on homosexuals as humans. Marriage as a label for all couples who love each other treads on what God's plan is for his children. I agree with Obama's look at it all (from his Dempcratic National Convention speech) "I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination." It's probably difficult to find someone who doesn't have a homosexual friend or relative. This issue is personal to most Americans. And, that in mind, I am comforted knowing that most Americans (some say over 75% of us!) continue to vote/speak out for traditional marriage--between one man and one woman.
The curious thing about homosexual relationships is that they are evolutionarily doomed. The evidence seems to point to biological factors behind same gender attraction, and if this is the case then it is impossible for same gender couples to perpetuate their genes, which speaking from a purely evolutionary standpoint is genetic suicide. However, we humans, with our superior intellects, granted by evolutionary processes, have found ways to bypass some of the inherent difficulties some "tradtional" couples when trying to have children through artificial insemination, etc. which of course permits lesbian couples only to parent children by introducing sperm from an outside of the relationship factor. Male-male couples are straight out of luck, unless they can find a surrogate to agree to provide viable eggs to be fertilized. The point is that same sex unions CANNOT produce offspring as a union. So the question then becomes, why would we recognize a homosexual union as a marriage when none of the unions, no matter how good or bad the individuals may be, are capable of producing in and of themselves, the basics of a family, i.e. a reproductive unit. Now this gets a little sticky because some heterosexual couples are incapable of reproduction without some sort of assistance, however they are unfortunate anomolies, and, without having any data to support it, I would go out on a limb and suggest that the vast majority of those that undergo reproductive therapy or proceedures do so using the genetic material provided by the actual couple rather than relying on genetic material from outside of the union. Regardless of any parallels that may be drawn between same gender couples and reproductively inviable heterosexual couples, there is a fundamental biological difference. And whether you (the reader) like it or not, lines must be drawn in society. We may want the lines drawn in different places, yet they still must be drawn. Here there is a clear biological deliniation and to say otherwise is nothing short of self deception. Oh, and for all you tolerence preachers out there, how come you aren't tolerent of the views of people that disagree with you? And has anyone ever figured out why attacking a pregnant woman and causing her unborn child to die is prosecuted and a woman voluntarily ending the life of her own unborn child is not? Just thought I would throw that out there.
Janet, it seems like you have put together a well researched post. I thought I would throw in my two cents and provide a less religious arguement supporting the seperation of the traditional family from same gender unions.
wow jeremiah. that was some deep stuff. the part I deleted on this topic before I posted it had EXACTLY to do with this point (but had none of your big, scientifical words) I might follow up with what I had to say on this subject specifically, but it's almost midnight and I need my beauty rest. maybe tomorrow.
however I have lots of pictures and cute things my kids have said and I just can't find the time to post. Thanks everyone for their comments, whether you agree with me or not.
Hey Jan, I keep coming back to your post to read the comments. This is good stuff. I have never seen a better argument for this matter. At this point, I wish I could vote on Prop 8 in California. I do agree with you let's keep "marriage" between a man and woman.
I've read several blogs for Proposition 8 and most HAVE come across as narrow minded and intolerant. I appreciate all of the research and information you posted and the comments EVERYONE left. I do NOT want to neglect the rights of homosexuals, but I agree that MARRIAGE should be defined between a man and a woman. Your use of polygamy as a possible situation really helped make that clear. Thanks for posting.
Hi Janet ... Thanks for inviting me back again by asking my opinion on polygamy. I'll get to that in a moment - first I want to respond to Jerimiah, who wrote, " Oh, and for all you tolerence preachers out there, how come you aren't tolerent of the views of people that disagree with you?"
Who said I wasn't tolerant? All I have done is express *my* opinion and have had what I think is a very civilized, nice conversation with Janet. I've been writing to her, and not once has she told me she thinks I'm intolerant (she keeps inviting my comments, in fact).
On the contrary, I am probably one of the most tolerant people you'll ever meet because I believe in CHOICE - I feel it's the right of you, Janet and practically everyone else reading this blog to think gay marriage is wrong, just as I feel it's the right of two people who love each other to get married and call it a "marriage." No, I don't agree with your opinion - but that doesn't mean I don't respect what everyone has posted on this debate.
