The Forgotten Man

Immigration issues

The socialist...er, liberal agenda

I received this via e-mail this morning:

"This clip is about as blatant as a Liberal can get. What she said was The Truth, accidentally, and notice that when she realized what she revealed to the public and the news media, it stopped her dead in her own tracks for a long moment. BUT -- it was too late.

Just hope the country wakes up in the 2010 elections!!!... She leaked out: Obama's Scary Agenda."

What, do you think I'm stupid?

Rep. Kevin Garn, a top leader in the Utah House of Representatives recently disclosed that 25 years ago he sat naked in a hot tub with a former employee. He was 28 at the time and she was 15. Subsequently, in 2002, he paid her $150,000 to keep it quiet. He is now claiming that “nothing happened” while they sat naked in the hot tub. I’m guessing Mr. Garn that you also believe Bill Clinton really “didn’t inhale.”

Why is it that so many politicians believe their constituents are so stupid that they will believe whatever they say? When you run for office you are asking for my trust. You are asking me to trust that you will work in my best interests. Mr. Garn, let me make one thing very clear, I DO NOT TRUST YOU. I am a republican, I am one of your constituents, and we share other things in common which might make you think that my vote is yours. It isn’t, and that ought to worry you.

The victim in this incident, Sheryl Maher, claims that you are not telling the truth. You need to better define what “nothing happened,” means. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton testified, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” Of course his definition didn’t cover fellatios.

There’s one thing that I’m very sure of Mr. Garn. Something did happen in that hot tub. Inappropriate actions also happened before and most likely after that incident. According to Ms. Maher, alcohol was involved. Did you give alcohol to an underage minor? Do you consider that to be “nothing?” She says there was touching involved. She intimates that you like massage. You state, “we did not have any sexual contact…” Are you speaking solely of that time in the hot tub or does that comment mean, ”Never at any time, was there ever any sexual contact?” Just so you know, I define “sexual contact” as any contact between the two of you that had any sexual connotation behind it. She could’ve been fully clothed working as your employee in the Pegasus Record shop and you not-so-innocently brush up against her body.

As you can see Mr. Garn there are several crimes, some felonious I believe, involved here.

You further erode my trust when you skirt Federal Election law by paying money to keep her quiet. According to The Deseret News , “Federal law defines a reportable expenditure as "a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value made to influence a federal election."

Even if the expenditure is not paid by the campaign directly, but instead by the candidate or a supporter, laws still generally require disclosure of the spending. Laws also require a declaration of the money spent as a contribution to the campaign.
While not commenting specifically about Garn, Federal Election Commission spokesman Christian Hilland said Friday, "Essentially, whenever a campaign spends money — whether it's permissible or not permissible — it is required to be reported on their FEC report."’

Though you didn’t return calls seeking comment, your wife, Tanya, states that the payment was made subsequent to the 2002 election. However, you did run for office after 2002 right? And that hush money definitely affected those elections right?

In my opinion sir, you are a pig. You are desperately hoping that we, your constituents, will simply believe that the hot tub was a one-time fluke, that nothing preceded it, nothing followed it, and nothing happened while you were both naked in it. How stupid do you think I am?

Random Thoughts on the Passing Political Scene

Election season 2008 is over. Well, except for pending court battles which will be waged by those that lost and felt they should’ve won…

Some of the most eagerly contested issues had to do with same sex marriage. Three states, California, Arizona, and Florida had ballot initiatives to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. My views on this subject are well known, just scroll through my recent posts and you’ll see where I blogged frequently in favor of these initiatives.

There has been a fair amount of vitriol spewed over these initiatives. Several on-line news organizations today showed protests outside the LDS temple in Los Angeles and I’ve heard that plans are underway to hold more protests at other temples as well.

We are a country of laws, of the people, by the people, and for the people. In 2000, the people of California voted by a 61% margin to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Four activist judges decided that the will of the people should not be followed in this case and overruled the voice and will of the people.

