Mormons Building Bridges to Nowhere

The following is my response to the Dec 26, 2012 post on the "Mormons Building Bridges" website, entitled Where Two or Three are Gathered… I include it here because I do not know how long it will be allowed to remain in the comments on that site.

First of all, I would like to address the notion that organizations such as this are about "promoting love, tolerance, and respect." If that were true, and you truly advocated love, tolerance and respect for ALL PEOPLE - including those who disagree with homosexuality - you would refrain from using politically loaded, judgmental terms like "homophobic." This is not in the Spirit of Christ.

The term “homophobia” was coined in 1972 by George Weinberg and has evolved from signifying a rejection of one’s own homoerotic desires to being understood as a means to challenge heterosexuals’ reactions to and beliefs about gay and lesbian persons (Herek, 1994).  While there is no universally agreed upon definition of homophobia, the term now connotes an implicit demand that those who do not fully affirm homosexual behavior and the political goals of gay activists should themselves be the objects of concern and viewed as potentially deviant and morally condemnable. The problem with this usage has been well summarized by O’Donahue and Caselles (2005): “It is most unfortunate when scientists attempt to pass implicit or explicit pejorative evaluations of individuals holding certain open and debatable value positions as part of their science” (p. 82). The shortcomings of the terminology of homophobia have led to it being largely abandoned in academic circles, but its ongoing rhetorical and political effectiveness ensures that accusations of homophobia will continue to be a prime weapon in the cultural debates over the moral, legal, and political status of homosexual behavior. (Source)

Secondly, I would like to share some of my own findings regarding the mother's claim above that homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be genetic. I did a lot of personal research during the Prop 8 debates here in California. This quote, from one of my Prop 8 blog posts, sums up my findings:

Several misconceptions and outright falsehoods are being perpetuated to mold public opinion about homosexuality. These misconceptions and falsehoods are the entire basis for the argument that gay marriage is a civil right.

They are:
A) That 10% of all people are gay. This number was contrived from a study done by Kinsey in the 1940's which has since been proven false by several other studies, and by duplication of the original study with a larger sample group. Proper studies have shown the number to actually be less than 2% worldwide.

B) That people are born gay. No study has ever shown any such thing. A few studies have been presented out of context and said to suggest such findings, but even the authors of the studies, themselves gay, publicly declared that their studies showed no such thing. On the contrary, science has shown that there are specific incidents and experiences in early childhood that can cause an individual to develop same sex attraction. Therapy is available, and recovery is possible, just like for every other mental disorder. One study that is presented out of context is the one in which a certain area of the brain appeared to be different in gay subjects than straight subjects. The study's author stated expressly that this did not prove anything, and other studies have shown that certain behaviors can actually CAUSE such differences in brain development. The gay subjects of the original study had been sexually active for years prior to the study.


In an even earlier blog post, entitled What About Civil Rights? Is This Discrimination?, I included the following:

Is homosexuality "innate and immutable?" 
This question is best answered in the words of Dr. A. Dean Byrd, an expert on homosexuality:
[S]cientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena- themselves gay activists -have in fact arrived at such conclusions.

You can read the entire article, and another by the same author, here:

    The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science

    Born That Way? Facts and Fiction About Homosexuality,

Although a politically popular notion, it is simply untrue to assert that homosexuals are born gay.


The National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality also has a brand new article on the subject, entitled Politics rather than science continues to drive public perceptions concerning homosexuality, which I encourage you to read.

Lastly, I find it interesting that faithful (I assume) Latter-day Saints, like some represented here in these comments, would find it so easy to assume a stance that is in opposition to the Gospel. What I am hearing is "we believed in the Gospel, but then one day one of our family members said they were gay and now we don't believe the Gospel anymore." I realize this is a simplistic representation of a more complex issue, but the complexity only comes from our own unwillingness to accept truth, as outlined in the scriptures, let alone modern leaders. None of this should be new to any of you:

In Moses 1:39, God tells us that "this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

In order to receive eternal life, we must obey all of God's commandments, including the original ("Be fruitful, and multiply," Gen. 1:28).

Genesis 2:24 further defines that commandment by specifying its confines: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

D&C 131:2-3, in discussing the three degrees of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, tells us that "in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it."

D&C 132:4 further explains: "...behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

Damnation means nothing other than to have your eternal progress stopped.

This is not merely a matter of simply allowing gay marriage in temples, for the degree of exaltation they cannot obtain includes the ability to have "an increase," or descendants. If our goal in life is to become like our Heavenly Father, then we must shun anything that will keep that from happening. And, since all that God does is to bring children into existence and attempt to guide them to perfection, we are not becoming like God if we are pursuing goals that do not lead us to this end.

I understand the struggles of people who experience same-sex attraction. It is a difficult road to walk. Clarity of vision, and devotion to truth, however, will make this path straighter and easier to walk and, unlike embracing homosexuality, enable those sufferers to be freed from their suffering and find peace in Christ. And, ultimately, to achieve the preferred end result for ALL of God's children - to become like Him.
Opposition to homosexuality does not mean that people like myself hate gays. On the contrary, we love them, and want the best for them, as we understand it and as the Gospel defines it. There is no excuse for hatred, but neither is there an excuse to accuse others of hatred that does not exist.
The very fact this organization would march in a parade that promotes pride in homosexuality further undermines its claim to be reaching out to "their LGBT brothers and sisters." Pride is a sin, and pride in sinfulness prevents people from repenting.

A Moment of Unity

From all of the recent acts of violence and threats of death being made against Mormons by gays, you might get the impression that they have no sense of humor. Well, let this nugget change your mind:


In New York City, several hundred protesters planned to march later Wednesday on the Mormon Temple on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The church had encouraged its members to support the California ban.

"We're not trying to convey an image of persecution, we're not trying to attack any specific group," said Ryan McNeely, an organizer for the Join the Impact protest movement. "The point we need to be making is that we need to bring everybody together and to respect each other, and that hate breeds hate." [MSNBC]


Will the hilarity never stop?

