When it comes to politics and elections and everything these two topics entail, I normally keep my mouth shut and my opinions to myself. However, this upcoming election includes one issue that is so important to me, I simply cannot keep my mouth shut.
The topic I am referring to is marriage...specifically in regard to Prop 102 (Arizona) and Prop 8 (California). Simply put, these two propositions are intended to secure the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. For me, however, it is so much more than just that...it is about protecting the children....my children, your children, our children....the children of this nation. It is also about protecting my religion. If these propositions fail, the public school systems will be required to teach our children that same-sex marriage is normal and right and no different than traditional marriage. Churches will be forced to recognize and perform same-sex marriages, whether they believe in them or not, and churches who refuse to do so may be sued.
This country was founded on the concept of free religion - people came here to believe in and practice whatever religion they desired, without fear of persecution or imprisonment. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but forcing churches to participate in ordinances that contradict their core beliefs does not seem like "religious freedom" at all. Not to mention the fact that schools should not be the ones telling my children what is "morally right" and "normal" in regard to marriage.
To me, marriage is more than just a loving relationship between two people..it is not just a "status" or "title." Marriage is about the gift of life - the birthright - that results from the physical union between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples cannot provide what traditional couples can - they cannot procreate. How can a union that lacks the fundamental concept of procreation be considered the same thing as a union that can? It cannot, and should not, be considered the same. Marriage is about life, or rather, the ability to create life. The importance of that simple fact should not be forgotten or undermined, which is exactly what will happen if these propositions fail.
When election day rolls around on November 4 2008, I will be at the polls and I will VOTE YES on PROP 102. I will do this because I want to protect my children, my marriage, my religion, and my freedom to choose.
What will you do?
P.S. Doug sent me this video earlier today...it really hit home.
"If these propositions fail, the public school systems will be required to teach our children that same-sex marriage is normal and right and no different than traditional marriage."
ReplyDeleteIn California, as required by state law, public schools *already* provide children age-appropriate, non-explicit information about the existence of same-sex couples. It's state law. The passage or failure of Prop 8 will not impact this one iota. This is a red herring to the actual issue: whether or not all citizens deserve the same sets of rights, or whether those rights are to be reserved for the majority, and denied to the unpopular minority which is our fellow Americans with same-gender attractions.
"Churches will be forced to recognize and perform same-sex marriages, whether they believe in them or not, and churches who refuse to do so may be sued."
Wrong. No church will be forced to recognize same-sex marriage, regardless of the passage or failure of Prop 8. Heck, same-sex marriage is *already* legal in California (for the past 5 months) and Massachusetts (for the past 4 years). Have any churches in either of those two states been forced to recognize same-sex marriage? Have any churches been sued out of existence for their refusal to recognize same-sex marriage?
No, and no.
You've been lied to, and the real shame is you're believing the lie, and responding as intended: by supporting discrimination against fellow citizens who are doing no harm to you whatsoever. That's not the spirit upon which our nation was founded.
"Excuse me if I'm wrong, but forcing churches to participate in ordinances that contradict their core beliefs does not seem like "religious freedom" at all."
You're not wrong, which is why it's a great thing that no churches are being forced to participate in ordinances that contradict their core beliefs.
"This country was founded on the concept of free religion - people came here to believe in and practice whatever religion they desired, without fear of persecution or imprisonment."
Indeed. And given the freedom you ask of (and receive from) those who don't share your faith, it would be great if you could extend that same spirit of freedom to those who don't share your sexual orientation.
It appears as though you're asking for freedom from persecution, without extending the same freedom to others.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
I agree with you completely! I really hope the majority is with you too! Thanks for saying something about this.
ReplyDeleteObviously, we are voting Yes on Prop 8 (here in California) and I'm definitely opposing the bill to have a day commemorating the life and work of a gay rights activist (it's another bill on the Governor's desk). It's scary that people don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with that. If it passes, my kids will be getting a free day off of school for the rest of their lives. Maybe private school isn't such a bad idea (although I don't know how they will be affected).
ReplyDeleteExcellent blog post & and an even more excellent response to Patrick.
ReplyDeleteYou are a super star becky... I have been working on behalf of our stake with this prop 102. It is sad the ideas of things out there. But we just need to stick to our convictions and vote! love ya
ReplyDeleteThis is a hot issue, and you have done an excellent job at researching it. We have been wondering at our house what will become of these propositions. I think it is interesting that so many are uniting together to fight for same-sex marriage. I understand how people want their rights. I just think there has to be another way then legalizing same sex marriages. I figure they can find ways to rid God from public arenas why can't they find a solution for giving rights to same sex partnerships without making it a definition of marriage. I totally agree with you marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. I love this definition of marriage from 1828
ReplyDeleteMAR'RIAGE, noun
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Keep up the good work! We know that there are great powers at work here in this world and I believe the downhill slope our nation is on, is a very sure sign. Why does it always seem that in order to give people the rights they want, it seems to infringe upon the rights of others?
you are wonderful
ReplyDelete