Only the Elect... It's Election Day!

Today is Election Day-- which is reason to celebrate, even in an off year, right? Right???

Well, even if you're not excited about the opportunity to fulfill your civic responsibility to weigh in on who would be the best judge you've never heard of in District 57A, I think today is the perfect opportunity to make my one political post of the year. I personally have regressed from being very politically active and having strong political opinions to a persistent waffling between disillusioned, disappointed or just plain disheartened. But even being disheartened and disillusioned require effort, so I have subsided into just plain apathy.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe in fulfilling my civic responsibility to vote. While I typically do a night-before crash course examination of the candidates the night before, this year I picked up my "Voter's Pamphlet" guide to the candidates several weeks early so I had plenty of time to peruse the half-page blurbs informing me of why I should vote for each person. I was richly rewarded for my studiousness with an exciting array of candidates to represent me in Congress (and this was only the Primary, people!).

Candidate #1: I will call LuLu. She is an "Independent Media Consultant" (which instantly brought to mind the quote from Father of the Bride: "That's just a fancy term for unemployed!"). She says I should elect her because she "supported our government's efforts to find and punish the 9/11 masterminds." Who were all hiding in Iraq, right? She assures me that she will "vote to bring home... [our] troops as soon as our ground commanders agree it is safe." Um, maybe she is worried about all of the soldiers from bad neighborhoods? I know Iraq can be scary, but have they ever been to East L.A.? Besides, she promises that she can balance the budget in five years or less. Take that!

Candidate #2: I will call DeeDee. Her occupation: IUOE, since June 1, 1994 (not June 10, in case you were wondering). And you couldn't be wondering exactly what an IUOE is because everyone knows that. (If you are so uninformed, Google will tell you it is International Union of Operating Engineers.)
But she expands upon this by giving an extensive occupational background, complete with punctuation inconsistencies and some excellent grammatical examples along the lines of "Since November 1982, I became a Construction Corporation Vice President." (That's a looooong process.) But just in case you are biased against construction or IUOE, she is sure to include that she worked for TG&Y Department store from 1972-1974. (That alone got my vote. I used to have my pictures taken there when I was a kid.) Before 1972 she helped the elderly clean their homes.

Instead of pointing out how she can use her cleaning experience to "clean out" the crap on Capitol Hill or use her TG&Y experience to "sort through the junk" in all of the bills coming to her desk, she asks me to vote for her based on the fact that her parents will be married 60 years in April and she and her husband have been married 25 years. She is quick to point out that she met her husband while working on a project together but they began their relationship "2 years later, long after the job was complete." (Phew!)

Candidate #3: Starts by using the "Occupation" space to promote his physical/mental/fitness program "Get Energized" for "governments, businesses and public," complete with a phone number and URL for his website. His program prevents illnesses or diseases and slows down aging. (Did he mention he's in excellent health? Yes, he did.)

He is the most experienced of all of the candidates, with a background that includes "speaker, inventor, ... coach, manager (had an Award), supervisor, social worker, counselor, machinist, mechanic, welder, truck driver, logger, firefighter and beekeeper." Regardless of the fact that he could put his skills to work welding congress together and putting out governmental fires, I don't know if I could really fully support him without knowing that he kept bees or was a manager-- who had an award. (If you aren't already convinced, he has governmental experience in "Tank Army.")

This guy is bold. He claims, "No one better than me could help/rescue this state and nation." (So does he mean that there is no one better than him to help out there or that anyone who is better than him wouldn't be able to help?) But you can't claim that he pussyfoots around issues. Oh no, he gives a long list of (creatively punctuated-- I've tried to replicate it) promises including:

To defend this country from weapons of mass destruction,
Economy: I have a plan to create a few thousands jobs in Oregon and a few millions jobs in the USA.
Budget: balance it in a few months.     [Now take that, Miss "I'll balance it in five years"!]
Health Care: to all, cut cost of drugs.
Car Insurance is a Street Robbery. If no accident - 50% money back. [I'm not sure what this is, but if it's money back, I like it!]
Crimes: harder punishment
Elect US Judges/Attorneys,

There is still more on his platform, including teaching children respect for parents, teachers and the elderly and helping to make peace in the MiddleEast. What can I say? He's got it covered.

There are two more candidates left to go, but this post is too long already and I voted over a week ago. I just wanted to celebrate the diversity and options we have available to us as Oregonians as we choose representatives to carry on our tradition of a democratic republic. Hooray for America!