*wipes tear from eye*

Oh, those gays! For a minute there, I was feeling like the demands to have the Mormon temple burned down was hate speech. Now I realize that you didn't really mean to assault those women at the LA temple, but this is all just your way of bringing us together and showing us respect. Thanks, gays! That really means something!

Recent Events

10-21-08



  • Just received an email from ProtectMarriage. Here is an excerpt:

    "The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.



    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]



    "Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students' formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." [p 3]



    (Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)



    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]



    "In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families." [p 9]



    "Lexington's selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society." [p 13]



    (Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)



    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]



    "This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]



    "First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas'' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students." [pp 22-23]



    (Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)



    These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – 'whether you like it or not.' "



10-16-08



  • Last night we attended a Prop 8 rally in El Dorado Hills, CA. It was attended by maybe 200 people, and the only speaker was a gentleman who is a lobbyist for the Catholic Church. He is officially on hiatus in that regard while he represents the Bishops of CA for Prop 8. His legal background was perfect as he was able to provide us with firm examples of how this whole thing came about, beginning with Prop 22 all the way to now, from a first-person, behind-the-scenes angle. It was excellent. He stressed that we must remain focused about the three most important reasons to support Prop 8. They are: 1) Activist judges illegally overturned a perfectly legal vote of the people in a SOCIAL matter. 2) Gay marriage laws infringe on the rights of parents to educate their children. 3) Restoring traditional marriage, since the reason the state recognized marriage to begin with was because it is a compelling state interest for us to create and raise healthy future citizens! He pointed out that this new gay marriage law forgoes that logic and changes the compelling interest of the state to guaranteeing that individuals can do whatever they want without feeling discriminated against. Huh??? About halfway through, about three people stood while he was talking and started yelling that they were the "opposition" (their own words), and that the girl among them had a 15-yr old friend who had tried to kill himself because his parents told him homosexuality was a sin. They screamed so much that no one could answer or converse with them, but my question was whether they believed that gay marriage laws would suddenly make everything better? God said it was sin when He specified such, very clearly, thousands of years ago. Are we now supposed to all just blink our eyes and suddenly believe that it is okay because the law says it is? I mentioned elsewhere that the gay rights crowd truly believes that the reason they suffer higher rates of depression, suicide, and drug use is because society looks down on them, and therefore everything will be better when they force laws on us to equalize homosexuality in our society. Never mind that decades of science have discovered that homosexuality is caused by early life experiences (such as a distant father, for males, and an overbearing mother or exclusion from traditionally male activities), and that the homosexual attraction is based on the desire for deep male relationships. Successful therapy for those desiring to rid themselves of same-sex attraction includes discovering the experiences that preceded the attraction and then creating meaningful, non-sexual, male relationships. The author of Diary of An Ex-Gay Man discusses how the gay rights crowd points the finger of blame at the heterosexual world, and even points out that gays who live deep within the gay lifestyle, surrounded by their peers who accept them "as they are" and believe that their lifestyle is acceptable, are the ones who suffer the higher rates of depression/suicide/drugs, and that gay men who remain "in the closet" and/or are otherwise not a part of that world DO NOT! I also want to mention that the "opposition" clearly and loudly labeled all of us at the rally as bigots and discriminators. I'm not sure how long they had been there, but they obviously didn't notice that NO mention was made of anything against gay people or even homosexuality as a practice during the entire event. It's sad that the boy did what he did. It is also sad that instead of being informed of the actual scientific cause of homosexuality and being referred to therapy, he was instead informed -by a dishonest popular culture- that he was born gay, that the whole world hated him, and that there was nothing he could do about it.

  • Last week, on the other hand, we attended a rally in Auburn, CA, that was entirely different. There were at least 300 people, and there were about seven speakers from many different backgrounds- legal, religious, social, and educational. The talks didn't say much that we hadn't already heard, ourselves, but then we have been keeping on top of things more than most. Right outside the entrance to the amphitheater where the rally was held there were 4 lesbians holding signs: "No on Prop 8" and "Let Us Marry!" No voices were raised, no scenes were caused, and everyone treated them nicely. People gave them bottled water and doughnuts, and one of the speakers, a religious leader, I believe, even spoke with them personally during the event to make sure that no one had mistreated them in any way. Seriously, Prop 8-haters, your stereotyping of us as bigots could not be further from the truth. We support your right to make choices as adults that we may not agree with, EXCEPT when those rights infringe on the rights of the rest of society, as gay marriage does. We want to protect our children from inappropriate sexual indoctrination, we want to keep the government from inappropriately dictating our lives, and we want to protect the most important element of our society: marriage between a man and a woman, because it is the only way to ensure the future of our society and it is the absolute proven best upbringing for all children.

Recent Related Articles

Below are articles related to Prop 8. Some are newer than others, but I will post them here as I find them.

10-23-08




10-22-08




10-21-08




10-17-08




10-16-08




10-15-08




10-14-08


How Will Gay Marriage Affect Our Society?

Below is a list if ways that gay marriage will directly affect our society. These things are all addressed more directly in the sections linked to above.

  1. Gay marriage will be presented to our schoolchildren, and all of society, really, as acceptable.

    Why wouldn't we want our children taught this? Despite the obvious religious/moral oppositions, homosexuality has been scientifically proven for decades to be both mentally and physically unhealthy. Until 1973, the American Psychological Association had homosexuality officially listed as a mental disorder, at which point it was removed -not because new evidences had been found to the contrary- but for political reasons, specifically, pressure from gay rights groups. You may remember, from the 90's, the whole flap about Dr. Laura taking this medical stance openly on her show until she was approached by gay rights groups herself. I don't believe she ever changed her position, she just hasn't addressed it on the air since then. So, homosexuality is still technically a mental disorder, with identifiable causes, recognizable symptoms and characteristics, and even proven recovery! Homosexuality was listed as a disorder because of the scientific evidences. It has never been proven otherwise. Is it wise to teach our children that a mental disorder is normal, acceptable, or even praiseworthy?