Here again the voice of the people has expressed its will. 52% of Californians believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The population of California is near 38 million. The LDS population in California is about 750,000. A fair amount of those are under voting age. Our voting population makes up less than 2% of the state’s population. I’m guessing that it was more than just LDS people that passed this initiative.

Notwithstanding, we seem to be on the receiving end of most of the venom. Here is a commercial that was run by the No on 8 crowd.



Isn’t it interesting that those that scream how intolerant I am are so mind numbingly intolerant? The opponents to the proposition spoke about how deceptive our claims were, i.e. it would impact what would be taught in schools, it would impact how churches could operate, etc. Here is an article by NPR (a fairly liberal news organization) that gleefully shows where religious organizations are getting beaten back on same sex issues. There is my documentation to support my concerns over this issue. In return, the same sex crowd used lies and distortions to instill fear and paranoia in the masses.

Despite protestations to the contrary, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is not about hating gay people.

I know that God lives and that he loves all of His children. Yes, both the straight and the gay ones. We are on earth for a purpose. God wants to bless all of His children. He has provided commandments that if we follow, we will be blessed. There are more commandments than just homosexuality by the way, and I freely admit that I am not perfect. However, I don’t expect people to accept my faults and sins and simply pat me on the back and say, “That’s okay. You just be who you are.”

Society does not accept it when we break man’s law. When we catch criminals they are prosecuted. Apparently God’s laws don’t seem to carry the same weight by some.

Clearly the difference of opinion on this issue was only settled for a while. Those in favor of same sex marriage will try to overrule the passed proposition in the courts. Three lawsuits in California have already been filed. Will they be successful? Time will tell. I would expect the cases to find their way back to the California Supreme Court, which is the same court that overruled the last law in California passed by the voters against same sex marriage.

If the cases are not resolved in favor of gay marriage proponents I would expect it to show up on ballot after ballot until it does win. As society drifts farther and farther away from God’s teachings, I would expect it to pass someday. Does that mean that I should just stop fighting? No.

President Boyd K. Packer recently said, “Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning.”

“We do not set the standards, but we are commanded to teach them and maintain them. The standard remains abstinence before marriage and total fidelity in marriage. However out of step we may seem, however much the standards are belittled, however much others yield, we will not yield, we cannot yield.”

Also, When I think of unfair and false attacks on the church I am reminded of these words from Elder Bruce R. McConkie,
“Now, I have what every true disciple has. It is called the testimony of Jesus. In our day it includes the revealed knowledge that the earthly kingdom—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—will triumph. In this connection may I set before you this illustration:"

"The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.
What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on.
Is there a ravine to cross, a miry mud hole to pull through, a steep grade to climb? So be it. The oxen are strong and the teamsters wise. The caravan moves on.
Are there storms that rage along the way, floods that wash away the bridges, deserts to cross, and rivers to ford? Such is life in this fallen sphere. The caravan moves on."

"Ahead is the celestial city, the eternal Zion of our God, where all who maintain their position in the caravan shall find food and drink and rest. Thank God that the caravan moves on!"

Finally, I think of the words in Moroni 9:6

And now, my beloved son, notwithstanding their hardness, let us labor diligently; for if we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation; for we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness, and rest our souls in the kingdom of God.

So I will continue to fight for what I know to be true. And between now and the time that gay marriage is fully legalized I will be stocking up on my food storage.

Grass Roots Support for Prop 8

Yes on 102

Glenn Beck on Prop 8

Elder David Bednar on Prop. 8

Prophetic Warnings

Tell me if President Ezra Taft Benson's words don't ring true today? He gave this speech, not as president of the church, but as a citizen of the U.S. 43 years ago.

I've posted several times recently about prop 8 in California and prop 102 in Arizona. I will use that issue to reinforce Ezra Taft Benson's words on socialism.