Traumatized

So I guess I will finally get to the real reason that I have been avoiding blogging and really, just being online in general for the past several days. As many of you know, I am an ardent supporter of Prop 8 in California. While I did not expect it to pass, I was thrilled that it did. In the weeks leading up to the election I tried to do what I could to discuss the issue in the circles where I have influence. I am not someone who likes to cause conflict, so for some time I have avoided political discussions with anyone but close and trusted friends, but I felt so strongly about this issue that I have been posting about it on my blog, facebook, email groups and pretty much wherever there is someone who will listen.

This was not an issue that was initially very intuitive to me. I really struggled on this. It seemed like there was a definite case to be made for allowing same-sex marriage-- was it really going to impact me? Even if it did, did I have any right to tell them they couldn't? My conclusion finally was that, YES, it was going to impact me and not only did I have the right, I had the responsibility to stand for marriage between a man and a woman. As a result, I have spent WAY too many hours researching and studying this issue (as my disastrously messy house will testify) and then writing about my conclusions on it (which you can read in other previous posts, if you are interested). Throughout the whole process, I tried to be respectful and non-argumentative in my posts, recognizing that there are many people who feel deeply about this issue on the opposite side.

I was disappointed (although not terribly surprised) at the protests following the passing of Prop 8. However, I respect the right of others to peaceably assemble and voice their opinions. (Although it does beg the question, "Where were all these protesters BEFORE the election? Aren't they a little late?") But some of the aftermath has passed outside the realm of "peaceable" in my book... Forcing closure of a house of worship? Threatening and harassing those who donated money to the campaign? Defacing property? Calling for (and getting) the resignation of a California Musical Theater official because he contributed to the campaign? Maybe I'm just strange, but these actions seem, well... intolerant. Besides that, I think it adds more credibility to the argument that if gay marriage is allowed it will cause religious persecution for "hate crimes" if religions don't recognize gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage. See what has happened already....

I also think it is funny that Mormons should be the main target. We were only part of the coalition. Don't you think it would be more appropriate to boycott California than to boycott Utah? Californians actually voted for the law. Besides that, the Mormon church did not donate money to the campaign. It asked its members to support it, but that's all it could do: ask. It was entirely up to the members' free will as to whether they supported it or not, either with their time or money. There was no force or coercion involved. In fact, many members publicly oppose Prop 8.

But back to me (the focus of this blog, right?).... I know that whenever you enter the political arena, you are asking for disagreement and debate. I'm OK with that. I have participated in many heated discussions and debates, some of which were enjoyable and stimulating. I guess I was wrong in two things: 1) I thought that when the polls closed, the issue would too-- that when people voted it would actually mean something. (OK, big miscalculation there.) 2) I thought that political discussion could happen without attacking the people involved in the debate.

I guess I just wasn't been prepared for personal backlash for daring to state my opinion. In the past little while I have had several unpleasant encounters online with people who feel compelled to use my stance on a political issue to attack my intelligence, my character or my spirituality. (Most of these people are also LDS, strangely enough.) This is not the same as the many people who have challenged me on the issue or debated whether my viewpoint is logical. I have no problem with someone saying, "Have you thought about this point?" or even "I respect you as a person, but politically I think you're out to lunch." There are many people I could say that same thing to: I respect and enjoy them as people, but we have very different views on political matters.

In the course of my debates I have sincerely tried to never attack a person, to be polite and to express my view without demeaning other people. I hoped that this could be a two-way street and that "tolerance" for opposing views would go for both sides. My hopes have frequently been disappointed. I have had people recently call me stupid, ask me if I can really be a Christian, tell me that I am "like a lemming" and (my favorite) accuse me of being "one of those people" who went to BYU, doesn't have any non-LDS friends and only reads the Ensign. (Humorous, given that I am trying to read 4 books concurrently because a bunch I had on hold at the library came in at the same time. Makes it hard to get to The Economist.... I have to admit that on the crime of attending BYU, I am guilty as charged.)

I like to think that I have tougher skin than this, but I have to admit that I was really shaken up. I was not expecting this, especially not the stuff from other Mormons! I like to think that people can disagree-- even vehemently-- without descending to personal attacks and rudeness. I am emotionally worn out. I am tired of being called names. I am tired of being nervous every time I open my email or log in to facebook that I will be bombarded with messages telling me how stupid and intolerant and hateful I am. I am tired of people telling me how horrible my viewpoint is without even pausing to listen to what that viewpoint is. So, even though I know the battle on this issue is far from over, I am trying to lay low for now and recover.

Why I Support Prop 8 in California

My mom recently sent an email detailing the political and philosophical reasons she has for supporting Prop 8 in California and opposing same-sex marriage. I thought it clearly stated some of the reasons that I support Prop 8 and at least the issues that we should be discussing when addressing same-sex marriage.

-K

.....

