Same-Sex Marriage WILL Be Taught in Public Schools
This morning I came across this letter from Carol, a concerned California resident. In her letter, Carol discusses the importance of voting YES on Proposition 8 in protecting basic freedoms including parental rights in public schools. In case you haven't heard, the no on 8 campaign is spreading lies about the affect that legalizing same-sex marriage will have on Californians, including the erroneous and baffling claim that same-sex marriage will not be taught in schools without parental consent.
In her letter, Carol explains, "I know that the opponents to Prop 8 are claiming that voting no on 8 will not affect the education of our children in any way. They state that there is a mandate that already prohibits teachers from teaching health issues without parental consent. While that may be true (for now), it doesn’t address whether they will teach about gay unions while discussing either families or diversity. Books are being read to 1st graders in Massachusetts (as part of diversity training) about men marrying other men as part of normal family life." (Watch Robb and Robin Worthlin's story here.)
In other words, the no on 8 campaign would like Californians to believe that because there is a state mandate which "prohibits teachers from teaching health issues without parental consent," same-sex marriage will not be taught to children at school without parental consent. This claim is false because, as Carol points out, teachers teach more than just health in public schools. If same-sex marriage is legalized, there are countless ways same-sex marriage could (and will) enter the school curriculum. (Watch the Parker's story here.)
The CTA, ACLU and Others WILL Promote Gay Marriage in California Public Schools, As the ACLU and Others Have Already Done in Massachusetts.
Here's another part of Carol's letter that really struck me. She says, "What is even more baffling is that on one hand the California Teachers Association is backing the no on 8 --with $1.25 million already donated for their cause--while on the other they are insistent that this has nothing to do with education. If that is truly the case, then isn’t it a little ironic that the Association is even involved?"
"Furthermore" Carol says, "the other organizations against Prop 8 (namely the ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, Equality for All), who say gay marriage will not be taught in public schools, are the same organizations who fought for it to be so in Massachusetts."
These organizations WILL take away parental rights in order to promote the gay lifestyle, just as they have already done in Massachusetts. Carol sites these statements from the ACLU and other no on 8 advocates: (These statements from the Parker v. Hurley case are on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008))
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief: "Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: “In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief: “There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2] (Read the rest of Carol's letter here.)
The Ridiculous Lie
Same-sex marriage advocates argue that redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage will not affect anyone, including school children. This strange claim is completely counter to their fundamental argument, which is that same-sex marriage is a civil right. In other words, the no on 8 advocates are fighting tooth and nail to gain their "civil right" to same-sex marriage because "separate but equal" is not the American way... yet they say that their "equal" same-sex marriage will be taught "separately" in public schools. (And they say it will only be taught with parental consent.) In regards to education, no on 8 advocates are essentially saying, "we deserve to have our marriages recognized and we want acceptance of same-sex marriages enforced by civil rights laws... except in public schools... oh yeah, and churches." This is a lie. Please see it for what it is.
Parents and Teachers, Please Understand What This Issue is Really About.
I hope Californians can see past the ridiculous claims of same-sex marriage advocates. Advocates of same-sex marriage want their lifestyle accepted by everyone, including (and especially) children. Public schools and religious institutions are two of the most basic tools (outside of the family) which teach morals and socialize our children. Same-sex marriage advocates are pushing for the legalization of gay marriage in California because they desire to force acceptance of their lifestyle via the influence of public schools and churches. This is their agenda. Same-sex marriage advocates do not want you teaching your children that homosexual behavior is wrong. They desire to take away the rights of anyone who disagrees with homosexual behavior.
Please fight for your parental rights, and for traditional marriages and families! Vote YES on 8!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Why I Support Proposition 8
1. Because in the year 2000, 61% of Californians defined marriage as, "one man and one woman."
2. Because marriage was ordained by God from before the foundation of the world. Our government did not invent marriage; they simply adopted it. God (and the majority of California voters) have already defined marriage... "one man and one woman."
3. Because domestic partnership laws give homosexual couples the same rights as married couples regarding medical care, hospitalization, fair housing, employment rights, and probate rights. Proposition 8 does NOT take away these rights!
4. Because legalizing same-sex marriage makes same-sex marriage a civil right. Once state government declares same-sex marriage a civil right, anyone who disagrees with homosexual behavior (including millions of Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and some Buddhists in California) may be subject to civil rights lawsuits.
5. Because legalizing same-sex marriage means same-sex marriage will be introduced with traditional marriage in public schools as early as the second grade. Thousands of teachers will be forced to teach something that goes against their religious convictions. Parents will be forced to expose their children to this new curriculum. (Some have said, if you don't like the public school curriculum, put your kids in private school. Think about this... Even if all religious parents did have the money to send their kids to private religious schools; private religious schools who oppose same-sex marriage will not last long if they lose their tax-exempt status and accreditation under public accommodation laws.)
6. Because every child deserves to be raised by a mother and father. (Some say it doesn't matter who raises a child as long as they are loved. However, history and social science have proven otherwise. Every child needs a mom and a dad!) If same-sex marriage is legalized, adoption agencies who normally place children in traditional families will be forced to change their policies or close their doors (as Catholic Charities in Boston has done.) Furthermore, physicians who disagree with same-sex marriage will be forced to artificially inseminate same-sex couples. And therapists who disagree with same-sex marriage will be forced to treat same-sex couples with marriage and family therapy.
7. Because legalizing same-sex marriage promotes gender inequality. Heterosexual marriage promotes gender cooperation. It is the longest standing integrationist union. Homosexual marriage equals gender segregation. Legalizing same-sex marriage encourages gender segregation.
8. Because legalizing same-sex marriage will harm women. The fact is, homosexuality is practiced by twice as many men as women. Consider the prospect of thousands of women being raised by two daddies over the next hundred years. Who will empower those women to be strong feminist leaders if they have no female role models in their homes? There goes the feminist movement. (And then of course there's the flip side; how will boys learn to interact with other men if they're raised by two mommies? Let's not forget all that research on the negative psychological and social consequences of fatherless children.) All children need both a mother and a father. Wait, how did I get back to 6? Better move on to 9...
9. Because legalizing same-sex marriage will create a HUGE legal mess (lawsuits galore paid for by you and me) over public accommodation laws, employment laws, and government funding. Anyone who tells you same-sex marriage will not affect you hasn't read what legal experts have said about the issue. (Or they are lying.) Even if you do not oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want your tax dollars going to frivolous lawsuits against your religious neighbors?
10. Because it is possible to love the sinner but hate the sin. Don't let gay rights activists convince you you are "discriminatory" or "homophobic" because you disagree with the ACT of homosexuality. Disagreeing with the act of homosexuality is completely different from discrimination. Supporters of 8 do NOT support hostility towards those who choose a gay lifestyle. We believe in civil rights and equality. (We even believe everyone has the right to be married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.) The point is, Proposition 8 is not going to take away any rights from Californians who choose a gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 simply protects traditional marriages, families, and freedom of speech and religion.