    IMPORTANT! Please watch these short videos to see how homosexuality is already being forced on schoolchildren in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has already been legalized:



  2. On a similar note, homosexuality is proven to cause severe health risks, including, of course, AIDS/HIV. We don't celebrate drug abuse to our children, but instead teach them that such things are dangerous and should be avoided. How is homosexual behavior any different? It could cost my child his life!


  3. This is not a civil rights issue. One gay activist was quoted as saying that this whole issue is really just about changing the moral perception of homosexuality; they want to make homosexuality morally acceptable by forcing us to treat it the same as heterosexuality. The basis for this notion is that homosexuals experience extreme levels of depression and suicide, leading some to conjecture that this is caused by social attitudes towards gays. Therefore, they conclude, we should attempt to normalize homosexuality and these problems will go away. Except... this ignores the scientific evidence that says that homosexuality is a mental disorder, which fact may, in and of itself, explain why they suffer depression in the first place.

    Ask yourself: If heterosexuals pranced around in the street naked, beating each other with whips, and otherwise being sexually indecent in public, wouldn't we have a few questions about their sanity? How is this acceptable behavior, then, in Gay Pride festivals, parades, and so forth?

    Pretending that homosexuality is normal only keeps gays from seeking therapy, and continues to perpetuate the popular, albeit incorrect, notion that gays are 'born that way.'


  4. Despite arguments to the contrary, gay rights proponents will NOT stop at marriage. As quoted above, this is actually about normalizing homosexuality in the public eye. Our country will most certainly see legislation like that being considered in Brazil, which will make it illegal to even voice an opinion against homosexuality in that country. This includes churches, businesses, and individuals. You may not believe that we would reach such a point with so-called 'thought police,' but remember that we are already seeing lawsuits against people for what amounts to them basically just being opposed to homosexuality. These lawsuits are winning in many cases, so it appears that we already have 'thought police.'


  5. The 'slippery slope' is real. Journalist Stan Kurtz did an excellent write-up on the various groups that are waiting to claim marriage rights just as soon as gay marriage makes some headway. This includes, of course, polygamy and pedophilia, and things you've never heard of, like polyandry, which is basically any combination of men and women in one so-called relationship. Children in such environments stand to not even know who their own father is! Plus, they will necessarily be learning that sexual promiscuity is normal, healthy behavior, and stand greatly increased risks of dangerous sexual behavior, not to mention mental disorders due to the lack of one-on-one relationships with both a father and a mother.


  6. Allowing gay marriage increases the likelihood that children will be placed with homosexuals by adoption agencies or court proceedings following divorces. Specific scientific evidences have been gathered that children in these environments are at increased risk for stress, depression, and suicide, among other things. These findings have successfully been used and accepted in court decisions that ultimately have lead to several states' decisions not to allow gays to adopt or have foster children.

    Besides the increased risk to children, placing them in these environments increases the likelihood that they will emulate or experiment with homosexual behaviors, which have been proven to be harmful and at high risk for disease and mental disorder.


  7. Several misconceptions and outright falsehoods are being perpetuated to mold public opinion about homosexuality. These misconceptions and falsehoods are the entire basis for the argument that gay marriage is a civil right.

    They are:
    A) That 10% of all people are gay. This number was contrived from a study done by Kinsey in the 1940's which has since been proven false by several other studies, and by duplication of the original study with a larger sample group. Proper studies have shown the number to actually be less than 2% worldwide.

    B) That people are born gay. No study has ever shown any such thing. A few studies have been presented out of context and said to suggest such findings, but even the authors of the studies, themselves gay, publicly declared that their studies showed no such thing. On the contrary, science has shown that there are specific incidents and experiences in early childhood that can cause an individual to develop same sex attraction. Therapy is available, and recovery is possible, just like for every other mental disorder. One study that is presented out of context is the one in which a certain area of the brain appeared to be different in gay subjects than straight subjects. The study's author stated expressly that this did not prove anything, and other studies have shown that certain behaviors can actually CAUSE such differences in brain development. The gay subjects of the original study had been sexually active for years prior to the study.

    C) That there are gay animals. This is presented as proof that homosexuality is natural. However, this is yet another case of a study that was both blown out of proportion, and scientifically unsound to begin with. Other scientists have reviewed this supposed evidence and found it wanting on many levels. Furthermore, the presence of a behavior in nature does not justify its practice among humans- you will find that cannibalism is much more prevalent among animals than those behaviors which are being interpreted as homosexual!


  8. Children raised in homes with homosexual "parents" are necessarily deprived of one biological parent. They will have either no mother or no father. This obviously happens in cases of divorce with heterosexuals, as well, but psychologists like Dr. Laura will testify that this is one of the worst things that can happen to a child. In heterosexual relationships, this would be an exception. In homosexual relationships, this would be the rule. (This sort of situation does arise, where a parent leaves an existing family to pursue a homosexual relationship. It happened to my friend.)


  9. Scientific evidence shows that children are better off in many ways when raised in homes with both a mother and a father. One important article you might read which summarizes the evidence is "Dr. Byrd Provides Testimony In English Court Case Regarding Same-Sex Adoption" which can be found here [NOTE: This is a pdf file]. Dr. A. Dean Byrd is president of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a licensed group of psychologists that treat people who do not want to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Responding to the Critics

The following is my response to the anti-Prop 8 website, Signing for Something, which claims to represent Latter-day Saints (Mormons) who oppose Proposition 8. The arguments made against Prop 8 are short-sighted, and do not accurately represent scientific evidence, or Latter-day Saint ideology or beliefs, although they claim to do so. I am sorry for anyone who becomes entangled in this web of intentional deceit. It is no coincidence or mistake that individuals involved with this website and it's goals face excommunication from the LDS church. Original text from SFS in italics.

My response to Signing for Something
http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=136

You are grossly mistaken in your views concerning gay marriage, and seem to have a disregard for the experts in the fields of family, and human psychology. I shall explain.

Studies show traditional families with a mother and a father have better social outcomes for their children.

