Response to Michaels post

Since my son has decided to forbid me from being around him or his wife and my grandchild. Here is a link to his post:http://www.michaelandjaspenelle.com/archive/2008/11/16/propostion-8-and-hate

This is the reply that I wrote to him, but he will probably not allow it to be posted so I put it here for any who wishes to see.

I am not against gays or have any hatred toward them. I am for children and the childs rights. I am just as against sex outside of marriage, adultry, selfishness within the marriage that causes abuse and the fighting, divorce, and any other thing that takes away from the child the right to have the love of it’s biological parents there for them as much as possible. When 2 men or 2 women are biologically capable of having a child, then I will be for them marrying. Marriage isn’t only about love, many cultures love doesn’t even have to be a part of it. But love can be a part of every marriage when the 2 involved make that choice and then it increases the value of the marriage tremendously. Marriage is not about the two adults needing protection by giving them all those rights. It is about the potential children that could be born into that marriage and protecting those childrens’ rights in the case of death or divorce or selfishness, etc.
So continue to hate me if you will, but my doors will always be open to you and your family. I will continue to respect all people even if I don’t agree with their behaviors. I have nothing against gays receiving many of those rights you listed in other ways as needed for protection in their own particular situation. so do what you have to do, but I will not be blackmailed into giving up my religion or my values.

Spokane Temple picketed

Since those who were in opposition to Proposition 8 in California have decide to also picket the temple in Spokane, I thought I would pass on a few facts.

These were taken from this blog:
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/mormons-stole-our-rights/

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with “civility, respect and love,” despite their differing views.

11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The phrase “separation of church and state”, which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

Purpose and Definition of Marriage

Biologically it takes a man and a woman to create a child. The woman plays the primary role in that creation putting her health, strength, body, and even sometimes her life, on the line before and during the birth of the baby. Then after the baby is born the woman with her body continues to provide the best nourishment for the child for many months. She sacrifices a tremendous amount of time to provide that nourishment. Ideally the man will continue to be involved and provide the support making it possible for the woman to give her time and energy to the child. The child continues to remain very dependent on both parents for many years. Sacrifices must be made by both parents to meet the needs of that child.
While children can be very resilient and survive a lot of neglect physically, neglect by either or both parents does long term emotional damage.
Because the actual physical effort in creating the child is very minimal on the mans part, I'm sure it didn't take very long for the woman to require a commitment before she would consent to taking a chance in creating a child. That commitment is what is known as marriage. Whether the man had one or many wives, that commitment was still between the one man and the one woman. Since for most of the history of the world "productive people equaled power", governments backed up that commitment with laws and even special privileges. Thus we have the basic essence of marriage with its legal privileges.

And now we come to a point in our culture where we try to redefine marriage. Biologically it will not change anything but legally those privileges were meant for a specific purpose. Namely, the protection of the woman and child.
As medical advances and technology have changed our society, that primary purpose for legal marriage has become blurred. Abortion and birth control make it safe for a woman to indulge in what could have created a child without the risk or the need for commitment. Machinery and technology have taken over for and replaced people. Governments no longer need more people to have more power. Therefore governments no longer have that vested interest in the marriage commitment.
Children in our society have lost their value. They seem now only to be an indulgence and for many when they get too hard to care for they are in a sense thrown away.
But even with all those changes, for those who choose to value children, that primary commitment of marriage is vital. With all that the children have against them in our culture, those legal laws and privileges of the marriage commitment are probably even more important.
For the sake of the children, our society cannot afford a redefinition of marriage.