And logically, if same-sex marriage is a civil right, isn't polygamy also a civil right? What about father-son marriages? (You know those pedophiles at the North American Man-Boy Love Association would love to jump on the marriage bandwagon.) I know this sounds totally crazy, and hopefully we will never see polygamy or legalized pedophilia on the ballot, but honestly we have to draw the line somewhere. (After all, our conservative grandparents never thought they would see same-sex marriage legalized.) Let those who choose a gay lifestyle live it to it's fullest; let them live together in domestic partnerships with equal protection under the law; but PLEASE PROTECT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE for ourselves and our children by voting YES on 8!
Okay, I'm done. Off the soap box.
P.S. Vote early!
2. Because marriage was ordained by God from before the foundation of the world. Our government did not invent marriage; they simply adopted it. God (and the majority of California voters) have already defined marriage... "one man and one woman."
3. Because domestic partnership laws give homosexual couples the same rights as married couples regarding medical care, hospitalization, fair housing, employment rights, and probate rights. Proposition 8 does NOT take away these rights!
4. Because legalizing same-sex marriage makes same-sex marriage a civil right. Once state government declares same-sex marriage a civil right, anyone who disagrees with homosexual behavior (including millions of Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and some Buddhists in California) may be subject to civil rights lawsuits.
5. Because legalizing same-sex marriage means same-sex marriage will be introduced with traditional marriage in public schools as early as the second grade. Thousands of teachers will be forced to teach something that goes against their religious convictions. Parents will be forced to expose their children to this new curriculum. (Some have said, if you don't like the public school curriculum, put your kids in private school. Think about this... Even if all religious parents did have the money to send their kids to private religious schools; private religious schools who oppose same-sex marriage will not last long if they lose their tax-exempt status and accreditation under public accommodation laws.)
6. Because every child deserves to be raised by a mother and father. (Some say it doesn't matter who raises a child as long as they are loved. However, history and social science have proven otherwise. Every child needs a mom and a dad!) If same-sex marriage is legalized, adoption agencies who normally place children in traditional families will be forced to change their policies or close their doors (as Catholic Charities in Boston has done.) Furthermore, physicians who disagree with same-sex marriage will be forced to artificially inseminate same-sex couples. And therapists who disagree with same-sex marriage will be forced to treat same-sex couples with marriage and family therapy.
7. Because legalizing same-sex marriage promotes gender inequality. Heterosexual marriage promotes gender cooperation. It is the longest standing integrationist union. Homosexual marriage equals gender segregation. Legalizing same-sex marriage encourages gender segregation.
8. Because legalizing same-sex marriage will harm women. The fact is, homosexuality is practiced by twice as many men as women. Consider the prospect of thousands of women being raised by two daddies over the next hundred years. Who will empower those women to be strong feminist leaders if they have no female role models in their homes? There goes the feminist movement. (And then of course there's the flip side; how will boys learn to interact with other men if they're raised by two mommies? Let's not forget all that research on the negative psychological and social consequences of fatherless children.) All children need both a mother and a father. Wait, how did I get back to 6? Better move on to 9...
9. Because legalizing same-sex marriage will create a HUGE legal mess (lawsuits galore paid for by you and me) over public accommodation laws, employment laws, and government funding. Anyone who tells you same-sex marriage will not affect you hasn't read what legal experts have said about the issue. (Or they are lying.) Even if you do not oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want your tax dollars going to frivolous lawsuits against your religious neighbors?
10. Because it is possible to love the sinner but hate the sin. Don't let gay rights activists convince you you are "discriminatory" or "homophobic" because you disagree with the ACT of homosexuality. Disagreeing with the act of homosexuality is completely different from discrimination. Supporters of 8 do NOT support hostility towards those who choose a gay lifestyle. We believe in civil rights and equality. (We even believe everyone has the right to be married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.) The point is, Proposition 8 is not going to take away any rights from Californians who choose a gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 simply protects traditional marriages, families, and freedom of speech and religion.
And logically, if same-sex marriage is a civil right, isn't polygamy also a civil right? What about father-son marriages? (You know those pedophiles at the North American Man-Boy Love Association would love to jump on the marriage bandwagon.) I know this sounds totally crazy, and hopefully we will never see polygamy or legalized pedophilia on the ballot, but honestly we have to draw the line somewhere. (After all, our conservative grandparents never thought they would see same-sex marriage legalized.) Let those who choose a gay lifestyle live it to it's fullest; let them live together in domestic partnerships with equal protection under the law; but PLEASE PROTECT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE for ourselves and our children by voting YES on 8!
Okay, I'm done. Off the soap box.
P.S. Vote early!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
A Call to African Americans: Vote Yes on Proposition 8!
Today I found this clip on African American voters in California who support Obama but oppose same-sex marriage. What fascinates me about this video clip is the argument of Alice Huffman, President of the California NAACP. Alice supports same-sex marriage and compares the struggle of gay marriage activists to black activists during the civil rights movement.
(The comparison of African Americans to Americans living a homosexual lifestyle is a very common comparison used to promote the legalization of same-sex marriage. I believe this comparison is inaccurate... but that's another blog for another day.)
Back to Alice. After comparing racial segregation to Proposition 8, Alice goes on to make a very telling statement. Please watch the clip and listen closely to what Alice says. (Sorry about the commercial.)
(The comparison of African Americans to Americans living a homosexual lifestyle is a very common comparison used to promote the legalization of same-sex marriage. I believe this comparison is inaccurate... but that's another blog for another day.)
Back to Alice. After comparing racial segregation to Proposition 8, Alice goes on to make a very telling statement. Please watch the clip and listen closely to what Alice says. (Sorry about the commercial.)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Are Christians Homophobic?
From The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality October 13, 2008
New Research Study Debunks Claim Christians are Homophobic
It would appear to be true that Christians love the sinner and hate the sin according to the results of a study published in the latest issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The researchers from the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at Baylor University found that people who scored high in religiousness do distinguish between same sex attraction and same sex behavior in their responses to others.
The study had 100 female participants who were scored for interest in religion. The participants were led to believe that they were working with another participant as a two person team. The participants received hand written notes from their ostensible team partners with personal disclosures. Half the notes disclosed that the writer was gay, the other notes did not disclose sexual orientation. Half the notes disclosed that the writer was engaging in sexually promiscuous behavior outside of marriage. This created four cases: gay sexually active team member, gay celibate team member, heterosexual sexually active team member and heterosexual celibate team member. The participants were then given two minutes to perform tasks that could benefit the team member or a third student.
In general the participants helped the team member more than the unknown student. Participants did not help a gay team mate less than a heterosexual. The promiscuous were helped less than the celibate. The participants did not differentiate between a gay and a straight promiscuous team mate. Participants who scored high on religiousness helped the promiscuous person less.
The researchers concluded that the participants were able to distinguish between out group status (having same sex attractions) and value violation behavior (promiscuity). Ironically it would appear that it is previous researchers who failed to distinguish between out group status and value violation in previous studies that concluded that subjects who scored hign in religiousness were prejudiced in their behavior toward gays. The previous studies failed to provide the straight promiscuous category for comparison.