Why I Support Prop 8
By Laurel R.
November 2, 2008

I am definitely supporting Prop 8. At the same time, many of my friends are just as adamantly against Prop 8. I have spent much time thinking about and discussing the topic as I have worked to solidify my views and understand the opposing view points.

I saw the most compelling “no on 8” commercial to date. The commercial featured Diane Feinstein sitting very authoritatively, looking directly into the “faces” of the audience, and saying (paraphrased) that: “Prop 8 isn’t about marriage, children, or personal beliefs. It is about discrimination. We can’t allow discrimination. Vote No on 8.”

In the context of today’s society where anti-discrimination and tolerance are the highest of moral values, one would have to agree with her. If discrimination against same sex couples where the only issue at hand I would feel morally compelled to oppose Pro 8 myself. However, Prop 8 isn’t just about discriminating against gays. It is about the future of marriage and traditional families, about children and re-engineering the society in which they grow up, and it is about discrimination against those who don’t favor same-sex marriage.

I support Prop 8 for a number of reasons:

1) My political/philosophical view on the proper role of government and its right to infringe on personal liberty verses its obligation to prevent discrimination and infringement of liberty

I don’t believe the proper role of government is to prevent discrimination at all costs. It is to preserve the common good by enacting laws that are in the best interest of society as a whole while still preventing any minority from having their rights trampled. Good government should be an appropriate balance between tyranny and anarchy.

On the tyranny extreme, laws are enacted that oppress individual freedom of belief and choice in preference to a single view of what is right or desirable. Tyranny can be in the form of a dictator, a well-meaning but misguided government, or it can come in the form of religious tyranny where the beliefs of one group trample the rights of another.

When the pendulum swings to the anarchy side, society is governed by total self-interest without any external restraint. Anything goes; all individuals have unchecked rights and the results are a breakdown of social structure to the point where ultimately individual rights are again trampled by lawlessness or by the emergence of a group in society powerful enough to again impose their agenda on others, swinging the pendulum back to yet another form of tyranny.

Good government finds a balance between tyranny and anarchy. Its guiding premise is to protect the common good while protecting individual rights as much as possible. For example, in a free world, anyone could drive a car. But in our society, we are selective about who we allow to drive because we believe that eliminating the right of certain people to drive protects the common good or safety of society. Hence people with impaired vision are not allowed to drive. People who are too young are arbitrarily banned from driving or limited in when or who they can drive because of their potential inexperience or immaturity of judgment. The fact is that some people are discriminated against who could actually drive and be accident-free, causing no harm to themselves or society. Discriminative laws treat them differently than the majority of society by limiting their freedom drive in an interest of protecting the public as a whole.

Discrimination is an unavoidable reality of life. Individuals, as well as government, must discriminate to some degree. Governments in particular, discriminate in order to protect the common good. The problem arises from the fact that 1) it is hard to find the perfect balance between protecting individual right to choose and protecting the common good, and 2) society as a whole will never agree on what that perfect balance is.

Perhaps one of the things that frustrates me the most about the entire Prop 8 debate is the simplistic implication that supporters of Prop 8 want to impose their religious and moral beliefs/values on others and arbitrarily discriminate against those who don’t share the same values. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Marriage is a private contract between two people in a committed relationship. For some, it may also be a religious contract. Many people would argue that government has no business regulating marriage at all. However, in our society, the reality is that government makes laws on who can marry and who can not. By definition, those laws are discriminatory. People who are too young can’t marry. Siblings or other people too closely related can’t marry. Why does government intrude or “discriminate” in these matters? Because it is generally believed that those prohibitions are in the best interest of preserving and protecting society. Experience has shown that those laws are beneficial despite the fact that they do limit freedom of choice.

Obviously we live in a society where “government” has the right, and perhaps the obligation to “discriminate”. In a “democratic republic” like ours, government (by definition) is the will or “good judgment” of the majority of the people. The success of a government is predicated on that majority being able to choose wisely both in terms of seeing the long term consequences of a particular decision and in balancing their respect and protection of minority rights. Therefore, the debate about Prop 8 isn’t “does it discriminate against anyone?” The issues are:

1) “Does it unfairly discriminate against a particular group of people?”

2) “If it does discriminate against a particular group of people, is the discrimination necessary or warranted in order to preserve and protect society as a whole?”

3) “Is there a way to find a fair balance between both issues or opposing sides?”

As one vote in that democratic republic, I feel that society is best served by continuing to define marriage as “between and man and a woman”. I further feel that the traditional model of a mother and a father raising children is the ideal way to nurture and raise the next generation. Therefore, while society needs to accommodate the “exceptions” to that model, I believe it should simultaneously do everything it can to promote and support the traditional family as the preferred vehicle for long-term societal well-being.