This is true. But we fail to see how marriage freedom will reduce the number of traditional families. On the contrary, we see no downside to allowing stable, loving, long-term, same-sex relationships, which could result in better outcomes for adopted children than if they remained in custody of the state.


Homosexuality is a practice that was only removed from the American Psychological Association’s listing of mental disorders due to political pressure from homosexuals. Many experts still view it as such, since the majority of literature on the subject shows that it is NOT an inborn trait. Adopted children who are raised in pro-homosexual environments will be taught that such behavior is acceptable, which is a violation of Latter-day Saint belief. Even YOU cannot support such a premise.

Not only that, but science has shown that children that are placed in homosexual environments have a MUCH higher occurrence of being molested and otherwise abused. The information in the following article was used as court’s evidence in several states that eventually ruled against homosexual adoption.

Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting
(http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf)


Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God. We should follow what the prophet says.

Thomas S. Monson is also a human. Humans will always make mistakes — as ancient and modern history has shown (remember why Jonah got swallowed by the fish?) God also endowed us with a conscience, and we don’t believe he intends for us to ignore our deepest, innermost feelings once a prophet speaks. Indeed, we as Mormons have always been counseled to get our own, personal confirmation regarding inspiration. We’ve done that, and our conscience won’t let us remain silent.


As Latter-day Saints, you should also be aware of Doctrine and Covenants 1:38, which says:
“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

The direction that we are to gain a spiritual confirmation of the prophet’s role is not meant to be an everyday occurrence. We pray about it once, and when the Lord has given us this confirmation, it is our duty to obey his voice, with faith, as D&C 124:45-46 states:

“And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.
46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.”


California voters already decided on this issue. Democracy is all about majority rule, and the majority has spoken.

If you follow this same logic, Jim Crow laws would still be present in the South. Thankfully, America’s version of democracy is actually a democratic republic — not a true democracy — with special protections in place to keep the majority from taking away the rights of minorities. Our founding fathers had the foresight to protect against the “tyrannical majority” who would occasionally stomp on the rights of the minority, which is what the California Supreme Court ruled was happening with the marriage issue.


Homosexuals already have the same rights as all other citizens: to marry one person of the opposite sex. Since homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be a lifestyle “choice,” it does not force any special duty on the part of the rest of society to provide special rights to special interest groups. The prospect of enshrining homosexual relationships within the definition of marriage suggests that it is a behavior beneficial to our society, which it is not, as it does not allow for the proper development of children, nor does it perpetuate our society, which should be of utmost priority for the longevity of this so-called American experiment. These are considerations that must be taken into account, over and above the supposed civil rights argument.

Same-sex “marriage” goes too far. The law already provides the same protection for same-sex partners as it does traditional marriage partners.

We all know “separate but equal” really means “separate and unequal.” It was the same with segregated schools in the 1960s. The principles of equality on which our nation was founded demand we treat homosexuals with the same respect as heterosexuals, not classifying their legal relationships in a different, lesser category.


Society does not provide for the same respect toward alcoholics as it does sober men. Does that constitute unequal treatment? It does not, for alcoholism, like homosexuality, is a choice and has been shown to be detrimental to the health of the individual. We cannot, and should not, allow individuals to behave in just any way they choose, as this will lead to the ultimate destruction of our society, as it has in other societies historically.

This might affect our First Amendment rights, including the right to worship as we believe. For example, Catholics had to close their adoption agencies in Massachusetts because they legally couldn’t adopt babies to only heterosexual couples.

All churches would still be free to set their own marriage rules, as is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. We don’t see how adding marriage freedom could possibly pose any danger to other freedoms. However, we do see how churches directly lobbying for civil laws could pose a grave danger to the First Amendment by trying to make one religion’s beliefs the law of the land. This is un-American.

Regarding the adoption issue, we believe adoption agencies should follow the law. Adoption agencies are not churches — even if they’re owned by a church — and as such don’t deserve religious protection. Just like Mormons might choose not to open a chain of tobacco shops, they will have to make the choice whether or not to enter the adoption business based on current laws and their own sense of ethics. There will be plenty of other adoption agencies willing to take their place.


You “don’t see how adding marriage freedom could possibly pose any danger to other freedoms?” Do you see how adding sexual preference freedom has already endangered religious freedoms? Consider SB200, the ‘hate crimes’ law being considered in Colorado. Lawyers have already determined that this legislation can be used to outlaw the scriptures as ‘hate literature,” and it will be used in such a way if current homosexual activism is any sign. Plus, the anti-Christian agenda of homosexual groups has already been made clear. It’s time to stop pretending in the name of “compassion.” Furthermore, religious people rallying around a common moral standard does NOT constitute any involvement of “one religion” in American politics. This is not ONE church controlling the government, which is specifically what the First Amendment was all about; they wanted to avoid another Church of England. Religious people, on the other hand, have every right to defend the moral integrity of the nation. Besides, there are individuals from every religion involved in the fight against gay marriage, and even folks who have NO religion. Your argument is based on a false premise.


Traditional marriage contributes to societal well-being. This argument is about children and society, not the relationship of two adults.

Once again, we fail to see how marriage freedom harms traditional marriage. We agree that traditional marriage produces better social outcomes compared with children raised in broken homes. We believe this is because of the stable, loving home environment, not the genitalia of the parents.


The issue, as raised above, is not what genitalia the parents have, it is how the genitalia of the parents are used! Extensive research has shown that children are in greater danger of molestation and abuse in homosexual “family” situations than in heterosexual ones. Again, Latter-day Saints should also not wish to have children taught that such behaviors are acceptable.


Several European nations legalized same-sex marriage only to see their total number of marriages drop and the number of illegitimate children increase.

There is no cause-and-effect relationship here. Marriage rates have been dropping in parts of the industrialized world for many years, and out-of-wedlock births have been on the rise. There are many other factors that contribute to these statistics — not the least of which is the secularization of Europe — but the legalization of same-sex marriage isn’t one of them. It’s downright silly to think heterosexual couples base their marriage decisions on whether other people have that same right.


