Thursday, October 23, 2008

Prop 8 in plain English

You know, it's funny. I've totally made my peace with whomever wins the Presidential election. I know whom I will likely vote for, but either which way, I can see a positive outcome no matter who takes office.

What has me really riled up is Prop 8. So I'm writing about it again.

The No on 8 campaign has 7 times the amount of contributions that the Yes camp does and I've seen the fruits of that with increasing television and radio spots. The CTA has recently donated another million as have several Hollywood folks. I must admit that the ads are powerful. It makes you think "Well gee whiz. I'm a nice person. I want to be nice to people. I don't want to be a meanie and treat people unfairly."

So what is really at stake with Prop 8?

Will it affect our kids education?

Is it fair to treat people differently under the law?

What are the lasting implications for a society that changes the definition of something so fundamental as marriage?

What about children? Does family structure matter to them? Do we have any obligation to protect a child's right to a mother and father? Or are we males and females just interchangeable cogs? Is love enough? Or have we seen the fruits of a family structure that lacks a gender in the home?

I encourage you to take a few minutes to watch these two well-made videos. If you feel they have something valuable to say, then I hope you will pass the information on to your family and friends.

Prop 8 in Plain English

Marriage Matters to Kids

------------------------------------------
Ok now it's my turn to comment on some of this:

1. For those who think that what happened in Massachusetts won't happen to us, think again. Just this September, Arnold Schwartzeneggar vetoed a bill that passed both the House and Senate that was to declare May 22nd Harvey Milk Day. Harvey Milk was a gay activist who died in San Francisco. "The text of AB 2567 states that 'On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state' should be conducted; specifically, 'all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe ... and conduct suitable commemorative exercises." So the notion that Prop 8 has nothing to do with our school system is a lie because there have already been attempts to introduce celebrational materials into the curriculum. With same-sex marriage being legally interchangeable to opposite sex marriage, there will be fewer legal grounds for resisting such material in the future.

2. If traditional marriage is not restored then I see absolutely no grounds whatsoever for restricting anyone else's notion of what marriage is. That means FLDS polygamists, someone who wants to marry both a man and a woman, cultures who believe girls are ready for marriage at puberty. Honestly if we have no right to define marriage by gender then how dare we as a society claim to define it by number or any other cultural practice?

3. What about children? Is love enough? I think love is a great start. But I maintain that we owe our children even more. We owe them a loving mom and dad whenever possible. When that isn't possible then we owe them a loving single parent, or a loving homosexual couple willing to adopt. But gender does matter in the hearts and minds and children. And gender matters in the biological upbringing of both males and females. I worked at a juvenile detention center for three years and 80% of the inmates came from homes where there was no father. Lots of moms and grandmas. But no dads. It has been clearly shown that girls who grow up in homes lacking a father experiment with sex and boys sooner. Women cannot be the men that our children need. We need men for that and only a man can do the job. The same goes for the impact of a mother in a child's life.

We want to raise the next generation to be as strong as possible. We need to restore traditional marriage and strengthen it.

10 comments:

The Postl's said...

Very well said! Thanks for standing up for what you believe in. - Natalie

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out that those kids with no dads you refer to were not a byproduct of same sex marriage. They were a product of birth parents that may or may not have been married and did not have the tools or inclination to give their children what they needed. I believe children do benefit from gender influences as well as a number of other things. Having a father and a mother does not guarantee that outcome. MOM

Jamie said...

True. However they were the product of a one-sex household. Having both genders in the home doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a better indicator of a positive outcome.

Courtney said...

Jamie,
I completely agree with you on this matter; it is so important for our society, our culture, and our children. I've got a couple more articles that you may like: http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/10/21/opposition_to_california_proposition_8_hate_in_the_name_of_love
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6467358

Take care,
Courtney

Not Prince Hamlet said...

"As of Friday, supporters of Proposition 8 had raised $27.5 million, with about 19% of the money coming from outside California. Opponents have raised $31.2 million, with 34% of the money coming from outside the state."

That's from Saturday's Times. That's not opponents outspending supporters by seven times.

Jamie said...

I've been searching and searching for the email I received about the Prop 8 funding. From what I remember it was reletively equal until CTA threw another large donation into the pot and then several Hollywood mogul types contributed 1 million each. But now that I think about it, perhaps it was related to recent contributions being 7 times greater and not the overall amount??? Hmmmm..... Well thanks for pointing this out!

Not Prince Hamlet said...

My pleasure. I blogged my conclusion about this issue earlier today. I must say, your thinking and writing about this has been clear-minded and fair.

Doreen said...

Allowing homosexuals to get married is something that is already allowed by the law. If we vote yes on 8, we are just taking that right away from them. You mention that if this is allowed, then the FLDs, and other non traditional marriages should be allowed as well. However, the difference between those marriages and the homosexual marriage is that those other marriages are AGAINST the law and not recognized by the law. The homosexual couple are allowed to get married currently under California law.

Jamie said...

In 2000 61% of California voters voted that only marriage between a man and woman be recognized in California. This year 4 California judges in San Francisco decided to overturn the bill. How can 4 people decide what is right for California? Last I checked we were a democracy and that power be in the hands of voters. Polygamy is currently against the law, last year marriage for homosexual couples was against the law. Homosexual couples have the same rights as married couples through domestic partnership laws. However, if this Prop does not pass, the rights of people who do not agree with homosexual marriage will be stripped. All people are forced to accept homosexuality even if they oppose it on moral grounds. Gay couples and activists will have the leverage to file discrimination lawsuits for anyone or any institution that does not recognize them. That means schools (and there have been multiple instances in Massachusetts already) and church-based organizations or simply any individual. My friend's mom is a wedding videographer and the law would compel her to do buisness with homosexual couples even though she believes homosexuality is a sin. How can the state impose such a thing on all people? If Prop 8 passes, homosexual couples STILL have the same rights EXCEPT marriage. Which is what they've had all along. Who already has rights anyways? Whose rights will be truly taken away?

BTW, I do appreciate your thoughts even if we disagree.

Jamie said...

Note: I can only publish comments from people who leave their name. Thanks!