There are others who genuinely believe that there is no qualitative difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage and that one is no better able to facilitate strong families and child-rearing than the other, and therefore, there is no reasonable grounds for discrimination in marriage. That is the real issue at hand. Time and space don’t permit a careful review of all the sociological evidence or historical precedent for either of those viewpoints, but the seriousness of the issue certainly warrants a careful individual study. Is preserving the traditional view of marriage in the best interest of society or not? If we disagree, let’s disagree on that rather than on the simplistic “never discriminate against the minority” issue.

A comparison has been drawn between the civil rights movement of the 60’s and the gay rights movement of today. There is no comparison since absolutely no social good was served by discriminating between races. That form of discrimination had purely negative consequences on society, resulting in unwarranted abuses. The current issue is based on the firmly held opinion that children are more likely to thrive in a traditional family with a father and mother, and that situation ought to be promoted by society—not out of desire to discriminate against any particular group, but as the best way of fostering a social structure most likely to result in stable and secure children.

The “discrimination” attached to this ballot measure is strictly limited to prohibiting domestic partnerships from being called “marriages”. Consenting adults are still free to choose to have a committed same-gender relationship. They still receive equal protection and insurance benefits under the law. Therefore, Prop 8 provides a fair compromise to both opposing positions by keeping the definition of traditional marriage while protecting the rights and benefits of same-gender couples. There is a big difference between arbitrarily imposing social and religious values on people and allowing our chosen form of self-government to work: namely, that the majority respectively decide what is in the best interest of society and then implement that decision in a way that has the smallest negative impact on the minority group that don’t share that viewpoint. I believe that preserving the traditional definition of marriage in conjunction with the existing domestic partnership laws does that very thing.

Opponents don’t buy into my belief that research and experience show traditional families are best. But, conversely, they haven’t provided enough empirical evidence to convince me that this new “social experiment” of redefining families is harmless either. Given there plainly is not definitive proof available from either side, if we must error one way or another, I’d prefer to error on the side of history and tradition—let’s not redefine marriage based on current social trends, but maintain the traditional definition until more definitive data can be collected. Civilization after civilization have used the traditional models of families (or variations thereon) as the basic structure of society. There is also sufficient evidence to suggest that when homosexual relationships became rampant it was on the “tail end” of that society’s existence, not on the front end.

I also support Prop 8 because I believe it to be the only way to prevent discrimination against those who do value and support traditional marriage. Whether or not Prop 8 passes, same-gender couples, and even open promoters and advocates of homosexuality are not going to be persecuted, prosecuted or jailed. However, I believe that reverse discrimination will occur (and is occurring) on the other end of the spectrum. Even now if you support gay marriage you are “open minded”. If you oppose gay marriage for what ever reason, you are guilty of “hate speech”. The freedom of speech and choice for those who oppose gay marriage will be severely compromised if marriage is legally redefined, which brings me to my second reason for supporting Prop 8:

2) My concern for the reality/long term consequences that I believe will ensue if prop 8 doesn’t pass.

There are a number of consequences I believe will inevitably follow if marriage is redefined to allow for same-sex couples. Children in public schools will be taught about same-sex marriage on an equal or (depending on the teacher) higher footing that traditional marriage. Lawsuits targeting people who choose not to “facilitate” same-gender marriages or activities based on personal moral conviction will increase. Ministers or religious organizations who preach against same-sex marriage or institute policies that don’t give equal rights or resources to homosexuals may be targeted for prosecution or loose their tax-exempt status. The list goes on.

The opposition to Prop 8 claim that those are “untrue scare tactics” and that there are laws that specifically will keep any of those things from happening. I can’t decide if the people who say that are just naïve or stupid. There are two compelling arguments that indicate the above concerns are not just scare tactics, but very real concerns:

All of those things have already happened/are happening in states and countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Many of them are already happening in California , in spite of the so-called “legal protections”.

Laws change. Case in point: compare the 1% cost originally imposed for Social Security to the approximately 14% it escalated to down the road—laws change rapidly as the political and social climate change. Closer to the issue: California law clearly defined marriage as between a man and woman (prop 22). Yet it only took one lawsuit making its way to the supreme court to have four judges overturn that law and make same sex marriage legal. Given precedent, the fact that there are laws that ensure clergy will never be forced to violate their religious convictions does not provide much protection when a single lawsuit claiming discrimination would negate that protection in a flash.

Consequence #1: A disintegration of civil liberties for those who oppose same sex-marriage.