It is NOT silly, however, for society to be concerned for its future, and the well being of its most helpless citizens. Denying homosexuals the right to marry enforces those time-honored traditions, and indeed, commandments of God that have been shown to be best, as these are the behaviors that we should be promoting. We should be focusing our efforts on promoting those lifestyle choices, which will help prevent out-of-wedlock births, etc, instead of allowing the promotion of anti-family behaviors.

Legalizing homosexual marriage would open the door to polygamy.

Perhaps you’re right. But again, we don’t see how allowing non-traditional marriage has any impact whatsoever on the number or quality of traditional marriages. Besides, as Mormons, our church was founded by polygamists and still has polygamy-based teachings enshrined in the Doctrine and Covenants. Don’t you think this argument is a bit hypocritical?


This argument is NOT hypocritical, since polygamy was only allowed for a small percentage of Mormons, under the authority of the church leaders; the rule was always “one man, one woman, except when the Lord commands otherwise,” and in that case He did. As Jacob 2:27, 30 states:
“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife… For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
The argument is also NOT about any reduction in the number of traditional marriages, but in the necessary allowance of ANY form of marriage, which it has been shown will definitely be an issue, and will not be stoppable once gay marriage is allowed. These relationships include polyamory (multiple wives and husbands in one “relationship”), and so-called “intergenerational” relationships (ie, pedophilia). See “Here Come the Brides,” at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp).

If marriage freedom is approved, California’s school curriculum will be changed to mandate acceptance of homosexuality. Public school curriculum will actively discriminate against the values of its community’s families.

If the school’s curriculum is changed in a way that truly discriminates against your religious beliefs, you’ll have ample grounds for a lawsuit. Hire a lawyer. Otherwise, we see nothing wrong with schools teaching children not to look down on their peers for their largely uncontrollable personal attributes.


Once again, this is a gross misstatement of the situation. Homosexual activists have California courts in their back pockets. As the previously mentioned ‘hate crimes’ laws demonstrate, these activists will stop at nothing to incorporate their ideologies into mainstream American life. The last thing we, as parents, need is to have our children taught that they have the option of being either gay or straight. Homosexuals know that it is a choice, and they want the increased political weight that would come with an increase in their membership. Yale professor Kenji Yoshino, a prevalent expert on bisexuality, provides the following perspective:

“ ...heterosexuals and homosexuals have an interest in convincing bisexuals that they've got to make an all-or-nothing choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Heterosexuals, for example, have an interest in preserving norms of monogamy, and bisexuality "destabilizes" norms of monogamy. Homosexuals, notes Yoshino, have an interest in defending the notion of an immutable homosexual orientation, since that is often the key to persuading a court that they have suffered discrimination. And homosexuals, adds Yoshino, have an interest in maximizing the number of people in their movement” (excerpt from Here Come the Brides, referenced above).

As Latter-day Saints, we definitely have “an interest in preserving norms of monogamy.”


If same-sex marriage is legalized, the government might erode religious freedom by forcing churches to accept homosexuality through employment law, education or other government mandates.

The government cannot and will not tell churches what to preach. The government may provide financial incentives to charities that meet the needs of the nation — including religious schools and other organizations — but this has no bearing on religious freedom. Churches are free to turn down these financial incentives if they conflict with church values. Also, employment law has a long, well-established history of allowing churches to include moral or religious beliefs in their hiring decisions. There is nothing to indicate this will change, and we would oppose any effort to reduce religious freedom in America.


The recent ruling of a California court shows otherwise, as they ruled that health care professionals cannot opt out of performing procedures that are against their personal morals and/or religious beliefs. This is a serious blow to the freedoms of both speech and religion, as defined in the constitution, and will only serve to deter religiously inclined individuals from serving in capacities where they may encounter such decisions. This has led us to replace one discrimination with another. There can be no neutral decision in this area, and we must, especially as Latter-day Saints, stand on the side of that which is best for society, and which has been clearly defined by God in the scriptures.

Contact Us

Contact us if you feel that we have not addressed any aspect FOR or AGAINST Proposition 8. Please be courteous in your language. We are NOT seeking commentary on these positions, as there are many other locations for such conversation to take place. This website is intended to be as factual as possible.



If you would like to contact us, please send an email to:

prop8voterinfo [at] gmail [dot] com

Other Resources

The following several resources may prove useful in your own effort to improve and support traditional marriage and family. These are not sponsored links, and are only included here because they are publicly available and directly related to Proposition 8.



If you would like to have a site added to this post, please contact us.

What About Civil Rights? Is This Discrimination?

Many supporters of gay marriage claim that this is a matter of civil rights akin to the plight of Blacks in America in the early 1900's. Is this a justifiable accusation? Let's investigate.

To begin with, it should be pointed out that some homosexual activists recognize and freely admit that this is not truly a civil rights issue. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property quotes homosexual activist Paul Varnell as saying to the Chicago Free Press:

The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.


Why do some homosexuals, then, assert that this is a civil rights issue?

This assertion is made because it carries with it political clout. If it were true it would disallow any opposition to rights which homosexuals would like to claim for themselves. In other words, if homosexuality were "innate and immutable" (ie, if gays are "born that way" and can't be changed), then society owes them equal access to marriage, among other things.

Is homosexuality "innate and immutable?"

This question is best answered in the words of Dr. A. Dean Byrd, an expert on homosexuality:

[S]cientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena- themselves gay activists -have in fact arrived at such conclusions.

You can read the entire article, and another by the same author, here:

Although a politically popular notion, it is simply untrue to assert that homosexuals are born gay. Thus, the political argument that homosexuals are due equal marriage rights, on that basis, is also false.

Another excellent perspective comes from lesbian activist Camille Paglia:

Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.....

"Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition-a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction....helping gays to learn to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim.

"We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pause a the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender....current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice,' that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort."

(Excerpt from The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science)


But, do homosexuals have innate civil rights as mere citizens of the United States of America?

What are civil rights?

According to findlaw.com,

It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

* Freedom of speech
* The right to privacy
* The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
* The right to a fair court trial
* The right to marry
* The right to vote


Technically, the issue is really about "civil liberties" in this case. As noted above, these are "explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers."