Here is the abstract:
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Volume 47 Issue 3, Pages 379 - 392 Published Online: 28 Aug 2008
© 2008 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Separating the "Sinner" from the "Sin": Religious Orientation and Prejudiced Behavior Toward Sexual Orientation and Promiscuous Sex HEATHER K. MAK, JO-ANN TSANG
Heather K. Mak was an undergraduate majoring in psychology at Baylor University. E-mail: makhk@umdnj.edu
Jo-Ann Tsang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jo-Ann Tsang, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, One Bear Place 97334, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7334. E-mail: JoAnn_Tsang@Baylor.edu Copyright © 2008 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
ABSTRACT
This study extends research on the relationship between religious orientation, sexual prejudice, and antipathy toward value-violating behaviors. If intrinsic religion leads individuals to "love the sinner but hate the sin," homosexual sexually promiscuous targets should be treated similarly to heterosexual promiscuous targets. One hundred female introductory psychology students were provided the opportunity to help two students. They had no information about the first student. The second student disclosed through a note that she was gay or said nothing about sexual orientation, and further stated that she was sexually promiscuous or celibate. Participants scoring high in intrinsic religiousness helped the disclosing student less when she revealed she was sexually promiscuous, but did not help a gay discloser less than a straight discloser. High intrinsic scores seemed to be related to antipathy toward the value-violation, but not toward the gay person as an individual.
Support NARTH and our fight to defend the right of clients to receive therapeutic help with their unwanted homosexuality and the right of professionals to provide that assistance. www.narth.com
New Research Study Debunks Claim Christians are Homophobic
It would appear to be true that Christians love the sinner and hate the sin according to the results of a study published in the latest issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The researchers from the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at Baylor University found that people who scored high in religiousness do distinguish between same sex attraction and same sex behavior in their responses to others.
The study had 100 female participants who were scored for interest in religion. The participants were led to believe that they were working with another participant as a two person team. The participants received hand written notes from their ostensible team partners with personal disclosures. Half the notes disclosed that the writer was gay, the other notes did not disclose sexual orientation. Half the notes disclosed that the writer was engaging in sexually promiscuous behavior outside of marriage. This created four cases: gay sexually active team member, gay celibate team member, heterosexual sexually active team member and heterosexual celibate team member. The participants were then given two minutes to perform tasks that could benefit the team member or a third student.
In general the participants helped the team member more than the unknown student. Participants did not help a gay team mate less than a heterosexual. The promiscuous were helped less than the celibate. The participants did not differentiate between a gay and a straight promiscuous team mate. Participants who scored high on religiousness helped the promiscuous person less.
The researchers concluded that the participants were able to distinguish between out group status (having same sex attractions) and value violation behavior (promiscuity). Ironically it would appear that it is previous researchers who failed to distinguish between out group status and value violation in previous studies that concluded that subjects who scored hign in religiousness were prejudiced in their behavior toward gays. The previous studies failed to provide the straight promiscuous category for comparison.
Here is the abstract:
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Volume 47 Issue 3, Pages 379 - 392 Published Online: 28 Aug 2008
© 2008 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Separating the "Sinner" from the "Sin": Religious Orientation and Prejudiced Behavior Toward Sexual Orientation and Promiscuous Sex HEATHER K. MAK, JO-ANN TSANG
Heather K. Mak was an undergraduate majoring in psychology at Baylor University. E-mail: makhk@umdnj.edu
Jo-Ann Tsang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jo-Ann Tsang, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, One Bear Place 97334, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7334. E-mail: JoAnn_Tsang@Baylor.edu Copyright © 2008 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
ABSTRACT
This study extends research on the relationship between religious orientation, sexual prejudice, and antipathy toward value-violating behaviors. If intrinsic religion leads individuals to "love the sinner but hate the sin," homosexual sexually promiscuous targets should be treated similarly to heterosexual promiscuous targets. One hundred female introductory psychology students were provided the opportunity to help two students. They had no information about the first student. The second student disclosed through a note that she was gay or said nothing about sexual orientation, and further stated that she was sexually promiscuous or celibate. Participants scoring high in intrinsic religiousness helped the disclosing student less when she revealed she was sexually promiscuous, but did not help a gay discloser less than a straight discloser. High intrinsic scores seemed to be related to antipathy toward the value-violation, but not toward the gay person as an individual.
Support NARTH and our fight to defend the right of clients to receive therapeutic help with their unwanted homosexuality and the right of professionals to provide that assistance. www.narth.com
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Proposition 8: Legal Ramifications
Here you go, Marissa!
Here are some examples of the legal ramifications possible if Proposition 8 is NOT passed. These are just a smattering of what I have read. These examples are true stories which illustrate how the government is already interfering with our rights of free speech and religious freedom. Please note that, in these examples, churches, schools, and individuals are not violating hate speech laws or even insulting those who choose homosexual relations. These incidents involve people who are simply expressing their opinions about a behavior. Stories like these show how even disagreeing with the ACT of homosexuality could cost you a fortune or put you in jail.
From “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
“Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.” www.npr.org
In other words, adoption agencies who believe children should be raised by both a mother and a father will have to change their policies or close their doors; religious or other private schools that do not allow same-sex couples will loose funding, or close their doors; and anyone who disagrees with homosexuality could lose their employment or be sued.
And then of course there are the changes you’ve probably already heard:
"Because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners." www.protectmarriage.com
"By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” (Polygamy being the most likely.) www.protectmarriage.com www.weeklystandard.com
Even if you don't believe gay marriage is wrong, do you really want your tax dollars going to frivolous law suits against individuals just trying to practice their religion? Each of the religions supporting Proposition 8 have made it clear to their congregations that their involvement on this issue, "neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people." www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom
Though gay marriage advocates will tell you same-sex marriage won't affect you, it inevitably will. Even if it doesn't affect you personally, there are people you know who will suffer (like me) if this proposition is not passed. A yes on 8 does not take anything away from those who wish to practice homosexuality, but a no on 8 will negative consequences on traditional marriages, children, and our freedoms.
Yes on 8!
Furthermore, if you don't live in California, and think this Proposition doesn’t affect you, think again. Lynn Wardle, Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law explains, "It is the open strategy of same-sex marriage advocates to use federal law to force all states to recognize same-sex marriage if any state legalizes same-sex marriage and to impose same-sex marriage upon federal programs," He said, "It is a very serious matter to propose to use federal authority to force unwilling states to recognize same-sex marriage. This presents a threat to the authority of each state to regulate family relations." www.magazine.byu.edu
Thanks for reading!
Here are some examples of the legal ramifications possible if Proposition 8 is NOT passed. These are just a smattering of what I have read. These examples are true stories which illustrate how the government is already interfering with our rights of free speech and religious freedom. Please note that, in these examples, churches, schools, and individuals are not violating hate speech laws or even insulting those who choose homosexual relations. These incidents involve people who are simply expressing their opinions about a behavior. Stories like these show how even disagreeing with the ACT of homosexuality could cost you a fortune or put you in jail.