Now, Janet, to answer your question about polygamy ... I really don't care what people do behind closed doors (there's that CHOICE again), BUT I am very happy to keep the official definition of "marriage" limited to TWO people (for many of the reasons you cited).
You favor limiting "unions" to two people of opposite genders ... but if we "expand" it to "two people," who else are we opening it up to, other than man/woman, man/man and woman/woman? People of different races and creeds are already permitted to marry - why is that then OK and gay marriage isn't? Isn't there the chance that a child who grows up in a home with parents of two diferent faiths (e.g., Catholic/Jewish, Protestant/Catholic, etc.) could be confused and wonder what's "right"? Or what about a biracial child? Are those types of unions OK, knowing the child may not be getting one consistent message from his or her parents?
You write a lot about the "changes" that would occur if gay marriage were legalized. I understand many people are fundamentally afraid of change - but without CHANGE and CHOICE, women would not be allowed to vote, African Americans would still ride in the back of buses adn have to drink from their own water fountains, etc. What's wrong with some change?
I'd like to hear some feedback from the crowd on what they think about interfaith and mixed race marriages ...
Janet, thank you again for allowing me to post. I look forward to your feedback! Respectfully, ~k.
It's me again ... to answer Jerimiah's question, "And has anyone ever figured out why attacking a pregnant woman and causing her unborn child to die is prosecuted and a woman voluntarily ending the life of her own unborn child is not? Just thought I would throw that out there."
Not to start yet another debate (but since you asked, Jerimiah), attacking a pregnant woman, or anyone else for that matter, is illegal. A woman having an abortion is not. Again, I stand up for CHOICE - a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body.
Now, that said, I would not personally ever have an abortion, but if someone else wanted one than so be it - it is HER body and her decision.
I can say this confidently because for the past 17 years, I have been a volunteer rape crisis counselor (but not a victim, to be clear). I've seen what men can do to women ... something I hope NONE of you ever have to endure. Many of those victims were brutalized, beaten and scared to death that they'd been impregnated or given a disease by their attackers. I've counseled women who were attacked last week, last month, last year, 20 years ago - and they still bear the horrible emotional scars from their attack. They'll never be the same again - some can't sleep, others can't have a "normal" relationship with others, some can't even leave their homes because they're paralyzed with fear.
Now tell me, is it God's will that a woman raise a child fathered by someone who raped her?
I don't know the answer, nor would I ever try to impress my opinion on anyone else. But I do know it's the woman's CHOICE what is right for her - after all, she's living that life and nobody else. As far as I'm concerned, the only one she answers to is God.
Now someone tell me why does a rapist typically get seven years in prison or less, yet someone like OJ Simpson will serve double or triple that amount of time?
~k.
Let's start all debates and answer the question to every problem facing the world.. right here in the comments section of my blog.
I definitely have an opinion about the abortion question.. not so much with someone else killing the baby of a pregnant woman, but why are women put in prison for leaving their newborns in a dumpster but allowed to kill them 3 months before they're born? I believe that women have a right to chose weather or not to get pregnant, but should face the consequences once they make that choice.. having an abortion should NOT be one of those choices. (but when a woman is RAPED, that is a different story because she didn't chose to have unprotected sex.)
And let's not fight. Let's just all talk nicely to each other and respect one another's opinions. K- I doubt Jeremiah was talking directly to you when he referred to tolerance preachers.. because there are many of those out there :)
Okay, now back to gay marriages. WHY would you limit the definition of marriage to two people if you are for everyone having the right to do as they pleased and wanting to be treated equal? Don't you think polygamists feel discriminated against? Don't they have the right to receive all the benefits that everyone else does and get the respect for living the life they chose? Guarantee you they will argue it.. especially if the definition of marriage is changed.
Interracial marriage and gay marriage are FUNDAMENTALLY different things.. the reason being is that they still have the body parts to make babies. It is still a very natural union.
And change is great. I love change. Just because it's different doesn't always mean it's good. But this is a moral issue we are fighting for. It could mean a HUGE moral decline in our country.. and that kind of change I am not a fan of.
I realize here we are never going to agree with one another, but friendly discussions are always good!