It has been widely reported how a first grade teacher in San Francisco took her first grade class to City Hall to watch her marriage to her same sex partner. If you don't know about this just scroll down a few posts where I discuss the issue.

Due to the recent change in California law, i.e. legalizing same sex marriage, the school felt that the field trip was, "Academically relevant."

Here's the kicker. Pehaps you're thinking that you can avoid the issue altogether by just homeschooling your child. If you live in California, think again. Earlier this year a California Court of Appeals ruled that Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, CA, could not home school their children because Mary (the mom/teacher) was not a certified teacher in CA.

From the above cited article:
"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."

The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Now back to my own thoughts:
The government is dictating how our children must be taught. Therefore, they get to decide what is taught.

What's next? Will Sunday School teachers need to be certified by the state? Some might consider that an incredible stretch that the state would never presume to impose. However, the ruling above caught the entire homeschooling community in California by surprise. And now an estimated 166,000 children are potential truants and their parents face possible prosecution.

Socialism typically deals with economic issues. The underlying principle however is that the government should dictate how goods and services are produced and distributed. When the government decides how and what should be taught to our children, regardless of our views on how our children should be taught, we are sliding down a slippery slope that we might not be able to recover from.

Vote yes on prop 8 in California and prop 102 in Arizona. Our children are too important.

1st Graders field trip to a lesbian wedding

Yesterday, I posted a video from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It talked about how in states where gay marriage was allowed, that the students would have to be taught that gay marriage in all ways is equivalent to traditional marriage. Just in case you thought I was over reacting. This hit the newswires today.

School Field Trip to Teacher's Lesbian Wedding Sparks Controversy

First-graders in San Francisco took a field trip to City Hall to celebrate the marriage of their lesbian teacher on Friday, but opponents of same-sex marriage in the state say the field trip was an attempt to “indoctrinate” the students, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The field trip was suggested by a parent at the Creative Arts Charter School, and the school said the trip, where students tossed rose petals on their teacher and her wife as they left City Hall, was academically relevant.

"It really is what we call a teachable moment," said Liz Jaroslow, the school’s interim director, according to the newspaper. She said same-sex marriage had historic significance. "I think I'm well within the parameters."

California will vote on Nov. 4 on Proposition 8 which seeks to ban same-sex marriage in the state, and supporters of the measure say the field trip shows that allowing same-sex marriage will mean it’s taught to school children, the newspaper said.

"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign, told the Chronicle. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."

Everyone will be affected by recent court decisions in Massachusetts and California. Stand up and be heard. If you live in California, vote yes on prop 8. If you live in Arizona, vote yes on prop 102. Families are too important not to stand up for them at this defining moment in history.

Gay marriage is a slippery slope to the destruction of society

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council helps explain the slippery slope we’re on if we endorse gay marriage. At the end of the day, the question becomes, what is best for a child? What is best for a family? And what is best for society? Those that disagree with my views, invariably ask what is the harm to anyone if two people want to be married, regardless of their gender? The answer is PLENTY. Several studies suggest that a child is best raised in a two parent household, with both a mother and a father. My support for that comment can be found below in other posts I have written on the subject.

If we legalize same-sex marriage, then it must be taught in our school system as being morally equivalent to traditional marriage. It is now the gay rights community that is being intolerant. I affirm that God does exist and that He loves all of His children regardless of how we choose to live our lives. However, that does not diminish the fact that He wants to bless His children. He has given us commandments, that if followed, will bring us happiness and peace, in this life and the next. As always, please feel free to post your comments for or against my views.

Eight Reasons to Defend Man/Woman Marriage

Family Watch International has published a treatise called, "Eight Reasons to Defend Man/Woman Marriage. It reads in part:

Eight Reasons to Defend Man/Woman Marriage

“One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”
David Blankenhorn, Institute for American Values 1

1. Legalizing same-sex marriage severs children from their right to know and be raised by their biological parents.

Whatever you legalize, you encourage, and therefore get more of. If same-sex marriage is legalized, more children will be raised without a mother or a father. Social science research overwhelmingly proves that children do best on all measures of health and wellbeing when they are raised by their married biological parents. Man/woman marriage optimizes the chances of children being raised and cared for by both biological parents while same-sex marriages establish unions that will always deny the child the right to be raised by either a mother or a father.