From “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
“Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.” www.npr.org
In other words, adoption agencies who believe children should be raised by both a mother and a father will have to change their policies or close their doors; religious or other private schools that do not allow same-sex couples will loose funding, or close their doors; and anyone who disagrees with homosexuality could lose their employment or be sued.
And then of course there are the changes you’ve probably already heard:
"Because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners." www.protectmarriage.com
"By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” (Polygamy being the most likely.) www.protectmarriage.com www.weeklystandard.com
Even if you don't believe gay marriage is wrong, do you really want your tax dollars going to frivolous law suits against individuals just trying to practice their religion? Each of the religions supporting Proposition 8 have made it clear to their congregations that their involvement on this issue, "neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people." www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom
Though gay marriage advocates will tell you same-sex marriage won't affect you, it inevitably will. Even if it doesn't affect you personally, there are people you know who will suffer (like me) if this proposition is not passed. A yes on 8 does not take anything away from those who wish to practice homosexuality, but a no on 8 will negative consequences on traditional marriages, children, and our freedoms.
Yes on 8!
Furthermore, if you don't live in California, and think this Proposition doesn’t affect you, think again. Lynn Wardle, Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law explains, "It is the open strategy of same-sex marriage advocates to use federal law to force all states to recognize same-sex marriage if any state legalizes same-sex marriage and to impose same-sex marriage upon federal programs," He said, "It is a very serious matter to propose to use federal authority to force unwilling states to recognize same-sex marriage. This presents a threat to the authority of each state to regulate family relations." www.magazine.byu.edu
Thanks for reading!
If You Still Haven't Read This...
Okay, I know, I know... You're getting sick of reading about Proposition 8.
But if you still haven't read this, here is an excerpt from an interview with LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks, who explains why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes same-sex marriage:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?
ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?
ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.
Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.
Read the full interview at www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom
But if you still haven't read this, here is an excerpt from an interview with LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks, who explains why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes same-sex marriage:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?
ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?
ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.
Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.
Read the full interview at www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Proposition 8: A Brief Overview
Introduction
Proposition 8 is one of the most widely publicized ballot initiatives in California history, and rightfully so; the proposition deals with the re-definition of society’s longest standing institution, the institution of marriage.
If you don’t live in California, you may not be familiar with the history of Proposition 8, the California Protect Marriage Amendment. This amendment is part of a conservative grassroots movement in California dedicated to protecting traditional marriage. The fight for traditional marriage in California actually began in the year 2000, when 61% of Californians voted that proposition 22, a statutory measure designed to protect traditional marriage, be added to California law. Proposition 22 lasted only eight years before activist judges on the California Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Proposition 22. On May 15, 2008, in a narrow 4 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court of California ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional. The court struck down the Prop 22 initiative, stating that the proposition somehow violated the “constitutional rights” of same-sex couples.
The people of California, outraged that activist judges had wrongfully over turned their vote, created an amendment to the California Constitution which would over ride the court‘s decision. Proposition 8, The California Marriage Protection Act, was created to restore the definition of marriage. Proposition 8, if passed, will over rule the Supreme Court and, "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Twenty-seven states in the US have already added constitutional amendments similar to Proposition 8. (1)
Three Simple Effects
From its inception, Proposition 8 has claimed it will have three simple effects:
1. It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
2. It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
3. It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs. (2)
The above-stated effects are simple and straight-forward. Proposition 8 supporters have joined forces with churches, spreading information about the amendment and urging both conservative and liberals alike to preserve the definition of marriage as between, “one man and one woman.“
Supporters of 8 have stated: “Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.“ (3)
Though Proposition 8 supporters have repeatedly clarified their stance, gay rights advocates have taken offense to this simple amendment. The amendment has received heavy criticism and negative publicity by gay rights activists in California and across the country.
“Civil Rights” and “Discrimination”
Same-sex couples and others in California are fighting an intense war of words to defeat Proposition 8. Gay advocates claim that marriage is their constitutional civil right. Though same-sex couples in California have legal protection similar to marriage in the form of domestic partnership laws (which guarantee hospitalization, medical care, fair housing, employment rights, and other probate rights,) they are not satisfied with these partnerships. They claim they must have marriage rights to receive full protection under the law. They claim that disallowing gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional.
“This amendment is all about equality“, one gay marriage advocate stated, “and the right to marry should be given to everyone, gay or straight.” Many gay marriage advocates claim that, “even if domestic partnerships were fully equivalent to marriage, separate but equal simply isn't the American way.” Same sex marriage proponents are asking, “Why does there have to be a separate civil institution for gay relationships when there already exists a perfectly good civil institution to which we currently have access?” (4)
Furthermore, gay marriage advocates have compared their fight against Proposition 8 to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Proposition 8 has been likened to the Jim Crow laws of 1876. Many of these advocates site the constitution which states, “all men are created equal” and, “all are to receive equal treatment under the law,” arguing a ban on same-sex marriage is as discriminatory as racism. One gay advocate compared himself to Martin Luther King and cited King saying, “I may not get to the mountaintop myself… but we WILL get to that promised land.” (5)
This guilt tactic, calling supporters of traditional marriage “discriminatory,” has proven very affective in the fight against Proposition 8. Advocates of same-sex marriage have convinced many in California that a “yes” vote on Proposition 8 is synonymous with the terms, “hateful,“ “ignorant,” and “close-minded.” (6)Same-sex marriage advocates are campaigning this proposition as “discriminatory” in order to win the vote of otherwise conservative Californians. Attorney General Jerry Brown has even changed the name of the amendment on the ballot from “The California Marriage Protection Amendment” to “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act.” (8)
The Truth Behind the Accusations
While calling traditional marriage advocates “discriminatory” may be an effective tactic, it is simply not true. Many supporters of traditional marriage believe homosexual behavior is wrong, however the expression of a belief or opinion is not synonymous with discrimination.
Lynn Wardle, Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law and member of the American Law Institute responded to the claims of same-sex marriage advocates who have called Proposition 8 “discriminatory.” Wardle explained that such arguments show a misuse of the term “discrimination.” He said, "By discrimination they (gay rights activists) mean discrimination in violation of public policy” He explains that the belief homosexual behavior is immoral does not discriminate in an illegal way or violate any civil rights. Furthermore, he states that currently, “there is no civil right to same-sex marriage," he says. "Discrimination on the basis of gender or on the basis of race is quite different from discrimination on the basis of sexual practices." (9)
To the proponents of gay rights who have compared themselves to blacks, Wardle explains their analogy is inexact. "Race is an immutable condition,” he says. “Homosexual acts involve behavior and choice. The most aggressive studies of homosexuality,” Wardle says, “have provided only thin evidence showing at most a predisposition for homosexual behavior, and environment has been shown to have a much larger effect than biology.” Furthermore, Wardle quoted Gen. Colin Powell who said, "Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." (10)
“The question,” Wardle says, “is whether there is a civil right to engage in homosexual activities and whether there is a right to have those activities given the status of marriage.” (11) That question will be answered on election day when Californians decide to either a. uphold the traditional definition of marriage, defined as “one man and one woman” or b. abandon the current definition of marriage; redefining the term to make same-sex marriage a civil right.