After reading all of these comments the first couple still come to mind. Marriage ='s EQUALITY. It seems that as we have broken away from Traditional standards as a society, that we seem to forget that everything has it's equal opposite: Cold & Hot, Right & wrong, Man and Woman. The truth of the matter is that from the union of a man and woman is the only way for our society to be built. (Sans scientific advancement) Thus the definition of a Marriage should be the union of a man and a woman. I am not opposed to any other definitions or names for any other type of union and as far as rights go-they could be identical.
I am starting to become enraged with the amount of ‘sensitivity’ that I need to show the minority. The fact is that I am traditional. I like traditional family values. With that said, I as a part of the majority have a responsibility to the minority to see that their viewpoints and rights as individuals are being upheld. The fact is this, the majority is willing to come to the table and give equal rights and benefits to any union or contract that a person sees fit, but naming them the same is fundamentally wrong. They are not the same. I like the recipe analogy. I can put flour, sugar, eggs, and chocolate together and get cake…I can put different ingredients together and get brownies. They are similar in some ways, but fundamentally different. That’s not to say that one is better than the other, just that they are DIFFERENT. I could even eat either one of them and satiate my need for a chocolate fix (read children can come from many different upbringings-hey look at each person alive on this earth-and still be good people). Obviously I prefer one over the other, but that doesn’t mean that good things can’t come from the other. Let’s just not call them the same thing.
Janet, I'm totally just trying to challenge your longest comment on your blog!
Stephanie--
I TOTALLY disagree with you. Brownies are so much better than chocolate cake. Brownies are chewy, chunky and can be eaten with your hands. Chocolate cake is needs frosting, a fork and either ice cream or a glass of milk.
Don't even try to compete with me and my long comments. I am always queen of my own blog.
First of all "K", I admire the work that you are doing with those who have been brutalized by the darker segment of mankind. I recognize that there are certianly situations where the mother has been victimized or even may be in danger medically. I have no problem making exceptions for those who may have a real need for such a course of action. I think that for me the real problem is that women want to push the term choice, it is their body, their choice, and that makes terminating an innocent human life ok. Because like or not the fetus is 100% human. Even at conception it has everything that defines it as a member of the species Homo sapiens, it's genetic coding. And while a woman may have every right to inflict whatever damage she may choose on her own body, it must be pointed out that the fetus is not her body! It has it's own body, it's own very seperate genetic code, its own genetic fingerprint that makes it as distinctive and unique as every other post partum person in the entire world. So to sum things up, I am happy to give every person their freedom of choice, lets just be very careful about who's choices are being taken away. A newborn is no less dependent on someone to care for it than the child that has not been born. It is simply facetious to try and arbitrarily seperate the rights of one from the other. In the end I simply wanted to point out the duplicity of our legal system and society. Please do not feel that I was targeting you or anyone else with my ill advised comment. I was simply venting over feeling like intolerent people expect me to be tolerent of them. I try to permit others their opinions while still preserving and sharing my own, and I admire that you are able to do so successfully.
On a more general note, variation in species, skin color for instance, can actually lead to species progression, while intragender unions are incapable of contributing at all, let alone advancing it, unless you are an amphibian. Let me put things in this light. If someone has a sex change, does that really change their sex or sexual orientation? They might look like a member of the opposite sex, but fundamentally, genetically, they have not changed what they really are. Their body still acts like whetever its genetic pattern dictates that it must. The transgendered person may mask this through chemicals, but in the end there really isn't any change. A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf. So, like others that have posted, I am not opposed to people loving other people, same sex or not. Just don't try to call it marriage, or a family, because it is not and will not ever be, no matter what label is attached to it.
Oh, and rapists should get life with no parole. There could hardly be anything more disgusting or reprehensible than the violation of any person in that way.
oh no you did not... use THAT many words that I didn't understand. Seriously, Jeremiah-- where is my dictionary?!
Are you a scientist or what? Please tell me what you do for a living... but in words that I can understand!
Hey! Brownies need just as much milk and ice cream as cake does!I'm sure I didn't leave a preferance...? Although, wow in the context that I wrote that...it could sound bad! :)
I might add here that I haven't always been this traditional!