Research also shows that mothers and fathers, by nature of their genders, make unique contributions to the development of their children and that these contributions cannot be replaced by two “parents” of the same sex. If society sanctions marriages that make it impossible for children to be raised by either their mother or father, children suffer.

To use an analogy: You could pass a law that says oranges now are apples. But oranges will never look like apples or taste like apples or be apples no matter how many laws we pass, nor will they ever produce the same seeds as apples. Just because we recognize this reality does not mean we have animosity toward oranges. In fact, we can like both oranges and apples and still hold an opinion that they are different. While this example may seem silly, it illustrates that the proposed radical experiment with same-sex marriage attempts to achieve the impossible. Same-sex marriage will never bear the same fruit as man/woman marriage – no matter how many laws are passed because it is radically different.

2. Legalizing same-sex marriage encourages the creation of children through reproductive arrangements that are not in their best interest.

By the laws of nature, same-sex couples cannot have children naturally. Recognizing same-sex marriages encourages increasing use of sperm banks, surrogate mothers and a number of other artificial reproductive technologies. The “products” of these technologies (i.e., children) too often find themselves at the center of court battles to determine who are their legally recognized parents. In addition, troubling testimonies have begun to emerge from children created through sperm donation regarding the negative impact this has had on them. For example, a woman who was raised by two lesbian parents from birth stated, “… I have still felt an empty space in my life, the lack of a father, and no matter the love that I have had from both of my mothers and the rarity of...

To read the rest of their article please click here.

Who's responsible for this mess?

What are the two things that you're told you shouldn't discuss? Religion and politics. Since, I usually talk about religion on this blog, I decided to venture (briefly) into politics as well. I was e-mailed this article, and felt that I needed to post it. I couldn't find a date for when it was written. It claims that the U.S. population is 235 million. Our population is currently 305 million, so it was written a while ago, but it is just as true today as it was when it was written. Let me know what you think.

THE 545 PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
OF AMERICA'S WOES


BY CHARLEY REESE

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

Family and the sanctity of marriage

Legal battles are looming in the drive to define what is a family and what unions are allowed to be called marriage. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' stance on this issue is unequivocal, and it can be found here.

It states in part:

"The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at ProtectMarriage.com.

On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”

Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people."

Please take the time to read the entire article. If you do it will become evident that the church's stance is not anti-gay, as some might claim, but rather it is pro-family. It cites several examples of the benefits to having both a father and a mother in the home. It discusses the alarming rate of homes where children are raised by a single parent.

David Blankenhorn in Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem states: "The United States is becoming an increasingly fatherless society. A generation ago, an American child could reasonably expect to grow up with his or her father. Today, an American child can reasonably expect not to. Fatherlessness is now approaching a rough parity with fatherhood as a defining feature of American childhood.

This astonishing fact is reflected in many statistics, but here are the two most important. Tonight, about 40 percent of American children will go to sleep in homes in which their fathers do not live. Before they reach the age of eighteen, more than half of our nation's children are likely to spend at least a significant portion of their childhood living apart from their fathers. Never before in this country have so many children been voluntarily abandoned by their fathers. Never before have so many children grown up without knowing what it means to have a father.

Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation. It is the leading cause of declining child well-being in our society. It is also the engine driving our most urgent social problems, from crime to adolescent pregnancy to child sexual abuse to domestic violence against women. Yet, despite its scale and social consequences, fatherlessness is a problem that is frequently ignored or denied. Especially within our elite discourse, it remains largely a problem with no name."