Advocates for traditional marriage, including religious organizations have the right to speak up on this issue without fear of discrimination litigation. The Alliance Defense Fund, a defender of Christian legal issues, states, “Churches and pastors must not allow the tactics of intimidation and intolerance to succeed in silencing their voices on the critical issues of our day.” (12)
Please see these links for more information:
1. US News: Decision on Gay Marriage Has Wide Impact
2. www.protectmarriage.com
3. www.protectmarriage.com
4. Conversation with Tom Bestor - See Comments
5. Conversation with Tom Bestor - See Comments
6. Conversation with Frank
8. www.ballotpedia.org
9. BYU Magazine: LAW PROFESSOR DEFENDS MARRIAGE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BATTLE
10.BYU Magazine: LAW PROFESSOR DEFENDS MARRIAGE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BATTLE
11. BYU Magazine: LAW PROFESSOR DEFENDS MARRIAGE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BATTLE
12. Alliance Defense Fund
Proposition 8 is one of the most widely publicized ballot initiatives in California history, and rightfully so; the proposition deals with the re-definition of society’s longest standing institution, the institution of marriage.
If you don’t live in California, you may not be familiar with the history of Proposition 8, the California Protect Marriage Amendment. This amendment is part of a conservative grassroots movement in California dedicated to protecting traditional marriage. The fight for traditional marriage in California actually began in the year 2000, when 61% of Californians voted that proposition 22, a statutory measure designed to protect traditional marriage, be added to California law. Proposition 22 lasted only eight years before activist judges on the California Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Proposition 22. On May 15, 2008, in a narrow 4 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court of California ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional. The court struck down the Prop 22 initiative, stating that the proposition somehow violated the “constitutional rights” of same-sex couples.
The people of California, outraged that activist judges had wrongfully over turned their vote, created an amendment to the California Constitution which would over ride the court‘s decision. Proposition 8, The California Marriage Protection Act, was created to restore the definition of marriage. Proposition 8, if passed, will over rule the Supreme Court and, "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Twenty-seven states in the US have already added constitutional amendments similar to Proposition 8. (1)
Three Simple Effects
From its inception, Proposition 8 has claimed it will have three simple effects:
1. It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
2. It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
3. It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs. (2)
The above-stated effects are simple and straight-forward. Proposition 8 supporters have joined forces with churches, spreading information about the amendment and urging both conservative and liberals alike to preserve the definition of marriage as between, “one man and one woman.“
Supporters of 8 have stated: “Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.“ (3)
Though Proposition 8 supporters have repeatedly clarified their stance, gay rights advocates have taken offense to this simple amendment. The amendment has received heavy criticism and negative publicity by gay rights activists in California and across the country.
“Civil Rights” and “Discrimination”
Same-sex couples and others in California are fighting an intense war of words to defeat Proposition 8. Gay advocates claim that marriage is their constitutional civil right. Though same-sex couples in California have legal protection similar to marriage in the form of domestic partnership laws (which guarantee hospitalization, medical care, fair housing, employment rights, and other probate rights,) they are not satisfied with these partnerships. They claim they must have marriage rights to receive full protection under the law. They claim that disallowing gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional.
“This amendment is all about equality“, one gay marriage advocate stated, “and the right to marry should be given to everyone, gay or straight.” Many gay marriage advocates claim that, “even if domestic partnerships were fully equivalent to marriage, separate but equal simply isn't the American way.” Same sex marriage proponents are asking, “Why does there have to be a separate civil institution for gay relationships when there already exists a perfectly good civil institution to which we currently have access?” (4)
Furthermore, gay marriage advocates have compared their fight against Proposition 8 to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Proposition 8 has been likened to the Jim Crow laws of 1876. Many of these advocates site the constitution which states, “all men are created equal” and, “all are to receive equal treatment under the law,” arguing a ban on same-sex marriage is as discriminatory as racism. One gay advocate compared himself to Martin Luther King and cited King saying, “I may not get to the mountaintop myself… but we WILL get to that promised land.” (5)
This guilt tactic, calling supporters of traditional marriage “discriminatory,” has proven very affective in the fight against Proposition 8. Advocates of same-sex marriage have convinced many in California that a “yes” vote on Proposition 8 is synonymous with the terms, “hateful,“ “ignorant,” and “close-minded.” (6)Same-sex marriage advocates are campaigning this proposition as “discriminatory” in order to win the vote of otherwise conservative Californians. Attorney General Jerry Brown has even changed the name of the amendment on the ballot from “The California Marriage Protection Amendment” to “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act.” (8)
The Truth Behind the Accusations
While calling traditional marriage advocates “discriminatory” may be an effective tactic, it is simply not true. Many supporters of traditional marriage believe homosexual behavior is wrong, however the expression of a belief or opinion is not synonymous with discrimination.
Lynn Wardle, Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law and member of the American Law Institute responded to the claims of same-sex marriage advocates who have called Proposition 8 “discriminatory.” Wardle explained that such arguments show a misuse of the term “discrimination.” He said, "By discrimination they (gay rights activists) mean discrimination in violation of public policy” He explains that the belief homosexual behavior is immoral does not discriminate in an illegal way or violate any civil rights. Furthermore, he states that currently, “there is no civil right to same-sex marriage," he says. "Discrimination on the basis of gender or on the basis of race is quite different from discrimination on the basis of sexual practices." (9)
To the proponents of gay rights who have compared themselves to blacks, Wardle explains their analogy is inexact. "Race is an immutable condition,” he says. “Homosexual acts involve behavior and choice. The most aggressive studies of homosexuality,” Wardle says, “have provided only thin evidence showing at most a predisposition for homosexual behavior, and environment has been shown to have a much larger effect than biology.” Furthermore, Wardle quoted Gen. Colin Powell who said, "Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." (10)
“The question,” Wardle says, “is whether there is a civil right to engage in homosexual activities and whether there is a right to have those activities given the status of marriage.” (11) That question will be answered on election day when Californians decide to either a. uphold the traditional definition of marriage, defined as “one man and one woman” or b. abandon the current definition of marriage; redefining the term to make same-sex marriage a civil right.
Advocates for traditional marriage, including religious organizations have the right to speak up on this issue without fear of discrimination litigation. The Alliance Defense Fund, a defender of Christian legal issues, states, “Churches and pastors must not allow the tactics of intimidation and intolerance to succeed in silencing their voices on the critical issues of our day.” (12)
Please see these links for more information:
1. US News: Decision on Gay Marriage Has Wide Impact
2. www.protectmarriage.com
3. www.protectmarriage.com
4. Conversation with Tom Bestor - See Comments
5. Conversation with Tom Bestor - See Comments
6. Conversation with Frank
8. www.ballotpedia.org
9. BYU Magazine: LAW PROFESSOR DEFENDS MARRIAGE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BATTLE
10.BYU Magazine: LAW PROFESSOR DEFENDS MARRIAGE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BATTLE
11. BYU Magazine: LAW PROFESSOR DEFENDS MARRIAGE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BATTLE
12. Alliance Defense Fund
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
More Great Articles on Latter-day Saints and Proposition 8
If you've read my conversation with my friend Tom, and still have questions about the LDS Church's involvement with Proposition 8, here are some great articles which explain more on the subject.