Hi Janet,
I sure respect you for posting your opinion and thus inviting discussion on the topic at hand. My question however regards something you mentioned briefly in your post. Can you let me know any resources/speeches you were thinking of when you wrote that "Obama has spoken out many times on gay marriage and openly supports not only legalizing it, but making sure that it is taught in every public school across the nation." ? I would like to look into this further. Thank you,
elsha
Women who have a child as a result of rape can arrange adoption for that child. My son's birth mom did.
Elsha-
Obama originally said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state. But most recently, he has come out in several "NO on 8" adds speaking out about "fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples both under state AND FEDERAL law." State law mandates that it be taught in public schools as the same (in Mass the elementary school children read stories of two princes marrying each other as part of their curriculum.) If it goes federal, it takes the power away from the individual states and mandates the entire country to abide by these laws.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/01/obama-flips-again-gay-marriage/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-bach/playing-the-obama-card-in_b_136417.html
There are SO many articles on this topic. These were just the first few that came up..
I love reading the comments for this, Janet.
I had a thought about something that K said.
"You favor limiting "unions" to two people of opposite genders ... but if we "expand" it to "two people," who else are we opening it up to, other than man/woman, man/man and woman/woman?"
"Two people" would also include brother and sister, father and his of-age daughter, etc. Not to be gross, but what if there are some relationships out there like this? None of these incestual unions would be allowed the way things are now, but if we change the definition of marriage to include gay unions, wouldn't we then be discriminating against those who choose incest? Our society was not tolerant of gay relationships years ago, but it is tolerant of them now. Who's to say that incest won't be considered "okay" in a few years. Or one step further, adults marrying children. Where does it end? I think we are opening a can of worms if we change the definition of marriage, even if it remains "but only between two people".
Eew.
Janet, in case you hadn't figured it out yet, curiously enough I am vaguely related to you. I married your cousin Paul's sister Missy. As for my background....
I have been going to school to teach biology at the high school level, however the wordiness likely stems from a mother that read good books to me and my siblings nearly every night and stimulated a desire to read and understand.
i just took a few minutes to read this post and watch this awesome video. that's one of my FAVORITE songs. thanks for sharing.
it's far too late to make a good comment. maybe we can talk tomorrow? or...look for me at fran's halloween party. yep, miss backed potatoe is back! jk
you're awesome.
Jeremiah, I knew we were family... but just wasn't sure what you did for a living. Biology teacher fits your comments just perfectly!
val, can't wait to see miss baked potato (without the e) sorry for the lesson in spelling, but I am teaching 2nd grade spelling at home.
Janet- I am really amazed by all of the 'insightful' discussion going on in your comment section. Crazy!
Hi all ... I'm swamped with work, but I'll be back to close the loop on all the comments.
In the meantime, check out this article on Sarah Palin backing a federal ban on gay marriage ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27285822/
k.
I'm curious about Wendy's comment that this wouldn't unjustly restrict religious freedom. I was making precinct calls today and a very irate woman told me to read the text and that our campagin was misleading. My question is where's the text about protecting religious liberties that's been referred to. I'd love to look into it. It seems to be in direct opposition to the NPR article, "When gay rights and religious liberties clash." Any enlightenment?
There is an interesting site that talks about the detrimental changes that have occured in the schools since gay marriages were legalized in Massachussets in 2003.
"Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!"
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
I commend you, Janet for standing up for what you believe to be true. And thanks to K for giving a different side but still being respectful. It is a tough issue.
I heard about your great explanation concerning PROP 8 from a member in my stake, so I had to check it out. Well done!! I hope you don't mind me using your explanation in answering my friends questions! You did a perfect job at stating the facts! Thanks for making such a valient stand! YES on Prop 8!!
thank you so much for your post!
i'm doing "children have a right to a mom and a dad week" on my blog. i'd love any comments.