Examples:

• Several mayors of Canadian cities have been taken to Human Rights Tribunals for refusing to declare Gay Pride Days in their cities.
• A Catholic high school in Ontario was forced by the Ontario Supreme Court to allow a homosexual student to take his boyfriend to the graduation prom, even though the church-run school has strict prohibitions against condoning any kind of homosexual behavior. Note: this was a private school, not a public school.
• A lesbian couple in the Vancouver arranged to rent a hall for their wedding reception from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholics men's service group. When the group discovered that the marriage was going to be between two women, they cancelled the rental agreement, stating that their religious beliefs prevented them from accommodating a same sex wedding. Even though they paid to reprint the wedding invitations and for the rental of a new hall, the couple still sued the group in the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
• A couple in Prince Edward Island who operated a bed and breakfast in their own home refused to rent their bedroom to two homosexual men. They were charged and convicted of discrimination, and rather than fight the matter in court, they closed their business down.
• A gynecologist in Vista , Calif. refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, claiming that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment. The woman still sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008 and ruled that he didn’t have the right to refuse treatment in August.
• A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer 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).

I have not taken time or space to provide documentation for the above real situations, but have listed them merely to illustrate the types of concerns that exist. Various arguments can be made as to whether or not any of these individuals or groups were right in opposing gays or homosexuality. However, the real issue is not whether they were right or wrong, but whether the law should be able to compel them to participate or not. If society so adamantly believes that all homosexuals should have their freedom of choice respected, doesn’t it hold that reverse discrimination is also wrong: that individuals who oppose homosexuality should have their choice, opinion and freedom of speech protected?

Consequence #2: A wholesale increase in homosexuality because of societal indoctrination.

The argument is made that homosexuality is not a choice, but is something people are born with, and therefore should be respected on equal grounds as heterosexuality. Given the homosexuals I know personally, I would agree that there are some people who naturally have homosexual tendencies. Without arguing over the origin of those tendencies, let’s accept the fact that some people may naturally be inclined that way. Let’s accept the fact that some of those people are going to deal with that reality by being promiscuously homosexual. Others are going to find committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. Still others are going to deal with it by living celibately. Obviously, how homosexuality is handled becomes a moral issue which has nothing to do with Prop 8, and which will always engender disagreement.

Let’s address the social issue: while agreeing that homosexuality tendency is not a choice for some, I would submit that it is a choice for most and that a larger number of people become homosexual after experimentation and/or indoctrination. One of the more interesting pieces of research examined the high number of homosexual students on sports teams. Students were carefully surveyed to determine how many of them identified themselves as homosexual prior to participation on school sports teams. These results were compared to the number of them who were self-proclaimed homosexuals after several years of participation on the sports team. The findings showed that when non-homosexual students participated on a team with even one homosexual student, after several years of close association, many of those non-homosexual students began to identify themselves as having a homosexual identity or tendencies. However, when non-homosexual students participated on a team that didn’t have any other homosexual students, very few, if any, students “became” homosexual. The research concluded that the majority of young people are not naturally born homosexual, but are persuaded to experiment with and then accept that life style.

Holding the view that same-sex marriages are generally a less effective environment than the traditional family for raising children, and believing that homosexuality can be and is being promoted with exponential results, it stands to reason that those of us who share that opinion would be anxious to slow the spread of this trend down as much as possible. An area of greatest concern to supporters of Prop 8 is that fact that with the legalization of gay marriage, homosexuality will be taught in the public school. Again, opponents claim that is not going to happen, but it is pretty easy to look up the education code that requires schools to teach children about marriage and see that it is an inevitability. There is a big difference between teaching children to be tolerant of different viewpoints and indoctrinating them to accept homosexuality as equally acceptable. That indoctrination is already rampant in many schools. Legally defining marriage as being equal to heterosexual marriage would be the nail in the coffin in terms of indoctrination. Lawsuits in Massachusetts in which the courts ruled that parents did not have the right to object to homosexual curriculum and “pull their kids” out illustrates that concern.

Because homosexuality is a moral as well as a social issue, I believe parents should be able to teach their children according to their beliefs. There is never room for abuse or intolerance of alternate lifestyles, but we have passed the point where, under the guise of “open-mindedness”, we as a society are not only allowing it, we are promoting it. I pay government to educate our children. By education I mean reading, writing, math, history, etc. I expect students to be infused with the “less tangible” kinds of education, such as character development, values, analytical reasoning, etc as well. However, I do not pay schools to become a tool for social engineering and change. When I see the hours spent in California classrooms promoting special interest agendas such as gay rights and diversity at the same time anything remotely connected to traditional moral values or religious ideas is prohibited, I have to take a stand. Fair is fair.

My third reason for supporting prop 8:

3) I believe homosexuality and gay marriage also constitute a moral issue as well as a social issue.