So, has marriage been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court?


What does federal law currently say about marriage?

In 1885, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the following statement in the case of Murphy v. Ramsey, Page 114 U. S. 45 (Emphasis ours).


"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”


Homosexuals have the same right that every American citizen has: the right to marry one individual, of the opposite sex, of appropriate age, and not too closely related. Currently, they are attempting to assert special rights for themselves.


So, isn't this discrimination, then?

According to WordNet, there are two definitions for discrimination:

  • favoritism, favouritism (unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice)

  • secernment (the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished)



Although these two terms are closely related, it is the first that is being asserted in the case of gay marriage. As we look into this definition, it will help if we define prejudice, as well. According to WordNet, again:

  • preconception (a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation)


This tells us, then, that discrimination is any unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of a preconception, meaning some kind of assumption that may or may not be true. For instance, gays have asserted discrimination against them on the basis of their sexual preference. However, one might respond that this is not truly discrimination, as defined, because there are several reasons one might be opposed to homosexuality, and which are known facts, as opposed to being assumptions. The spread of AIDS/HIV is merely one example.

So, is there really discrimination in the issue of gay marriage? The answer, of course, is no, as there are many known factual reasons for opposition to gay marriage, which are outlined in the following sections of this website:

Buy Prop. 8 Merchandise!

If you support Proposition 8, please visit our online stores and show your support in the form of a t-shirt, hat, bumper sticker, or something else!

Store #1
www.cafepress.com/prop8yes features products with this logo:



Here are some examples:








Store #2
www.cafepress.com/onemanonewoman8 features products with this logo:



Here are some examples:







Store #3
www.cafepress.com/onemanonewoman8 features products with this logo:



Here are some examples:



How Can I Get Involved?

If you will vote YES on Proposition 8 this November, you should be aware that current polls show voters almost evenly split on this issue, slightly in favor of the NO's. In order to pass, we must ensure that EVERY POSSIBLE VOTER has a chance to see and review the facts surrounding this important issue!

Yes, there will be supporters making phone calls to attempt to persuade people; however, most people do not respond well to phone surveys, and when they do there is only a small window of opportunity for the caller to get the message across to the voter.

This is not the most effective method!

Instead, we must persuade voters to come view the information themselves, from their home computers, in their own time, without the awkwardness of a telephone conversation with someone who would really like to convince you to vote YES!

Have faith! The facts themselves strongly support a YES vote on this Proposition!


So, What Can I Do?

The most important thing is to drive people to this website. From here, they will be presented with enough knowledge in about 15 minutes' time to enable them to make an intelligent decision. And when that person makes a decision for themselves, they will not feel like they have been coerced, which, of course, they haven't :)

REMEMBER:
WHILE IT MIGHT SEEM INCONVENIENT TO GET INVOLVED IN GETTING THE WORD OUT RIGHT NOW, YOU WILL FACE MUCH GREATER INCONVENIENCE IF PROP. 8 DOES NOT PASS!

Review the legal and social ramifications of Prop. 8 to see just how inconvenient things will get.


So, here's the initial plan of action:

  1. Email this website to every California voter you know, or even to people who might know California voters.

  2. Smile. You've just taken the first step into political activism! There's no turning back! That is, unless people stop trying to destroy our country politically. Then you can rest.



Plan 2 is as follows:

  1. Print out flyers [.doc | .pdf].

  2. Walk around your neighborhood or other convenient location and put said flyers into your neighbors' hands, or on their doors. [NOTE: It is illegal to leave things in mailboxes.]

  3. Lather, rinse, repeat.



Plan 3 takes a different approach:

  1. Make "One Man, One Woman" or "Yes on Prop 8!" signs.

  2. Locate a high-traffic area, such as a busy intersection or mall.

  3. Stand there and hold your signs for as long as you are able, like this family did, as well as this group of Catholics.

  4. NOTE: Be sure to obtain permissions if you plan to be on private property.



Plan 4 is somewhat more bold than the above two plans:

  1. Buy merchandise.


    NOTE: Discounts are given for bulk purchases, thus increasing your potential for profit.

  2. Locate a high-traffic area and sell your merchandise!


    NOTE: I see people doing this all the time at our local Wal-Mart, and they are always high-traffic areas, so I would highly suggest you start there!

  3. Be sure to bring along flyers [.doc | .pdf], as well as "What Am I Saying If I Vote YES on Prop 8?" printouts [.doc | .pdf], and "What Am I Saying If I Vote NO on Prop 8?" printouts [.doc | .pdf], so that you are prepared for any discussions that might ensue.


Another version of Plan 4 would consist of pooling money with like-minded souls in your family, church, group, or neighborhood, and then ordering merchandise, like t-shirts, to wear yourselves! Huzzah!


Other Suggestions For Getting Involved

Declare your support for Prop. 8:

  1. Take The Citizen Pledge: "I Will Vote For Marriage"


Boycott and/or sign petitions against organizations that have donated to fight AGAINST Prop. 8, such as:

  1. McDonald's - BoycottMcDonalds.com

  2. PG&E - California Citizen Petition: “PG&E Should Stay Out of the Marriage Debate”

  3. Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi's jeans)

  4. Google

  5. The California Teachers Association

  6. AT&T

  7. California Council of Service Employees

  8. George Takei, star of Star Trek (Sulu)

  9. Apple Computers

Are Prop. 8 Supporters 'Homophobic?' What About Tolerance?

There are many reasons that people will choose to support Proposition 8, but so-called 'homophobia' is not likely to be one of them. 'Homophobia' is a term which is in common use today, although it is rarely, if ever, applied appropriately.

In his article, HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition, Dr. Sander J. Breiner provides the following insight:

There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...

Calling all responses to homosexuality other than it "is a normal sexual variation" as homophobic is anti-scientific...

There is no doubt that [properly defined, scientifically classified] homophobia exists. There is also no doubt that there are rationalized... anti-homosexual attitudes.