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
(Explains the LDS Church's beliefs on marriage and family.)
The Divine Institution of Marriage
(Explains why the LDS Church is involved in Proposition 8.)
Same-Gender Attraction
(An Interview which explains our beliefs on same-gender attraction.)
Letter from the First Presidency
(The First Presidency's official letter to leaders and church members.)
Other articles not published by the LDS Church:
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
More information about Proposition 8 can be found at www.protectmarriage.com
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
(Explains the LDS Church's beliefs on marriage and family.)
The Divine Institution of Marriage
(Explains why the LDS Church is involved in Proposition 8.)
Same-Gender Attraction
(An Interview which explains our beliefs on same-gender attraction.)
Letter from the First Presidency
(The First Presidency's official letter to leaders and church members.)
Other articles not published by the LDS Church:
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
More information about Proposition 8 can be found at www.protectmarriage.com
Friday, October 3, 2008
Proposition 8: An LDS Church Member's View
Dear Readers,
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog. I appreciate your comments; I love hearing your opinions on the issues of my most recent posts regarding the upcoming presidential election, the “Bailout“ or “Rescue Bill“, and Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Protection Amendment.)
I recently received a comment from a reader, Frank, who made a very interesting point on the post, “Why Vote Yes on Proposition 8?”
Frank writes: “The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. Courts have the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws. The precedent for this right predates the establishment of the state of California and, even, the founding of your hateful little cult.”
I would like to take a moment to address Frank’s interesting comment.
First, Frank is absolutely correct on his first point; the California Supreme Court did rule, in a narrow 4 to 3 vote, that Proposition 22 (a statutory measure designed to protect traditional marriage) was unconstitutional.
As we all know, the Supreme Courts of the United States have the right to judicial review, as decided in the early history of the United States in the case of Marbury vs. Madison.
The California Supreme Court reviewed the legislation of Proposition 22 on Thursday, May 15 of this year, and ruled it unconstitutional.
As Frank pointed out, the courts do have, “the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws.” Furthermore, “the precedent for this right predates the establishment of the state of California” (Marbury vs. Madison was decided in 1803; California was admitted to the United States on September 9, 1850.)
However, the fact that this right to Judicial Review was established before the admission of California into the United States is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of California does have the right to rule Proposition 22 unconstitutional, but the people of California have the right to add an amendment to the constitution and over rule the Court‘s decision. The California Marriage Protection Amendment, if passed, will overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling and "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Twenty-seven states in the US have already added constitutional amendments which are very similar to Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 is not a measure created to discriminate against homosexuals. It is an amendment to protect traditional marriages, families, and society. Gay marriage activists have called those who support Proposition 8 discriminatory. They have used bullying tactics to promote their agenda. They have even changed the wording of the amendment (from "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry“) in order to make Proposition 8 less appealing to voters. However, I believe the people of California will use their good judgment, protecting traditional marriages and families by voting yes on Proposition 8.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is involved in this issue simply to support traditional marriage, family, and freedom of religion. We are not a “hateful” religion. The LDS church does not support or condone discriminatory actions against homosexuals. In fact, in a recent statement by the church, they reinforced, “the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long history of kindness, charity, and service in communities worldwide. Every year, over 70,000 members of our church volunteer at their own expense to serve for 18 to 24 months in humanitarian efforts, Church service assignments, and full-time missionary service throughout the world. Our “little cult” of over 13 million members in 176 countries and territories (one of the fastest growing Christian faiths in America) is dedicated to serving God, preserving the traditional family, and serving our fellow men.
Hopefully, Frank, your opinion of the LDS church will change as you come in contact with our members. As a church we are fighting to pass this measure in order to protect our marriages, families, and religion; however, I hope you understand that we respect and love all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog. I appreciate your comments; I love hearing your opinions on the issues of my most recent posts regarding the upcoming presidential election, the “Bailout“ or “Rescue Bill“, and Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Protection Amendment.)
I recently received a comment from a reader, Frank, who made a very interesting point on the post, “Why Vote Yes on Proposition 8?”
Frank writes: “The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. Courts have the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws. The precedent for this right predates the establishment of the state of California and, even, the founding of your hateful little cult.”
I would like to take a moment to address Frank’s interesting comment.
First, Frank is absolutely correct on his first point; the California Supreme Court did rule, in a narrow 4 to 3 vote, that Proposition 22 (a statutory measure designed to protect traditional marriage) was unconstitutional.
As we all know, the Supreme Courts of the United States have the right to judicial review, as decided in the early history of the United States in the case of Marbury vs. Madison.
The California Supreme Court reviewed the legislation of Proposition 22 on Thursday, May 15 of this year, and ruled it unconstitutional.
As Frank pointed out, the courts do have, “the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws.” Furthermore, “the precedent for this right predates the establishment of the state of California” (Marbury vs. Madison was decided in 1803; California was admitted to the United States on September 9, 1850.)
However, the fact that this right to Judicial Review was established before the admission of California into the United States is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of California does have the right to rule Proposition 22 unconstitutional, but the people of California have the right to add an amendment to the constitution and over rule the Court‘s decision. The California Marriage Protection Amendment, if passed, will overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling and "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Twenty-seven states in the US have already added constitutional amendments which are very similar to Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 is not a measure created to discriminate against homosexuals. It is an amendment to protect traditional marriages, families, and society. Gay marriage activists have called those who support Proposition 8 discriminatory. They have used bullying tactics to promote their agenda. They have even changed the wording of the amendment (from "amend the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry“) in order to make Proposition 8 less appealing to voters. However, I believe the people of California will use their good judgment, protecting traditional marriages and families by voting yes on Proposition 8.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is involved in this issue simply to support traditional marriage, family, and freedom of religion. We are not a “hateful” religion. The LDS church does not support or condone discriminatory actions against homosexuals. In fact, in a recent statement by the church, they reinforced, “the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long history of kindness, charity, and service in communities worldwide. Every year, over 70,000 members of our church volunteer at their own expense to serve for 18 to 24 months in humanitarian efforts, Church service assignments, and full-time missionary service throughout the world. Our “little cult” of over 13 million members in 176 countries and territories (one of the fastest growing Christian faiths in America) is dedicated to serving God, preserving the traditional family, and serving our fellow men.
Hopefully, Frank, your opinion of the LDS church will change as you come in contact with our members. As a church we are fighting to pass this measure in order to protect our marriages, families, and religion; however, I hope you understand that we respect and love all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Why Vote Yes on Proposition 8?
Here is some basic information on Proposition 8, taken from www.ProtectMarriage.com
Questions & Answers About Proposition 8
What is Proposition 8?
Proposition 8 is a simple and straightforward voter initiative. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
What does a YES vote on Proposition 8 mean?
Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
What does a NO vote on Proposition 8 mean?
