The Jacobson Sun: August 2008

Last week I wrote a post about how we celebrated our seventh wedding anniversary by walking the precincts in favor of Proposition 8. For those of you who aren't familiar with this proposition, it would amend the CA constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. I am not ashamed of my efforts to support this proposition, but because I received some scathing commentary from anonymous people, I felt it best for the safety of my family to delete the posting. After considering the situation further, I made some changes to the settings on my blog that will filter out the anonymous comments and make it more safe. In this post, I want to respond to some of the comments I received and defend my position.

If you examined proposition 8 in further detail, you would learn that no rights are taken away from gay individuals or couples. Under CA law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" as married spouses (Family Code 297.5). Prop 8 does not affect those rights and benefits. It is not about rights, but the definition of an institution that has existed since the creation of man and woman and which is the fundamental unit of society. Do you dare to consider the ramifications to society as we know it if it is rendered meaningless? What comes next--marriage between dog and dog owner?

Aside from all that... do you believe in democratic legislation as set up in the US constitution or judicial legislation? The voice of CA residents have overwhelmingly declared their preference for marriage defined as a man and a woman when they passed prop 22 in 2000 with a 61% majority. Should 4 activist judges from San Francisco undo the voices of everyone in the state? You apparently don't realize that when you cry "separation of church and state" in defense of such judges, you are imposing your secular views on everyone else, revoking our freedom of religion. This freedom is guaranteed to us in the Constitution. Consider how religious freedom would be violated if Prop 8 fails:

1. Churches would be sued if religious leaders refused to perform marriages for same-sex couples in their public churches.
2. Religious adoption agencies would be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
3. Preachers could be sued for hate speech if they preached against same-sex marriage, as has already happened in Canada.

If those in favor of same-sex marriage feel so strongly about it, why won't they put it on the ballot rather than go behind the backs of voters and get it done through the courts? Probably the same reason why you leave anonymous comments rather than state your name. You are afraid. You are afraid that it wouldn't pass, and you are right.

As a member of the church who bears His name, I agree that Jesus Christ loved everyone, regardless of their choices. Yet he was not afraid to declare moral truth and was very candid in doing so. His stance on marriage is clear: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh." (Matt 19:4-6)

In response to anonymous' comments about Ronald Reagan, thank you for giving me more reasons to esteem this great president. Policies such as affirmative action only prolong racial prejudices and call attention to color rather than turn a blind eye to it.

And last but not least, I have to brag that Tim called the Sarah Palin pick a week ago. A solid move by McCain and brilliantly executed!