David Popenoe In his book, Life Without Fathers, states: "The decline of fatherhood is one of the most basic, unexpected and extraordinary trends of our time. Its dimensions can be captured in a single statistic: In just three decades, between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of children living apart from their biological fathers more than doubled, from 17 percent to 36 percent. By the turn of the century, nearly 50 percent of American children may be going to sleep each evening without being able to say good night to their dads.

No one predicted this trend; few researchers or government agencies have monitored it; and it is not widely discussed, even today. But the decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague American society: crime; premature sexuality and out-of-wedlock births to teenagers; deteriorating educational achievement; depression, substance abuse and alienation among adolescents; and the growing number of women and children in poverty."

As the definition of marriage changes and is trivialized, the sanctity of human life decreases.

According to Wikipedia, the current population in the United States is 305,275,000. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 45,000,000 legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2005. That number is an eye popping 15% of the total population.

NPR reports that in recent court battles between religious and same sex groups, that religions are losing. Some of the examples they cited include:

"Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing."

Tell me, what happens when a gay couple decides that they want to be married inside of an LDS chapel, or temple? At the moment, I can't see how such a thing would be allowed. However, legal precedent is being made with frightening forward looking possibilities.

Heavenly Father loves all of his children regardless of the choices they make in life. However, He has given us commandments, that if we follow, will bless our lives.

His commandments are designed and intended to increase our joy and peace.

One of the greatest gifts we have been given on earth are families. As we continue to confuse what defines a family or a marriage, we reject the blessings He wants to give us.

What can we do?

Go to ProtectMarriage.com and sign up.

If you live in California, vote in favor of Prop 8 and encourage others to do likewise.

Arizona and Florida have similar ballot issues this fall. If you live there, vote in favor of them.

Write letters to your governmental legislators telling them that you support the definition of marriage being defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Donate of your means and times to support the ballot initiatives.

How the California Supreme Court got it wrong

On Thursday, May 15, 2008 That California Supreme Court overruled the state statute, voted on and approved by the citizens of California, that legally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. The recent history of this issue in California is as follows:

On March 7, 2000, the people of California passed an initiative stating that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

In February 2004, the mayor of San Francisco gained international attention and ignited controversy when he directed city officials to ignore the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He justified his actions by claiming the California Constitution requires the government to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The California Supreme Court intervened and voided the illegal licenses on the ground that the mayor had no authority to disregard state law. However, the court did not decide whether the California Constitution requires the state to allow same-gender marriage. That issue became the subject of additional litigation.

In March 2005, a state trial court judge ruled that the state must allow same-gender marriage. That decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, which will make the final decision on the issue.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined with the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of American in filing a brief to the California Supreme Court defending the established definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The
Brief is available on Newsroom.
Some of the interesting points of the brief are as follows:

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
AND AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,
CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS, AND
UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Justice Stephen G. Breyer recently emphasized these themes: “[T]he Constitution [is] centrally focused upon active liberty, upon the right of individuals to participate in democratic self-government.” (Breyer, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution (2005), p. 21.) In his view, “courts should take greater account of the Constitution’s democratic nature when they interpret constitutional and statutory texts.” (Id. at 5.) Judicial restraint – i.e, “judicial modesty in constitutional decision-making” – is essential. (Id. at 37; see also id. at 17.)

Nowhere is judicial deference to democratic self-government more appropriate than in California. Here, the people have zealously retained their sovereign right to set public policy. The California Constitution places unique emphasis on democratic participation in policymaking. That emphasis represents a constitutional lens through which this Court should view its role in adjudicating these cases.

