Saturday, August 30, 2008

Religious Liberties argument AGAIN

Some people are comparing this Prop 8 situation to segregation between blacks and whites and people not allowing blacks in their places of business. We are not talking about racial equality here. We are not talking about denying a meal or drink to someone because of the color of their skin. We are talking about a PRACTICE that some people believe is morally wrong and are being forced to participate in it (even though they are fully morally opposed to it) under the names of discrimination and hate crimes. People are being forced to use their skills and occupations to PARTICIPATE in something that goes against what they stand for.

For every person who tries to argue that this will not affect our religious liberties, just know that the scholars on who believe that same-sex marriage should be legal agree wholeheartedly that religious liberties will be profoundly affected. PLEASE read the link to the article by Maggie Gallagher on the Becket Fund Conference. Every scholar on every side agrees openly that religious liberties will be affected. That is not what is being argued here.

Some people keep commenting that the religious liberties are not going to be affected, that the "Yes on Prop 8" group is making this all up to scare people into voting yes. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read that article and understand that the question here is: religious liberties or sexual liberties? Which should trump the other?

The link is a few posts down. Maggie Gallagher. Becket Fund Conference. Look it up. Please see for yourselves. In fact, I'll just copy and paste just part of what the scholars are saying directly in this article. If you'd like to read the rest, go ahead and click on the link a few posts below.

Here is a section of that article talking about religious liberties. The first quote is from a scholar on religious liberties named Chai Feldblum who is in favor of same-sex marriages being legalized.

"But the bottom line for Feldblum is: "Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner."

The Litigator

Marc Stern has known Chai Feldblum since she was eight years old. "Vivacious, really extraordinary," he says as he smiles, shaking his head at the memories of the little girl whose father he knew well. "Chai is among the most reasonable [gay rights advocates]," he says. "If she's having trouble coming up with cases in which religious liberty should win, we're in trouble."

As general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern knows religious liberty law from the inside out. Like Anthony Picarello, he sees the coming conflicts as pervasive. The problem is not that clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages or prevented from preaching their beliefs. Look past those big red herrings: "No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable," he writes in his Becket Fund paper.

Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern's big worries right now is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he tells me, "then religious schools are out of business." Or at least the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful.

Stern agrees with Feldblum that public accommodation laws can and should force truly commercial enterprises to serve all comers. But, he asks, what of other places, such as religious camps, retreats, and homeless shelters? Will they be considered by courts to be places of public accommodation, too? Could a religious summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships?

"Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, and the like," Stern wrote last December--well before the Boston Catholic Charities story broke.

Think about that for a moment. Of all the experts gathered to forecast the impact of gay marriage on religious organizations, no one, not even Stern, brought up adoption licenses.

"Government is so pervasive, it's hard to know where the next battle will be," he tells me. "I thought I had a comprehensive catalog, but the adoption license issue didn't occur to me." "

Thursday, August 28, 2008

part of an email from protectmarriage.com

"Advocates of Same-Sex Marriage Continue to Force Compliance Against the Will of Californians

The Proposition 8 Campaign reacted strongly to the California Supreme Court’s ruling that California doctors who have religious objections to artificially inseminating same-sex couples can no longer refuse to treat them. The Court’s decision overturns a previous state Appeals Court decision which ruled in favor of the doctors in 2005.

“This latest ruling proves that advocates of same-sex marriage are not simply seeking tolerance, but rather are pushing for compliance in every corner of California society. They will stop at nothing to chip away at the free speech rights and the rights of conscience of Californians everywhere, forcing individuals to accept their lifestyle even against a person’s personal or religious beliefs. It is a slippery slope against the individual rights of Californians,” stated Ron Prentice, on behalf of the Campaign.

The Supreme Court rejected a San Diego County fertility clinic’s right to refuse performing a procedure. North Coast Women’s Care in Vista declined to perform an intrauterine insemination for an individual, and referred the individual to another facility. The ruling is the first of its kind in the nation and stresses the importance of standing up to protect marriage.

Knights of Columbus Catholic Organization Donates $1 Million to Prop. 8

Just this last week, the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic family fraternal service organization, donated $1 million to Proposition 8. Throughout its history, the Knights of Columbus has been an effective advocate and defender of civil and religious rights for all. The organization has also contributed billions of dollars and millions of hours of volunteer service to charity. Knights of Columbus spokesman Patrick Korten said that the million dollar donation from the Knights “is both an indication of how important we believe this referendum to be, and an encouragement to other groups and individuals of all faiths to lend their support as well.” He went on to stress that the importance of, “preserving marriage as the indispensable institution in which children are conceived, born and raised to adulthood by a loving father and mother is vital to a healthy society. It is also the most favorable environment in which to protect the rights and best interests of children.”
This generous donation from the Knights of Columbus shows the broad-based support that Proposition 8 is receiving from a variety of faith-based organizations. Now is the time to join the Knights of Columbus in protecting marriage!"