I do believe that legalizing gay marriage has moral ramifications as well as the social ramifications discussed above. I personally believe that marriage was defined by God and that families should ideally include a man and a woman. Biological creation supports that conclusion. I have never seen two men or two women naturally produce a child. However, I also believe historical precedent and social theory and research support traditional marriage. I am deeply offended by people who discount the other issues addressed relating to Prop 8 because they happen to correspond to my religious or moral values. I believe that either reason #1 or #2, in the absence of reason #3, is sufficient to validate supporting the issue. Please don’t discount my opinions under the guise of that I am foisting religious values on the world.

If you don’t agree that the traditional definition of marriage has the highest prognosis for producing stable children then let’s agree to disagree on that. If you don’t believe that government has the right to promote those policies believed to foster the public good for society has a whole, let agree to disagree. If you don’t believe that people who are opposed to homosexuality are in more danger of having their rights trampled than those who favor homosexuality then let’s agree to disagree.

My first day out knocking on doors for Prop 8 I had barely mentioned prop 8 to a guy when he said, “I am not voting for prop 8. I am gay”. He then asked what group I was working with, assuming I was against prop 8. When I said, that I was on the “Yes on 8” side, he laughed and said, “then I can’t work for them. I’m on the other team!” We laughed, ‘shook hands’, and went our own ways with mutual respect for each other. I didn’t love and accept him less. He didn’t accept me less. We disagree on the issue. We disagree on our moral perspective. We disagree on the social ramifications. But we left friends. Too bad the entire world doesn’t work that way. It would be nice if we were all free to exercise our right to participate in the government freely. Yes, the majority will generally prevail. Who that majority is may likely change with the times. But in an ideal world they would do it respectfully, considering the minority’s rights and position. There is a big difference between that and using the guise of tolerance, acceptance, fairness, anti-discrimination to push a social agenda.

So, yes, I support Prop 8…and proudly so. I understand and respect those who honestly don’t. I don’t respect those few who really don’t care at all about marriage rights or the future of society, but have a gay social agenda to promote. I likewise don’t respect those whose sole support of Prop 8 is a desire to force their religious beliefs on others. However, I believe that the majority of people on both sides of the line genuinely want what is best for society. I believe it will be a close race, with a somewhat higher probability for the “No on 8” side prevailing over the “Yes on 8.” I will be sad if that happens, however, that is a risk we always take when buy into our concept of government where the majority of people make the decisions.

-Laurel Rogers

Marriage as a "Public Good"

(This posting is from an email debate attempting to explain why my stance against same-sex marriage is not just trying to force my own religious beliefs on others.)

Yes, I am against same-sex marriage. I believe that the government has no right to interfere with homosexual relationships but I also think it is not in society's best interest to promote them as "marriage." I think a distinction needs to be made between something being legal and being promoted by the government. I agree with your argument that the government shouldn't tell people how to live their lives, but to me, that is what we already have: people are free to choose whatever lifestyle/sexuality they wish and the government doesn't dictate what they can and can't do.

So what about mixing religious belief and public policy? In the end, while I personally feel that homosexuality is wrong, government cannot and should not base public policy on my personal feelings. I also feel that cohabiting before marriage is wrong, but I'm not asking for government to outlaw that any more than I am asking for them to outlaw homosexuality. Just because I believe a certain way doesn't mean I should "enforce" my belief on everyone. But I think there is a distinct difference between behavior that is allowed or legal and behavior that is promoted or encouraged.

Why would the government want to promote or encourage certain behaviors in the first place? Shouldn't government be neutral? I believe, in general, it should be. But government can decide that a certain behavior has a beneficial effect on society enough to warrant "promoting" it. You would call this a "public good" in economics: something that benefits more parties than those personally involved. One example of this is home ownership: data has shown that homeowners tend to be more stable, take better care of their homes/neighborhoods, contribute less to crime and so forth. More home ownership is a good thing for everyone- not just those who own the homes- so the government has created policies to encourage home ownership (tax deduction of interest, FHA loans, etc.). The government doesn't encourage me to buy a home vs. rent because it likes me and wants the best for me (although it sounds nice...): it does it because it is better for EVERYONE.

The problem with a public good is that the tendency is to "free ride" on benefits from others instead of putting out effort to do the beneficial thing yourself, which results in the public good being under-provided. Take immunizations: if I am immunized there is a benefit to me but also a risk (I could be the one in a million who contracts the disease, I have to be stuck with a needle, it costs me money to get the immunization, etc.); but when I am immunized it also benefits everyone around me by reducing the likelihood of me spreading the disease. If enough people are immunized, then someone who doesn't want to take the risk themselves can "free ride" on all of the other people who are immunized without a large risk of contracting a disease... but this only works as long as there enough people still getting immunized to keep the non-immunized people's risk low. If people were to base their decision of whether to be immunized solely on their own personal comfort vs. risk, fewer people would be immunized than would be desirable for society as a whole. So government promotes immunization so this "public good" is not under-provided. (I might note that this view of mine is not uncontested: there is a very outspoken minority that strongly believes that government support of immunizations is wrong and dangerous and that the government is only promoting immunization to keep drug companies making money).