More specifically, on no subject is judicial restraint more warranted than in the present challenge to the time-honored definition of marriage. “[T]he structure of society itself largely depends upon the institution of marriage.” (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 660, 684.) Like generations of Californians, when penning those words in 1976, this Court understood “marriage” to be the union of a man and a woman. It understood that marriage is a social “institution,” not merely a private arrangement between two people. And it understood that what is at stake in marriage is no less than the wellbeing “of society itself.” Page 28 of 73

A. The Judiciary Is Ill-Suited to Make Basic Public Policy
Decisions. The marriage debate turns on conflicting social and moral values and competing visions of how society should be ordered. Courts are not the right forum for this far-reaching discussion. As Professor Bickel explained, the judiciary is inherently ill-equipped to make such defining public policy choices:

The judicial process is too principle-prone and principlebound – it has to be, there is no other justification or explanation for the role it plays. It is also too remote from conditions, and deals, case by case, with too narrow a slice of reality. It is not accessible to all the varied interests that are in play in any decision of great consequence. It is, very properly, independent. It is passive. It has difficulty controlling the stages by which it approaches a problem. It rushes forward too fast…

For all these reasons, it is, in a vast, complex, changeable society, a most unsuitable instrument for the formation of policy. (Bickel, The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress (1978), p. 175.) B. California’s Constitution Places Heavy Reliance on the Active Involvement of the People in Fashioning Public
Policy. Deference to the democratic process in matters of bedrock public policy is particularly appropriate in California, where the Constitution places heavy emphasis on the reserved powers of the people and democratic decision-making.

1. The California Constitution reserves “all political power” to the people.

The California Constitution represents “the highest expression of the will of the people of the state” (Ex Parte Braun (1903) 141 Cal. 204, 211), and “the preeminent expression of California law enacted by the people.” (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lundgren (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 307, 314.) Article 2 § 1 of the Constitution declares, “All political power is inherent in the people.” (Cal. Const., Art. II, § 1 (emphasis added).) The three branches of California’s government have only as much power as the people have delegated to them under the Constitution.

Unlike the United States Constitution, which has “no mechanism for lawmaking directly by the people” (Mannheim & Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California (1998) 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1165, 1167), California’s Constitution reserves to the people powerful means of directly exercising their political power. Indeed, California is “at the radical end of the direct democracy spectrum.” (Id. at 1173.) The people have reserved to themselves the right to legislate directly through the initiative process by simple majority vote. (Cal. Const., Art. II, §§ 8 & 10.) They can “approve or reject” legislation, in whole or part, through the referendum process and recall their elected officials mid-term. (Id. §§ 9 & 13.) By these and other means, the people have constitutionally placed themselves at the center of policymaking.

This constitutional emphasis on the people’s right to directly decide policy issues is an interpretive lens through which this Court should view its role in the marriage debate. It is not the function of the judiciary to create new constitutional rights or to expand existing rights beyond what the people intended. Courts have no authority to create a new constitutional right and thereby limit an arena where the people have decided to govern themselves through the ordinary democratic process. All constitutional change, including the creation of new rights, must come from the people. The people and the legislature, to the extent the people have delegated power to it, are “the creative element in the government.”
(Nougues v. Gouglass (1857) 7 Cal. 65, 70.)

2. California courts and members of this Court have repeatedly emphasized the importance of deferring to democratic bodies in matters of public policy. California courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of allowing democratic bodies to create and implement public policy. “The determination of public policy of states resides, first, with the people as expressed in their Constitution and, second, with the representatives of the people − the state Legislature.” (Jensen v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1959) 52 Cal. 2d 786, 794.)

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs ask this Court to alter the basic definition of marriage and thereby change our shared understanding of this vital social institution. That would be a momentous change, one with serious consequences for married couples, children, and families. With deepest respect for this Court, when it comes to the definition of marriage the stakes are simply too high for the issue to be decided by a handful of judges, no matter how able or learned. As a matter of democratic legitimacy and judicial prudence, any such change should come from the people and their legislative representatives.