If Proposition 8 is defeated, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed and its powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost. The defeat of Prop. 8 would result in the very meaning of marriage being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between adults. No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration. We will no longer celebrate marriage as a union of husband and wife, but rather a relationship between ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B.’ The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time. It promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and father in a family held together by the legal, communal and spiritual bonds of marriage. And while divorce and death too frequently disrupt the ideal, as a society we should put the best interests of children first, and that is traditional marriage. Voting No on Proposition 8 would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society.
Will Proposition 8 take away any rights for gay and lesbian domestic partners?
No. Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.
If Proposition 8 passes, what will happen to the same-sex marriages that have already taken place?
Under Proposition 8, the validity and recognition of all marriage in California would be limited to a man and a woman, including past and future marriages, as well as marriages from other states or countries. The rights and obligations of same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses before Proposition 8 passes will be up to the Courts to decide.
If Proposition 8 does not pass, will my children be forced to learn about gay marriage at school?
Yes. In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. (Education Code §51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
Why is Proposition 8 needed? Didn’t we already vote on this issue?
In 2000, over 61% of Californians voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman (Proposition 22). However, because this language wasn’t put into the California Constitution, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote in a closely divided 4-3 decision. Proposition 8 reverses the court’s decision by restoring the definition of marriage as a man and a woman in the state Constitution.
Could the California Supreme Court overturn the people’s vote again and declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional?
No. By amending the state Constitution directly, the court cannot declare Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, as it did with Proposition 22. Proposition 22 added a regular statute to the California Family Code. Regular statutes are a “lower” law than the state Constitution. By adding the language of Proposition 8 to the state Constitution, which is the highest source of law in the state, the California courts would be required to uphold traditional marriage.
Who supports this initiative?
A wide range of national, state and local pro-family organizations, churches and individuals have formed a broad-based coalition to support Proposition 8. To date, the coalition represents over one million people in California. To view a list of supporters, visit www.ProtectMarriage.com.
What will happen to the domestic partnership laws if Proposition 8 is enacted?
Nothing. All laws on the books regarding domestic partnerships will remain intact. Gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships will continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy. Proposition 8 does not affect those rights and benefits.
Where can I find more information about Proposition 8 or get involved in the campaign?
You can visit the Proposition 8 Web site at www.ProtectMarriage.com or call (916) 446-2956. There are a number of ways to get involved with the campaign, including volunteering, donating and helping to spread the word about the importance of voting YES on Proposition 8.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8!
www.ProtectMarriage.com
Questions & Answers About Proposition 8
What is Proposition 8?
Proposition 8 is a simple and straightforward voter initiative. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
What does a YES vote on Proposition 8 mean?
Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
What does a NO vote on Proposition 8 mean?
If Proposition 8 is defeated, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed and its powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost. The defeat of Prop. 8 would result in the very meaning of marriage being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between adults. No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration. We will no longer celebrate marriage as a union of husband and wife, but rather a relationship between ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B.’ The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time. It promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and father in a family held together by the legal, communal and spiritual bonds of marriage. And while divorce and death too frequently disrupt the ideal, as a society we should put the best interests of children first, and that is traditional marriage. Voting No on Proposition 8 would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society.
Will Proposition 8 take away any rights for gay and lesbian domestic partners?
No. Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gays or lesbians in domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.
If Proposition 8 passes, what will happen to the same-sex marriages that have already taken place?
Under Proposition 8, the validity and recognition of all marriage in California would be limited to a man and a woman, including past and future marriages, as well as marriages from other states or countries. The rights and obligations of same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses before Proposition 8 passes will be up to the Courts to decide.
If Proposition 8 does not pass, will my children be forced to learn about gay marriage at school?
Yes. In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. (Education Code §51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
Why is Proposition 8 needed? Didn’t we already vote on this issue?
In 2000, over 61% of Californians voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman (Proposition 22). However, because this language wasn’t put into the California Constitution, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote in a closely divided 4-3 decision. Proposition 8 reverses the court’s decision by restoring the definition of marriage as a man and a woman in the state Constitution.
Could the California Supreme Court overturn the people’s vote again and declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional?
No. By amending the state Constitution directly, the court cannot declare Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, as it did with Proposition 22. Proposition 22 added a regular statute to the California Family Code. Regular statutes are a “lower” law than the state Constitution. By adding the language of Proposition 8 to the state Constitution, which is the highest source of law in the state, the California courts would be required to uphold traditional marriage.
Who supports this initiative?
A wide range of national, state and local pro-family organizations, churches and individuals have formed a broad-based coalition to support Proposition 8. To date, the coalition represents over one million people in California. To view a list of supporters, visit www.ProtectMarriage.com.
What will happen to the domestic partnership laws if Proposition 8 is enacted?
Nothing. All laws on the books regarding domestic partnerships will remain intact. Gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships will continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy. Proposition 8 does not affect those rights and benefits.
Where can I find more information about Proposition 8 or get involved in the campaign?
You can visit the Proposition 8 Web site at www.ProtectMarriage.com or call (916) 446-2956. There are a number of ways to get involved with the campaign, including volunteering, donating and helping to spread the word about the importance of voting YES on Proposition 8.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8!
www.ProtectMarriage.com
Just Say, "NO Bailout!"
Last night the Senate approved a "new and improved" bailout bill that will save our economy from it's "inevitable Apocalypse". Today the Senate is urging the House to pass the new bill.
This morning, President Bush issued a statement applauding the Senate's actions. "With the improvements the Senate has made, I believe members of both parties in the House can support this legislation," Bush said. "The American people expect — and our economy demands — that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk."
According to NPR.org, “Lawmakers and the White House are focusing on the economy and what small-business people and ordinary Americans have at stake.”
Yeah right.
Lawmakers and the White House are not listening to the American people. They are not listening to 70% of Americans who are screaming, “NO BAILOUT!” They are not listening to the over 200 economists who recently signed a petition opposing the bill.
Normally I support President Bush but $700 billion to bailout corrupt business? What??? It's at times like these that I try to ask myself, "What would Regan do?"
The people at The Heratige Foundation have asked the same question. Here is their answer, a number of articles explaining how "Reganomics" could solve our current economic "crisis". This morning I read "What Should Be Done About the Financial Markets?" written by Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., Alison Acosta Fraser, and James L. Gattuso.
After reading the article, I couldn't agree with Butler, Fraser and Gattuso more. What would Regan do? Well for one thing, I'm sure he would NOT give our tax money to bad business! When a business is making stupid decisions, there must be some accountability. Businesses with bad practices need to fail so good business can succeed. Our economy will never be great unless there is a return to honesty and accountability in business.
Furthermore, our economy will never be great unless Americans learn to be honest and accountable in their personal finances. The lifestyle of the average American (myself included) is excessive and extravagant and can not be supported by credit much longer.
Yes, recession is inevitable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the market must adjust. It’s basic physics; “What goes up must come down.”
John Cochrane, a University of Chicago professor who organized the economist petition against the bailout bill said that, "Yes, credit is harder to get. If you want a loan, you'll face higher interest rates." However, Cochrane says the economy is, "Sick, but the patient is up and walking around."
