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!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
I guess this is what I get for leaving my blog public...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That's my girl. Stand strong.
As you have decided to reopen this discussion on your blog, I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the comments you have made.
First, please know that I did not post as anonymous because I was "scared." As someone who works full-time as a high school teacher and college professor, I could not attach my name to online political dialogue because my job is to educate my students to make their own judgments, not follow my ideology. I am not certain how engaging in a spirited debate jeopardizes the safety of one's family, but then again, I have never shyed away from discussions about issues important to me.
Arnold Steinberg, a Republican political strategist and analyst, wrote an enlightening article in the Los Angeles Times entitled: "Why Proposition 8 is a losing proposition." In it, he points out that when Proposition 22 was overturned, California Chief Justice Ronald George said, "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights" (in this case, the right to marry). Furthermore, Steinberg shares, "Today, the momentum favors same-sex marriage. Polls show that the electorate has become more used to the idea of same-sex marriage; women in particular see it as stabilizing for society, not destabilizing." Looks like your theory about dogs and dog owners doesn't fly (no pun in intended!)---even with Republicans!
Also, your comment about "turning a blind eye" to racial prejudices and color is frightening. After centuries of horrific oppression, racism, and segregation, African Americans (and all minorities who have been discriminated against) deserve our attention and care. Perhaps you do not agree with affirmative action, but not addressing/"turning a blind eye" to the racial divide in this country is irresponsible and heartless. Furthermore, I find it interesting that you never addressed my comments about Ronald Reagan aligning himself with racist segregationists like George Wallace and Barry Goldwater. Like I said before, Ronald Reagan is not someone I would want my children to emulate.
In conclusion, I must inquire--did your husband call the pregnancy announcement of Sarah Palin's SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD daughter? Talk about "responsible family values"! Ha!
-The Crusader of Common Sense
Obama '08!
Crusader:
Let's turn the tables on you. Let's say Prop 22 allowed same-sex marriage and the 4 judges had ruled that unconstitutional. Wouldn't you be fuming mad? Is that right that the judges overturn the will of the people?
Secondly, to the point of the post, certain religious freedoms would be curtailed, yet no freedoms/civil liberties would be curtailed of those within civil unions. Partners would still be allowed to visit hospital bedsides, inheritances passed on, health benefits ensured, etc...I feel like a group of fellow citizens have just pushed and pushed for something, without stopping to think, am I stepping on anyone else to get this? Didn’t Harry Reid just say in his address to the DNC, that legislation should first do no harm? It’s as if those opposed to the proposition are on the wrong side of the tolerance issue, not the other way around. It is a very me, me, me argument as opposed to a – “Can we work this out together?”, argument.
By no means should people opposed to the proposition think ill of those of us in favor of it. We didn’t ask for the fight, it came to us. There has been no disrespect, no hate speech directed at those opposed or the homosexual community. I would be very surprised if there were.
I am just fine with my stance. I do not think that anyone can find me guilty of prejudice in this matter. We are all part of the human family, all trying to make our society work for as many people as possible. There will be disagreements and even strong feelings on certain matters from time to time. But do not interpret my position as bigoted. I am merely, albeit unapologetically, defending family and the freedom to practice my faith and not have its teachings altered by a vote (separation of church and state cuts both ways). I have no problem asking a community of fellow citizens to forego a designation in order to hold up a moral I hold dear.
I fully understand what the homosexual community wants. They want to feel equal in every way to everyone else (which is what we all want). However, unless that end can be achieved without stepping on my religious freedoms (as mentioned in the post) and democratically, I will not support the advancement of that agenda.
We can agree to disagree, Brotimmy. But, the bottom line is that the architects of Proposition 22 should have been smarter than to frame it as a statute. Had they built it as a constitutional amendment, the traditional definition of marriage would have become part of the state Constitution and couldn't have been easily overturned by the California Supreme Court. Because an initiative statute (Proposition 22) requires less signatures to get on the ballot, life was made easier for the Proposition authors.....but, it also opened Proposition 22 to judicial scrutiny. Now, it looks like it is too late for the Proposition 8 folks!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/elections/la-oe-steinberg12-2008jul12,0,4649785.story
Jen ,
I wish I was as eloquent as you are. Thanks for the post.
i am proud of you jen! good for you! i am so glad to live in a country where we can have these discussions. i am even more grateful to have the gospel of jesus christ to guide me in these trouble times! thanks for standing strong!
Well said Jen, Your blog is very thoughtful. Missed you at the reunion! There's a really good story on NPR about some of the negative effects of same sex marriage laws and how they have lead to many frivolous law suits already in other states. Loe you guys!
Post a Comment