People need to know how this will affect our rights if we do not vote to pass Prop 8. Please tell your friends and family about these rulings before it comes time to vote on November 4th!!!

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Why I Am Voting Yes on Prop 8

In countries and states where same-sex marriage has been legalized, divorce rates climb and marriage rates recede. Marriage in this country is definitely not as strong as it used to be, but that does not mean we will or can just step aside and let what is left of marriage be taken away now.

Under civil unions, partners DO have the rights to living will and to insurance benefits together. If they are denied from any hospital room of their partner, it is illegal and should be addressed to that specific hospital or doctor's office. Life and death situations are definitely the right of the partner. Anyone who is violating that is breaking the law.

Scholars on both sides of the argument agree on one thing: legalizing same-sex marriages would be devastating for religious liberties. It is a fact. Research "Beckett Fund Conference" for more details on that. The disagreement is that people in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples believe that giving up our religious liberties is WORTH THE PRICE for furthering the gay rights movement. So the question is not "Will we lose religious liberties?" The answer is yes. BOTH sides agree on that. One side just thinks it's worth it for a very small group to have some "dignity."

I am sorry that things have to come down to this, but I'm not willing to give up my religious freedoms and those of my children and future grandchildren because some people feel bad that they can't be called "married." If it was trying to take away their rights to living will or domestic partnership or financial benefits, I would be on the other side. I really would. Because those are rights that everyone should have, regardless of their gender preference. But to fight for a title at the huge expense of others' freedoms is just not acceptable to me. That is why I'm voting yes on Prop 8.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

12 Talking Points

1. Men and women are different, and the union of a man and a woman is different than the union of two men or two women.
Throughout history marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for powerful reasons relating to the complementary differences between men and women. The differences combine to create a unique and essential social relationship. Marriage channels human sexuality into responsible, and socially valuable functions, namely adult complementary sexual union that results in the procreation, nurturing, and training of the next generation. It gives couples and society a future. The combination of the opposite sexes creates a distinctive integrative union and social relationship. No two men together or two women together can do this. Just as the combination of the different chemical elements Na (sodium) + Cl (chlorine) together make salt, but Na + Na or Cl + Cl do not.

2. Tolerance opposes same-sex marriage.
The law categorizes and treats relationships in three ways: some are barred and prohibited; others are tolerated and permitted; and some others are preferred and privileged. Historically, same-sex relationships were prohibited, but in recent decades they have become tolerated and permitted in the United States and many other countries. But tolerance is quite different from preference. Conjugal marriage always has been the most preferred and privileged social relationship because it is the foundation of society. The claim for same-sex “marriage” abandons tolerance and seeks special preference; it actually removes the preferential treatment of conjugal marriage, rather than elevating same-sex couples. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is restricted. Freedom of religion is undermined, and freedom of speech is curtailed. Children in public schools are taught not true tolerance but the moral relativism of equivalency, i.e. that different forms of human sexuality are no more than matters of personal preference. Disagreement with this “principle” is not tolerated.

3. Equality does not require treating different relationships the same.
Same-sex marriage advocates purport to desire “equal treatment” with heterosexual couples, but it is inequality to give full marital status to relationships that are so markedly different in lifestyle and social impact. Same-sex marriage really means the near-term elimination of actual marriage. As a matter of nature it cannot fulfill the same functions as traditional marriage, and the effect is to pull traditional marriage down to the lowest common denominator and soon render it meaningless. Our society cannot accept this outcome.

4. Marriage is a pre-existing social institution, not a mere legal creation or social construct.
Marriage between male and female is a uniquely ubiquitous social institution, found in all civilized human societies. Finding marriage already in existence, the law has recognized the importance of marriage by regulating and thereby protecting it. The law does not create marriage any more than it creates parents, land or water, but the law regulates those resources -- marriage, parenting, land, and water -- in the public interest.

5. The legal definition of marriage signals important social functions.
The way the law defines and treats marriage sends powerful social signals to all members of society about marriage roles and what is expected of married persons. By diluting the meaning of marriage, reducing it to a mere romantic relationship between any two persons, it dilutes the meaning of marriage itself and ignores and denigrates the integral responsibilities of marriage and marital parenthood. Conjugal marriage reinforces the taking of responsibility for the natural outcome of the sexual act: children; same-sex marriage weakens that tie.

6. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms families and makes more vulnerable those who invest their lives, and sacrifice their careers, for their marriages and families.
In states and nations where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the public commitment to families and conjugal marriage and families is significantly weakened. Adoption has been impaired. Mothers are marginalized, and social support for them weakens. Sexualization of society increases. Public support for marital parenting wanes. Marital childbearing and childrearing drop, and public education becomes more propagandistic. Churches and religion are harassed.

7. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms children by depriving them of a mother or father, and removing the clear legal signal that marriage connects parents to children and parental responsibility.
All children need and deserve to be raised by a mother and a father; they are deprived of that by same-sex marriage. Two moms are not the same things as a mom and a dad. Legalization of same-sex marriage is false advertizing to children; it teaches them that same-sex coupling and parenting is fully equivalent to dual gender marriage and parenting. It deprives some children of a parental connection with half of their biological heritage and family. Parental authority is diminished.

8. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms society by the transformative power of inclusion and by weakening the basic infrastructure of society.
Conjugal marriage historically has “scripted” responsible living and civic virtue. Gay and lesbian lifestyles do not. By redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, the social meaning of marriage is transformed by the power of inclusion; the culture of infidelity, promiscuity and polyamory that characterizes gay and lesbian sexual relations will redefine what marriage means in a way that will undermine that social institution and bring suffering to many families. Society should not engage in “consumer fraud” by sending the message that there is no difference between conjugal marriage and same-sex unions.

9. Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests.
Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement. The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs, not just to bind boyfriends and girlfriends and other romantic interests.

10. The radical redefinition of marriage is a matter for the people, not the courts, to decide.
In a democracy, the power to decide fundamental questions about basic social institutions is reserved to the people. It is not a judicial function. By a vote of 4-3, four California justices simply imposed their personally political preference under the pretext of interpreting the state constitution. That is why even strong supporters of same-sex marriage, such as the Washington Post, criticized the California Supreme Court decision for mandating same-sex marriage by judicial decree. It seriously violated separation of powers and undermined the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.

11. Many constitutional amendments have been adopted to protect threatened basic institutions and rights.
That is how America got the “Bill of Rights.” That is why our nation passed the Civil War amendments – to correct a terrible decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why voters in 27 American states recently have adopted constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That is why thirty-seven (37) nations around the world also have adopted constitutional provisions protecting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. When cherished rights and relationships are threatened, people pass constitutional amendments to protect them. That is why Proposition 8 has been proposed.

12. Proposition 8 is about marriage, it is not about homosexuality.
The issue is whether the basic social institution of marriage should be radically redefined. The issue is not about homosexual relations, which have long existed without needing (or wanting) to be called “marriages.” It is not about homosexuality, or the nature-vs-nurture debate about the cause of homosexuality. (It is not whether homosexuality is biologically hard-wire-determined, or predisposed, or environmentally caused, or experientially influenced, or a matter of choice. It is not about homosexuality; it is simply about the institution of marriage. Today, tragically, many marriages fail, but legalizing same-sex marriage will not solve that problem. Rather, by reducing the meaning of marriage, and applying the “marriage” label to gay and lesbian relations, which have an even higher rate of instability than heterosexual couples, it will only worsen the problem.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

How to explain our views/Religious liberties lost

It is difficult sometimes to articulate reasons why we are supporting Prop 8 to our friends and neighbors who see the matter quite differently. On this post, I will be putting up links to different articles that will help to eloquently and efficiently articulate cultural and other reasons to support marriage between a man and a woman. This should help us to make our views understood, especially those who might not believe in God or the Bible, and therefore not understanding the sacred nature of marriage before God.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

This link is to an article from Maggie Gallagher who reported extensively on the Becket Fund Conference of scholars on same-sex marriage and religious liberties. It goes much deeper into the possibilities of which religious liberties are at risk of being lost if Prop 8 is not passed. n It is well-researched and well-written.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1

Religious freedoms attacked; our children the victims

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Journal/commentary.aspx?id=215784

While there are numerous reasons to support marriage between a man and a woman, many people still believe that it is a decision that denies gay rights. They also believe that if gay marriage is continued to be allowed in California, it will not affect them or their children. They believe that it should be the job of the parents to teach their children whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable. They are correct in one aspect: it is in the home where children should be taught morals and values. Parents are allowed to teach their children that homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of God. So what happens when the schools are mandated to teach that homosexuality is acceptable and we must believe that it is the same as marriage between a man and a woman? How do you explain that to your 5-year-old? "Well, your teacher is a liar?" Children are very impressionable at a very young age. This will change society. It is not, as some would have us believe, "denying the rights of two loving people to join together." It is protecting our rights to believe how we wish.
This article has listed some of the cases where religious freedoms have already been lost and the possibility of more losses to come. It is well-written and has points presented articulately. Please read it and think seriously about what it indicates could and will happen to our country if we don't fight for Prop 8 right now.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Priest Investigated for preaching his beliefs

http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/

Here is a link to an article about a Catholic priest in Canada. He was being investigated for preaching that homosexuality is wrong. It is being investigated as a "hate crime" for simply preaching his beliefs. Read the article for full details. Ask yourself: if same-sex marriage is legalized here, can this happen in the United States? Can our freedom to preach and believe as we wish be taken away? I think the answer is obviously that it can. Why do we think we would be immune from such results if Prop 8 is not passed?