Traditional marriage has many benefits that are a "public good," similar to home ownership: people who are married are more stable, less violent, live longer, more healthy, etc. The most important of these "public goods" provided by marriage are those involving bearing and raising children. Families are the seedbed of society: how children are raised largely determines how successful they are, how much education they get, how much they contribute to the economy, whether they live productive lives, or whether they fall into poverty and crime. (There is a study by William Galston, a former advisor to President Clinton, that shows that you only have to do three simple things to avoid being poor: finish high school, marry before having a child, and wait until age 20 to have a child. Only 8% of people who do these three things are poor, compared to 79% for those who do not.) Marriage between a man and a woman fosters a stable environment for reproducing and raising offspring, decreases the rate of children growing up in poverty, among numerous other benefits. Because of this, it is in government's best interest to promote marriage for the common good of society as a whole. As I see it, it shouldn't matter to government whether two people love each other. The only reason government should get involved in promoting certain relationships is if those relationships are shown to create a beneficial effect for society beyond the two people involved.

So to summarize, my position that government should not declare that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual marriage is not based on my personal religious values. It is based on social and biological observation. Biological observation shows that a man and woman are required (at least at some point in the process...) to create a child. Social observation has clearly shown that children do better when raised by a married couple. There is also increasing evidence that it is in a child's best interest to be raise by a man and a woman, who fulfill different gender-specific roles in parenting. The UN Convention on the rights of children even has as one of the rights of a child (in Article 7) "as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents." The reason that marriage recognized by government is not so much for the personal benefit of the parties involved as it is for the benefit that their union will potentially make to society as a whole.

I guess what I don't see is why there is a need for government to promote homosexual marriage as a public good. Yes, there would be benefits to the individual couple (most of which are already guaranteed by domestic partnership laws). But I haven't yet heard a good argument that homosexual marriage qualifies as a public good for society that benefits all. I could be mistaken, but I think it is a risky social experiment to take without very carefully weighing the pros and cons in a public forum of debate and, hopefully, consensus. None of these criteria have been met by the California Supreme court simply overturning the existing law.

So that's the long and short (or, more accurately, the long and long) =] of my opinion.

In Defense of Marriage...

Last week I forwarded a video regarding California's Proposition 8 [that would require marriage to be between a man and a woman] to a mom's email group from my old ward in California. The video was an interview with a couple that lives in Massachusetts, who were shocked to find out that their child's teacher had read the book "King and King" (describing a prince who falls in love with and marries another prince) in school. The video made the point that if Prop.8 doesn't pass, schools in California will be required to present marriage between two men or two women as equal with marriage between a man and a woman.

Today someone posted the following response to the mom's group:

"In case you are interested, I have posted a commentary on some of the arguments for Proposition 8 by Morris Thurston, an adjunct professor at BYU."

In particular, he provides an interesting legal argument that contradicts the message of this video. Contrary to the implication in the video, failure to pass proposition 8 will NOT require teachers in California to teach that gay marriage is okay.

While we may not share the same views, I think we all agree it is important to get out and vote, vote our conscience, and make decisions that seem in connection with the Savior's plan. However, I also believe that these political wars where propaganda is purported to be truth are absolutely problematic. It is almost as though there has to be reliance on fear mongering, faulty rhetoric, misleading information and misdirection in place of actually dealing with the issues at hand. I hope we will all do our best to be well-informed on the issues and then vote our conscience whichever way that might be."

(You can read the article that she refers to by Morris Thurston here.)

I stewed about this email for a long time today. I totally disagreed with her statement, "Contrary to the implication in the video, failure to pass proposition 8 will NOT require teachers in California to teach that gay marriage is okay." Furthermore, I get frustrated when people imply that I take a certain view because of ignorance or a "reliance on fear mongering." (Not to mention that, at least to me, the way the email mentions the fact that he is a professor at BYU implies some kind of church approval of his opinion- never mind the fact that an adjunct professor does not have a permanent position at the institution.)

So after much more stewing than I should have devoted to it, this is the response I wrote:
---
Thank you for posting the article with the rebuttal to "6 Consequences... if Prop 8 Fails." I read the article and it definitely made me think and examine my views on the subject. I agree that it is important to be as well-informed as possible and to make sure you have a good understanding of the issues involved and the views on both sides of the topic. However, after carefully reading his article, I don't think that it fully addresses all of the issues that were brought up in the video and I disagree with many of the conclusions that Mr. Thurston makes. I have included a summary of what I disagree with below for those who are interested.