Cochrane continues, "We have an unprecedented seizing up for credit markets and, as yet, no depression and no recession." Cochrane pointed out that we still have a pretty steady gross domestic product and though unemployment is up, the figures are no where near the 1 in 4 unemployment rate during the Great Depression. He says the "Apocalypse" the government is predicting will be more like a "typical recession."
Cochrane likened the bailout to, "...a boating outing and some of the boats are sinking. So somebody says, 'I got an idea. Let's blow up the dam and drain the lake.' OK, that will keep all the boats from sinking — not just the three that are in trouble." Basically, Cochrane says the bailout is a "broad fix for a narrow problem."
I say, "Give me a downward spiral, give me recession; I can handle that!" What I can't handle are more taxes and bigger government. If you loathe taxes and big government like I do, please contact your local congressperson NOW and tell them to just say "NO" to the bailout.
Here's the full article, "Bailout Clash: 200 Economists vs. the Senate" by David Destenbaum and another good aricle, " No Rescue? Economists Explore What's Next" written by Joshua Brockman.
This morning, President Bush issued a statement applauding the Senate's actions. "With the improvements the Senate has made, I believe members of both parties in the House can support this legislation," Bush said. "The American people expect — and our economy demands — that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk."
According to NPR.org, “Lawmakers and the White House are focusing on the economy and what small-business people and ordinary Americans have at stake.”
Yeah right.
Lawmakers and the White House are not listening to the American people. They are not listening to 70% of Americans who are screaming, “NO BAILOUT!” They are not listening to the over 200 economists who recently signed a petition opposing the bill.
Normally I support President Bush but $700 billion to bailout corrupt business? What??? It's at times like these that I try to ask myself, "What would Regan do?"
The people at The Heratige Foundation have asked the same question. Here is their answer, a number of articles explaining how "Reganomics" could solve our current economic "crisis". This morning I read "What Should Be Done About the Financial Markets?" written by Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., Alison Acosta Fraser, and James L. Gattuso.
After reading the article, I couldn't agree with Butler, Fraser and Gattuso more. What would Regan do? Well for one thing, I'm sure he would NOT give our tax money to bad business! When a business is making stupid decisions, there must be some accountability. Businesses with bad practices need to fail so good business can succeed. Our economy will never be great unless there is a return to honesty and accountability in business.
Furthermore, our economy will never be great unless Americans learn to be honest and accountable in their personal finances. The lifestyle of the average American (myself included) is excessive and extravagant and can not be supported by credit much longer.
Yes, recession is inevitable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the market must adjust. It’s basic physics; “What goes up must come down.”
John Cochrane, a University of Chicago professor who organized the economist petition against the bailout bill said that, "Yes, credit is harder to get. If you want a loan, you'll face higher interest rates." However, Cochrane says the economy is, "Sick, but the patient is up and walking around."
Cochrane continues, "We have an unprecedented seizing up for credit markets and, as yet, no depression and no recession." Cochrane pointed out that we still have a pretty steady gross domestic product and though unemployment is up, the figures are no where near the 1 in 4 unemployment rate during the Great Depression. He says the "Apocalypse" the government is predicting will be more like a "typical recession."
Cochrane likened the bailout to, "...a boating outing and some of the boats are sinking. So somebody says, 'I got an idea. Let's blow up the dam and drain the lake.' OK, that will keep all the boats from sinking — not just the three that are in trouble." Basically, Cochrane says the bailout is a "broad fix for a narrow problem."
I say, "Give me a downward spiral, give me recession; I can handle that!" What I can't handle are more taxes and bigger government. If you loathe taxes and big government like I do, please contact your local congressperson NOW and tell them to just say "NO" to the bailout.
Here's the full article, "Bailout Clash: 200 Economists vs. the Senate" by David Destenbaum and another good aricle, " No Rescue? Economists Explore What's Next" written by Joshua Brockman.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Save Money on Groceries Today...
Today is a great day to save money on groceries at Albertsons! There are TONS of goodies on sale and lots of "printables" (printable coupons) to match the sale items. If you haven't been collecting your coupon inserts from the Sunday paper (which you should be doing, by the way) you can still take advantage of great prices on groceries by matching the sale items with printable coupons.
You will need to register with Pinching Your Pennies as well as some of the coupon sites to print your coupons. This will take some time but it's well worth it. Just make sure when you register, you click the boxes that say, "I do not want to receive your emails" or your inbox will fill up fast!
You can usually print two to three coupons from each site, so if you want to stock up on an item, use one coupon per item. Read the fine print on each coupon. Most say, "one coupon per purchase" which means, "one coupon per item".
You may NOT photocopy coupons (it is illegal... don't do it!) The website will only allow you to print as many coupons as they want you to have. (They do this by allowing a certain number of coupons to be printed per ip address.)
Here is a link to the Pinching Your Pennies shopping list with sale rankings (shown by the number of stars... five stars = killer deal), the item, the sale price, the applicable coupon links, and the final price shown.
You can view the Utah Albertsons ad online. I would make a shopping list with the quantity of items you plan to buy before you shop. There are some things in the ad that you must by in specific quantities to get the sale price. Read and plan carefully.
The key to shopping a sale with coupons is planning so (as I just said) PLAN YOUR TRIP CAREFULLY! And don't take your kids with you; you'll need to concentrate. I recommend printing, planning, and shopping when you have minimal distractions. Don't worry if you don't have time to do this today, the sale goes until next Tuesday.
Good luck and happy shopping! (And feel free to ask if you have questions... you inevitably will.) For more information on coupons, sales, and saving money, visit the forums at www.pinchingyourpennies.com
You will need to register with Pinching Your Pennies as well as some of the coupon sites to print your coupons. This will take some time but it's well worth it. Just make sure when you register, you click the boxes that say, "I do not want to receive your emails" or your inbox will fill up fast!
You can usually print two to three coupons from each site, so if you want to stock up on an item, use one coupon per item. Read the fine print on each coupon. Most say, "one coupon per purchase" which means, "one coupon per item".
You may NOT photocopy coupons (it is illegal... don't do it!) The website will only allow you to print as many coupons as they want you to have. (They do this by allowing a certain number of coupons to be printed per ip address.)
Here is a link to the Pinching Your Pennies shopping list with sale rankings (shown by the number of stars... five stars = killer deal), the item, the sale price, the applicable coupon links, and the final price shown.
You can view the Utah Albertsons ad online. I would make a shopping list with the quantity of items you plan to buy before you shop. There are some things in the ad that you must by in specific quantities to get the sale price. Read and plan carefully.
The key to shopping a sale with coupons is planning so (as I just said) PLAN YOUR TRIP CAREFULLY! And don't take your kids with you; you'll need to concentrate. I recommend printing, planning, and shopping when you have minimal distractions. Don't worry if you don't have time to do this today, the sale goes until next Tuesday.
Good luck and happy shopping! (And feel free to ask if you have questions... you inevitably will.) For more information on coupons, sales, and saving money, visit the forums at www.pinchingyourpennies.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)