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Share the Information

People between the ages of 18-30 seem to use blogs, myspace, and Facebook more than ever. What a better way than to get information out as quickly and widespread as possible than using the internet? People in those ages also seem to have been raised in a world that believes that no beliefs are right or wrong, only different. While I was in high school, California voted on Proposition 22, which would recognize only marriage between a man and a woman as being valid. Even though my friends and I could not vote yet, there were arguments left and right about which side was right and which side was wrong. The main argument from people my age was this:"Why do you have to force others to believe what you believe? I don't believe homosexuality is morally okay, but I'm not going to deny others their right to marry whoever they want. IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT ME." This part is the falsehood. Too many people believe there will not be any negative effects on our entire society if the new Prop 8 is not passed. TO EVERYONE WHO HAS ALREADY DECIDED YES ON PROP 8: Please get the facts out any way you can. Use your family blogs. Use your Facebook. Use your Myspace. Use your email address books. It's the people our age that are going to be sitting on the fence on this one. Send out new invites to people to check out your new blog. Share it with friends you might not have talked to for awhile. You can even use the points from my earlier post as an outline if you'd like. The first listed points are from Elder Clayton of the LDS Church. The next ones listed are from the Protectmarriage.com website. You can even just say a sentence or two in favor of protecting marriage, and then direct readers to protectmarriage.com. This is too important for us to sit around with our mouths closed. If people are going to make a decision as important as this, at least let them have the facts before they vote. Thanks everyone!!!

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage

One of the latest topics of conversation in California has been legalizing same-sex marriage. This November, California's ballot will be including a vote to change our constitution so that California only recognizes marriage to be between a man and a woman. The people already voted on this back in 2000 and decided that marriage should be recognized as being between a man and a woman. The courts decided they knew better than the people and are attempting to overturn the people's vote. This is going to be a huge battle. Arizona lost their similar proposition because they were unexpectedly hit with a large amount of propaganda against them. They were unprepared for the opposition to skew facts and present falsehoods through the media. We cannot let this happen in California. We need to present the straightforward truth before anyone else gets a chance to mix up the facts. Here is a list of facts about the upcoming proposition and the possible results if we vote no on Prop. 8. Please share this with your family and friends so we can get the word out to people who may be sitting on the fence. It is not taking away the rights of others. It is protecting our own right to religious freedom.

1. Society has already provided civil unions which allow the benefits of marriage – however they cannot be allowed to DEFINE marriage for the majority. Same sex marriage goes too far. California law provides same sex partners with all the same protections as traditional marriage partners.

2. California didn’t ask for same sex marriage (the court made the change).

3. There should be no change in the definition of marriage without a vote of the people.

4. This might affect our 1st Amendment rights including the free exercise of religion - potentially the right to worship as we believe. Note: the Catholic church had to close their adoption agencies in Massachusetts, a state that legally recognizes same sex marriage, because they legally couldn’t adopt babies to only heterosexual couples.

Protectmarriage.com has listed these points:

-Children need the love of BOTH a father and a mother. The body of research-proof is overwhelming and consistent on this point.

-Legalizing same-sex marriage necessarily mandates changes to all California public school curriculum. Children will be subjected to a mandatory acceptance of homosexuality and all of its practices. Public school curriculum will actively discriminate against the values of the majority of its community’s families.

-Traditonal marriage deserves protection because of its contributions to societal well-being. It is about children and society, not the relationship of two adults.

-Expanding the definition of marriage by including homosexual relationships adds to the continued disregard for marriage’s ultimate purpose. Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy. Nine European nations have had same-sex marriage since the early 90’s – and just 2% of same-sex couples in these countries ever marry, while there has been a 46% increase in out-of-wedlock births.

-Expanding the definition of marriage begs the question: What legal basis would remain to limit the number of partners in marriage?

-Religious freedom has been the cornerstone of success for the United States of America. It is naïve to belive that when acceptance of same-sex marriage is legislatively or judicially forced upon citizens via employment law, education, or other government mandates, rights of religious liberty won’t decrease.

This is something that will affect everyone. The nation has a tendency to follow California. We need to stop this here. Please share these facts with your friends and family. This is of a higher importance than we may yet realize. Even if you don't live in California, there's always an opportunity to donate to the Protect Marriage Coalition. Go to protectmarriage.com to find out more about this important topic.

We're new to the world of blog

Everyone else in the world has a blog. People have been saying to me, "Well, just put up some pictures on your blog and send me the address." In my head, I think, "What exactly is a blog? Am I supposed to have one? Does everyone have one?" I have yet to learn the art of actually putting one together that looks good. But there is always a beginning. So here I am. Bear with me.