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/children-have-a-right-to-a-mom-and-a-dad/
I find it odd that a memeber of a religious institution that doesn't let gay people maintain membership in their church, get married in their temples, administer in their church ordinances and meetings or even pay tithing feels the need to further back it's stance by making gay marriage ILLEGAL as well. Hasn't the church made its stance on homosexuality quite clear?? Once again the LDS church opposes an equal rights amendment (see the churches stance on the Equal Rights Amendment of the late 1970s). The sanctity of marriage comes from (as it ALWAYS has)the strength and belief in Jesus's teaching of the family and one's own testimony of the gospel, NOT from the government telling us so. The inherent fear of gay marriage is a glaring example of trying to legislate morals onto one's society bordering on blatant bigotry. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, not a democratic issue. If 70% of americans wanted to rid African American's of the right to vote would the fact that it is a democratic majority make it CORRECT judgment to take away that right? I don't think it would.
As an afterthought. Why does everyone keep writing that schools would be forced to teach that "same sex marriage is normal" if gay marriages are recognized? As far as I'm concerned public educational systems should NEVER try to teach "normal" and "not normal". They should present facts and let people use their own judgement. The idea that a school was teaching my child what is normal in life is frustrating for me. Like poligamy, rights of African Americans (not just priesthood blessings), prohibition (which I still wish the church would make a huge campaign for as it alcohol surely does more damage to families than prop 8) I think this is one issue that our (LDS) church will eventually back down on and come into the mainstream. It's just sad that instead of LEADING the way on what is clearly a civil rights issue it will most likely have to come several years down the road.
Curtis,
I must respectfully disagree with you on several points:
1) The church does not prohibit gay members from full church fellowship, provided they meet the same standards as everyone else. My previous ward consisted of several gay members, who were no longer living the gay lifestyle and were participating fully in church fellowship.
2 I don't believe marriage is a "civil right." Legal benefits to marriage are in place to support the rights and best interests of children, not personal fulfillment of adults. Thus marriage between close relations, and multiple parties is illegal. Centuries of experience, and decades of social science research have shown that children do best when they are raised by their loving parents, in a secure, stable home. While this is not always possible, I question the wisdom of setting aside this ideal, and conducting a universal, social experiement in the hopes that children will not be adversely affected.
3) This issue is fundamentally different than racial issues. A black administrator at the University of Toledo recently authored a newspaper article where she said she "took great umbrage" at the parallells being drawn between gay rights and minority rights. She said that she can't wake up and not be black, but many gay people, (I know some) have been able to change their sexual orientation.
4) I agree that schools shouldn't teach "normal" and "not normal" but they do. In MA, and even last week in Hayward CA, schools have taught this as young as kindergarten (see my blog for specific references). Parents are not allowed to opt out of these teachings, unless specific reproductive anatomy is included in these discussions.
5)I don't think the church views gay marriage as a civil rights issue. Although their statements (see LDS.org, "newsroom") have counseled members to be kind, respectful and tolerant of our gay brothers and sisters, the first presidency appears to view marriage as a moral issue that can't be changed to suit popular opinion. This is fundamentally different then blacks receiving the priesthood. My Father said even before blacks were allowed the priesthood, church leaders were always saying that it would come soon, in the Lord's time. In the case of marriage, church leaders have issued a proclamation declaring that marriage between a man and woman, is fundamental to the Lord's plan of salvation for his children. The Lord loves all of his children, and doesn't prohibit them from cohabitating according to their choice. But to change the definition of marriage, has far-reaching effects that are contrary to his purposes for his children's salvation. In countries where gay marriage is legal, traditional families are becoming extinct, marriage is less common, and more children are born out of wedlock. How could the church sanction measures that would make it more difficult for the Lord to send his children to loving, stable homes?
Thank you SO much for your response, Valerie. It has been on my TO DO list to respond to curtis today and have spent most of the day unpacking from my trip. Thanks! I agree with everything you had to say. This is not a civil rights issue. The church AND EVERYONE else needs to stand up for what we see to be morally correct. Many laws are made to help govern the morality of our country. It's true that many scary things are becoming NORMAL and main stream, but that doesn't mean it's right or good.
wow. 76 comments. You are so good at keeping us informed, taking a stand, AND remaining respectful of both sides. You have a talent with words as well as making people feel accepted and loved. Thanks for this post!
Hey Janet-
I hope you don't mind, but I used a little exert from your post in a discussion with a friend on facebook. Just wanted to let you know ;)
Post a Comment