I totally agree that there is no place in political discourse for fear-mongering and propaganda and I apologize if the video that I forwarded was perceived as either of those. That was not my intent at all. I totally understand and respect the right of others to differing opinions and I hope that people do carefully consider the issues and vote their conscience. However, I don't like for it to be implied that I personally am relying on "fear mongering, faulty rhetoric, misleading information and misdirection in place of actually dealing with the issues at hand." (That probably wasn't what was intended either...).=] These are complex issues with many ramifications that nobody will be able to completely predict ahead of time. But I don't think that just because I agree with the concerns of the parents in the video that automatically makes me guilty of ignorance or fear-mongering either.

So if you want the more detailed run-down on my response to his response,=] read on... if not, delete. Have a great day!

Karen
...
Mr. Thurston does provide an interesting legal argument that I think is well-worth reading. However, I don't think it addresses all of the issues that were of concern to the parents portrayed in the video. I don't think that his argument proved at all that failure to pass prop 8 will not require California teachers to teach that gay marriage is okay. If anything, it made the point that teachers are already required to teach "respect for marriage and committed relationships," (which I am assuming could be presumed to mean committed homosexual relationships) and that Prop 8 will not make a difference. As Thurston states, as the law in California currently stands:

Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and
community health, to include the following
subjects: Family health and child development,
including the legal and financial aspects
and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
(http://law.justia.com/california/codes/edc/51890-51891.html)

While the focus may be on "health," I have a hard time seeing how what constitutes a married couple would fail to come up in a discussion of "the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood." While the law may not specifically "require" that teachers teach that "same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage," I think that re-defining what constitutes a marriage will implicitly make that change.

I felt like several of Thurston's arguments were a little bit misleading. True, Catholic Charities has not "closed its doors," but it has stopped doing adoptions in Massachusetts. No, this wasn't because the government forced them to, but because they "were reluctant to undertake a lawsuit that might be lost." I can see how a charity would have a hard time justifying devoting significant financial resources to a lawsuit when their main purpose is to use their resources to provide help to people in need. While it is true that that government agencies may not choose to keep private adoption agencies from placing children only in heterosexual homes, the possibility of a lawsuit from an outside source is not improbable. Just because LDS Family Services (or any other adoption services for that matter) have not previously been sued and forced to place children with a gay couple does not mean that it will not happen in the future. I disagree with Thurston's assertion that passing Prop 8 will not matter if there is a legal challenge because of the current domestic partnership law. Laws can be interpreted many different ways. If that wasn't true, why would we need to have lawyers argue their different views of how a law should be interpreted? It would just be self-evident.

I also disagree with his assertion that Prop 8 would have no bearing on same-gender housing at universities. He says: "To date, however, no private California religious school has been forced to comply with this [equal housing for domestic partnerships] law." All it would take is one private lawsuit, citing the California supreme court ruling that same-gender marriage is legal and equal for that to change. Furthermore, being a private school and having an honor code prohibiting homosexuality does not shield you from lawsuits or legal challenges. You could easily be sued for discrimination: the state recognizes homosexual marriage, so should the university.

As an example, look at what has happened as a result of Title IX (a law mandating that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.) While the intent of the Title IX law is good, this had a huge impact on inter-collegiate athletics-- even at private schools. While I was at BYU, the university had to discontinue the men's gymnastics and wrestling program, in order to comply with the Title IX requirements to have equal numbers of men's/women's sports and sports scholarships. You would think that because BYU is a private university and doesn't rely on federal money that they would not need to comply, but they do receive federal funding: Pell Grants for its students. Failure to comply with Title IX requirements would mean cutting off all Pell Grants and federal student loan assistance at BYU or any other university-- that would definitely create a huge impact. Now you can argue whether equalizing sports between sexes was a good or bad thing, but my point is that just because BYU was a private school, it was not shielded from the impact of discrimination laws and the possible loss of federal funding.

Personally, I think that one other essential reason Prop 8 is important because protecting marriage between a man and a woman protects children. Children, who are the most voiceless and vulnerable segment of society, have a right to be raised by a father and mother.
There is an op-ed piece in the LA Times that I think makes a very compelling case for this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story

The author states that: "Children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world." We don't live in a perfect world and goodness knows that the ideal doesn't always happen, but I think society has an obligation to support marriage as a way of protecting children and encouraging fulfillment of parental obligations to children.

Well there's my two... or ten or twenty.. cents. =]
....
(Note: The writer of the original email wrote me back and apologized for implying that I was resulting to "fear-mongering" and thanking me for reading and thoughtfully responding to the article that she sent.)