The people of California and their political institutions are fully engaged in a democratic conversation about the nature and meaning of marriage. In the best of the American democratic tradition, “we the people” are talking, deliberating, deciding. Whatever the outcome, the conversation about this basic social institution should be allowed to continue without a profoundly divisive, judicial short-circuiting of the democratic process.
Page 71 of 73

By overturning the will of the people this week, the State of California’s Supreme Court has started on a slippery slope that will lead to the break down of our moral compass, and as a consequence, the weakening of our very society.

Consider the following article that explains the benefits children receive that are raised in a home with a father and a mother that reads in part:

To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complementary ways mothers and fathers parent.

If Heather is being raised by two mommies and Brandon is being raised by Daddy and his new husband-roommate, Heather and Brandon might have two adults in their lives, but they are being deprived of the benefits found in the unique influences found in a mother and father’s differing parenting styles. Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. And by cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, they provide these good things that same-sex caregivers cannot. The important value of these gender-based differences in healthy child-development will be explored here.

The fathering difference is explained by fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the job of parenting that a mother cannot.

Likewise, a mother, as a female parent, uniquely impacts the life and development of her child, as Dr. Brenda Hunter explains in her book The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child. Erik Erikson explained that father love and mother love are qualitatively different kinds of love. Fathers “love more dangerously” because their love is more “expectant, more instrumental” than a mother’s love.

The following are some of the most compelling ways mother and father involvement make a positive difference in a child’s life. The first benefit is the difference itself.

“Children need mom's softness as well as dad’s roughhousing.”

Mothers and Fathers Parent Differently

This difference provides an important diversity of experiences for children. Dr. Pruett explains that fathers have a distinct style of communication and interaction with children. Infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, in her book The Two Sexes, explains mothers and fathers respond differently to infants. Mothers are more likely to provide warm, nurturing care for a crying infant. This diversity in itself provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions —more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and their children.

The above article also shows the importance of married couples striving to improve their marriages and to consider divorce as the last option as opposed to the all too frequent first option in dealing with challenges and struggles inherent in most marriages.

This post is not my intent to write an anti-gay rant. Homosexuality is not a sin that I have had to struggle with, but I’m pretty sure that I shouldn’t be casting stones at others until I am without sin. I’m not there yet, and I have this sneaking suspicion that if I do get there, I’m not going to want to cast stones anyway.

The LDS churches official position on the decision of the California Supreme Court is as follows:
“SALT LAKE CITY 16 May 2008 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same-sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the Church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate.”

When I started researching for this post, I went to several religious websites that discussed homosexuality. Most of them said that gays will burn in hell. My thoughts were, “yeah ok maybe, but I will to if I don’t keep the commandments as well, and the last time I checked, that’s not the only commandment.” I was left wondering if the people that wrote these articles on their websites then went home kicked their dog and yelled at their wife and children. I could be wrong, but a lot of them seemed very angry. It’s always rubbed me the wrong way when people adopt an, “I’m going to heaven because I’m a (fill in your religious organization here – including Mormons, because I’ve definitely met some that feel this way), but you’re going to be miserable for eternity because you’re not like me.”

Point being, I wanted to quote more than just “LDS” thoughts on this subject. However, the best thoughts I could find were from the church’s own website. Feel free to comment and add your findings if they differ from mine.

I did find an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks that I liked, it reads in part:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?

ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?

ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.
Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?

ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?

ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.

In another article President Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married" (“Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 54).

After initially creating this post, I found this article that I also liked.

In conclusion, The State of California overstepped its bounds with its latest ruling. They should have abided by the will of the people. If the will of the people was in support of gay marriage, then that should’ve been respected as well, and my personal opinions on the subject should’ve been ignored. The vast majority of Californians justifiably could feel disenfranchised by this latest ruling, which will breed contempt for government as a whole, and the judiciary in particular.

Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Any other definition cheapens the status that has been held by society going back to the beginning of time.

Children are best served by having a male father and a female mother. Their needs should not become subject to the whims of those that want to live in a gay lifestyle but feel that they should raise children as well. If nature doesn’t allow two men or two women to conceive between them, there’s probably a good reason for it.