While it is conceivable that some people may support Proposition 8 due to "anti-homosexual attitudes," this does not classify them as 'homophobic,' since most of them have a rational opposition to homosexual practice and/or marriage. Futher, most supporters of Proposition 8 are also supporters of the rights of homosexuals to enter into Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships.

FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE


WHAT ABOUT TOLERANCE?

The issue of tolerance is summed up quite nicely by Evergreen International's chairman Larry Richman:

"Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that 'tolerance' demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for 'tolerance' has a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ," he said.

"Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another. In today¹s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean condoning or accepting something - even if it is contrary to your values or beliefs."

(Evergreen International supports LDS church's stand on Proposition 8, The Salt Lake Tribune, 9/19/08)


MORE TO THINK ABOUT

One of the main theories behind the push to shove gay marriage down our throats has been the argument that since gays experience higher levels of suicide, depression, and drug abuse, that it can only be attributed to "homophobia" among the general public. This conclusion simply isn't true, as the following insight about "homophobia," from Diary of an Ex-gay, attests:
So-called Homophobia

There's a great article about gay cruising at the Deseret News. It shows how the police force there is using psychotherapy to help men who have the compulsion to seek sex with other men in public places.

It's interesting because they are using many of the techniques used by Reparative Therapy - and it's all supported by the local gay rights group!
They use the technique to help men stop and think when they want to act-out. They have to realize when they feel lonely (or whatever) and then try to fulfill that need in a healthy way. The program has enjoyed good success, too.

The comparison to Reparative Therapy is obvious. If these men continue to pursue psychotherapy like that, I'm certain that their homosexual desires will decrease (of course, I believe that all gay men can become somewhat heterosexual if they undergo enough therapy and provided they put in enough effort).

Anyway, one part of the article caught my eye. The police force was saying how the men that cruise usually are family men with a spotless police record, and less than 1% of them are involved in drugs.

I'm sure the reporter put that little statistic in there to help "prove" that gay men are not drug abusers, as so many anti-gay campaigners claim.
However, let's look at that statistic from a different perspective. The official line of the pro-gay lobby has always been that the higher levels of suicide, depression, and drug abuse in the gay community are due to oppression and "homophobia". But is that really true? No.

It seems that the more one is involved in the gay world, the "gay scene" with the bars, clubs, bath houses, etc, the more susceptible to drug abuse one is. It seems that men who keep their sexuality secret and lead a covert life hiding "in the closet" seem to be able to cope with life without abusing drugs.

Yet, those people who do have the "loving" support of a lively community, other gay men, boyfriends, gay culture, and gay support groups, seem to abuse drugs to a shocking degree!!

Surely, if it was "homophobia" and intolerance that caused the high rates of drug abuse, then those people more involved in gay culture should have lower rates of abuse. But they don't -- it's the other way around!

The simple truth is this: the high rates of drug abuse among the gay community is due to the gay community -- and not due to the so-called "homophobia". That's a cop-out excuse and the only people who would believe are blind, ignorant, and most of all, incredibly dumb.

Link To Us!

Help us increase voter knowledge on the issues directly related to California's Proposition 8! Link to us, and you will be helping others learn what it means to be FOR or AGAINST Proposition 8, so that they may make an informed decision when they go to the polls in November.

The following image is designed to fit in the sidebar of your blog:


The url for the image is:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_T7BItq62o1c/SNAkm_6bpJI/AAAAAAAAAMw/ukVfjjzvm3A/S1600-R/prop8voterinfo3a-sm.gif


Point it to our homepage, at:

http://www.prop8voterinfo.blogspot.com


Thanks!

What Am I Saying If I Vote YES on Proposition 8?

For a one-page printable version of this post, please click on one of the following links: [.doc | .pdf]


A "YES" vote on Proposition 8 effectively says that you agree with one or more of the following:




  1. That you are appalled that activist judges took it upon themselves to overrule a statute that was already voted on and passed by the majority of voters in the State of California. This statute was Proposition 22, which passed with a majority of 61.4%.


  2. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  3. That you are appalled that members of the Judicial branch of government breached the separation of powers and legislated new law in the State of California. According to the U. S. Constitution, the Legislative branch has the power to create laws, and the Judicial branch has the power only to enforce them.


  4. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  5. That you disagree with the notion of Homosexual/Gay/Same-sex marriage.


  6. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  7. That you oppose any resulting legal ramifications that will ensue by allowing Homosexual/Gay/Same-sex marriage.


  8. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  9. That you oppose any resulting social ramifications that will ensue by allowing Homosexual/Gay/Same-sex marriage.


  10. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  11. That you support some or all individuals, groups, and organizations that support Proposition 8, including legal groups, family advocacy groups, and almost every church in the State of California.


  12. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  13. That you do not believe that the agenda of homosexual activists should be given priority over all other considerations.


  14. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  15. That you oppose any legislation that will pave the way for polyandry, legalized polygamy, or any other redefinition of marriage.


  16. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  17. That you believe that there are better, legal means by which homosexuals may attempt to expand their rights.





The only reason to vote "NO" on Proposition 8 is if you do not agree with ANY of these statements!


--> Click here to Get Involved! <--

--> Click here to Get Involved! <--

--> Click here to Get Involved! <--


If you support Proposition 8, please visit our online stores and show your support in the form of a t-shirt, hat, bumper sticker, or something else!

Click here for a list of other pro-family, pro-marriage resources!

Are We Giving Special Rights To Christians?

In 1885, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the following statement in the case of Murphy v. Ramsey, Page 114 U. S. 45.

"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”


Homosexuals have the same right that every American citizen has: the right to marry one individual, of the opposite sex, of appropriate age, and not too closely related. Currently, they are attempting to assert special rights for themselves.

Isn't It Just About Love?

Large sums of money have been poured into the Anti-Prop 8 campaign, with ads featuring a couple who want to get married but are having a terrible time even getting to the altar for all the people tripping them up along the way. The tagline is, "What if you couldn't marry the one that you love?"




The website for this campaign, Let California Ring, features a full page of discussion points in favor of gay marriage. We will discuss each one briefly.


  1. Think about it—what if you were told that you couldn't marry the person you loved? How would that make you feel, or change your relationship, your future plans and your life?



This amounts to nothing more than an appeal to the listeners emotions. While emotions are a necessary part of the human experience, they are NOT relevant factors in issues where there are so many logical, legal, and religious reasons to vote AGAINST your emotions.


  1. Two people in a committed, trusting and loving relationship deserve the dignity and support that come with marriage.



The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently released a document, entitled, "The Divine Institution of Marriage." A portion of that document states (emphasis ours):


"Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.




It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.




High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task."



  1. People can have different beliefs and still treat everyone fairly.



This is a wonderful sentiment, but it just isn't happening that way. Over the past 10 years, homosexual activists have proven that they will stop at nothing short of full social acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle. This article at npr.org gives 10 specific instances of homosexuals suing to force their beliefs and practices on others. Truly, it appears that "treat everyone fairly" actually means "unless you're opposed to homosexual practices and/or marriage," which, it turns out, is most of America, and, indeed, most of the world.


  1. It is a joy to see my son/daughter and his/her partner together and a part of our family.



This is a very subjective statement, and intentionally excludes those parents who are NOT excited about the lifestyle choice their child has made. Somewhere it must be recognized that most parents would like to see their children in committed, legitimate, heterosexual relationships, bearing them grandchildren.


  1. Discrimination is wrong no matter who it affects. We must work together to fight against discrimination, wherever it appears.



Once again, this statement is absolutely true. Please see #3, above. If this would not have such far-reaching effects on the rest of our society, it might not be such an issue. However, it should be recognized that the legalization of homosexual marriage already, in some states, and the clear bent of some judges in favor of homosexual rights, has already caused discrimination against a larger group of people than those the law claims to serve!


  1. Tradition is important in our family. That’s why we’ve invited our son/daughter’s partner to be a part of our family traditions and celebrations.



This is obviously an attempt to minimize the argument that gay marriage is in contrast with traditional marriage practices. In effect, they are saying, "Look, you've got all these other traditions. Why can't you give up this one?" This attitude manages to overlook the obvious fact that traditions develop over time, as certain behaviors prove beneficial to the values and lifestyles of a group. Over thousands of years, traditional marriage has not yet failed us or proven less than beneficial to our society.


  1. It is not for me to judge other people. Just because I disapprove of something does not mean that it’s wrong.


Certainly, my personal opposition to something does not make it necessarily wrong. Likewise, your approval of something does not make it right, either!


From a non-religious viewpoint, it should be noted that morals, if they are not rooted in religion, are at least rooted in logic. Homosexuality, for instance, is an undeniable means of passing the AIDS/HIV virus; it is also an express route to the end of a family line. Social scientists have also greatly concurred that children grow and develop much better in homes where both a father and mother are present. Even non-religious persons would agree that these make for excellent testimony in favor of heterosexuality.

This statement is also a thinly-veiled attempt to throw Christian scripture back into the faces of those who oppose homosexual practices and/or marriage. They suggest that the Bible tells us not to judge - never, under any circumstances. However, a brief glance through the scriptures will reveal that this is NOT the message, but rather that we "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Clearly, we should judge, and do so according to what is laid out in the scriptures. Interestingly, every major book of scripture that I have read has made it clear that homosexuality is unacceptable, including Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic texts.


  1. Many couples stay together for years and not only face discrimination, but many other challenges. In spite of these challenges, these couples remain courageous in the face of opposition and deeply committed to building happy lives together.



While this makes it sound like a lot of gays dedicate themselves to lifelong monogamous relationships, the truth is that most gays do not.


Otherwise, this statement could easily be about heterosexual couples, as well. It doesn't really give any support for the argument.


  1. When gay and lesbian couples get married, they may finally be recognized as being part of the extended family.



So, if we allow homosexual activists to force the acceptance of gay marriage on society, this will cause extended families to concede that all of their religious, legal, societal, and personal oppositions to gay marriage are now moot? Right...


  1. Domestic partnerships don't provide the same security as marriage. They exclude people from marriage and create an unfair system that often does not work in emergency situations when people need it most.



Objections: 1) Under California law, domestic partnerships must provide the same rights to gay couples as married heterosexual couples. 2) Homosexuals have always been excluded from marriage -throughout all history- because they do not provide for the continuance of the species/society, and do not provide the most stable environment for the growth and development of children. 3) Anything that "does not work in emergency situations" can be worked out without resorting to the redefinition of marriage.

What Am I Saying If I Vote NO on Proposition 8?

For a one-page printable version of this post, please click on one of the following links: [.doc | .pdf]


A "NO" vote on Proposition 8 effectively says that you agree with ALL of the following:



  1. That you accept and support an incident where activist judges took it upon themselves to overrule a statute that was already voted on and passed by the majority of voters in the State of California. This statute was Proposition 22, which passed with a majority of 61.4%.



  2. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  3. That you accept and support an incident where members of the Judicial branch of government breached the separation of powers and legislated new law in the State of California. According to the U. S. Constitution, the Legislative branch has the power to create laws, and the Judicial branch has the power only to enforce them.



  4. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  5. That you accept the notion of Homosexual/Gay/Same-sex marriage.



  6. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  7. That you accept any resulting legal ramifications that will ensue by allowing Homosexual/Gay/Same-sex marriage.



  8. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  9. That you accept any resulting social ramifications that will ensue by allowing Homosexual/Gay/Same-sex marriage.



  10. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  11. That you disagree with all individuals, groups, and organizations that support Proposition 8, including legal groups, family advocacy groups, and almost every church in the State of California.



  12. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  13. That you believe that the agenda of homosexual activists should be given priority over all other considerations.



  14. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  15. That you support legislation that will pave the way for polyandry, legalized polygamy, or any other redefinition of marriage.



  16. FURTHER READING ON THIS ISSUE





  17. That you do not believe that there are better, legal means by which homosexuals may attempt to expand their rights than to have judges thrust unpopular decisions on an unwilling populace.