Sunday, October 19, 2008

I don't want to post about this....

I've been avoiding Proposition 8.

I don't want to talk about it.

I want California to go back to the place it was when I grew up.

I want to go to Disneyland and not have to check if it's Gay Pride day first.

Supporting proposition 8 is hugely unpopular.

I would love it if the homosexual community would act as they would like to be treated.

Why is it that those that want to be looked at like everyone else think the best way to do so is to wear some neon wings and a thong in a parade?

Why is it that if I believe one thing, and I respect your right to believe something contrary that's not good enough?

Why do I have to believe what you believe?

I'm coming to grips that I may be spending the rest of my life in Texas or the South-

Proposition 8 will have a greater impact on my family and society than either of the presidential candidates will.

I've been asked to blog about proposition 8.

Thinking about it stresses me out- I'm having a hard time finding the words to explain how I and many others feel-

This is the first of a series of posts about Prop 8 that will make others angry.

I'll deal with it.

41 comments:

kamilli v said...

Look forward to reading your future posts. This issue is one that has caused much turmoil within my own family, to the point that I can't really blog about it myself. :)

cropstar said...

my sentiments exactly...

Christin said...

It's a tough issue but it is so big that we have to speak out about it. Can't wait to hear what you have to say.

Silvs said...

Oh man I have been wanting to not talk about it either. But it seemed like I kept running into it, so I finally did. Look forward to your take on it.

Ding ding ding ding! You are correct. Miss you much!

Anonymous said...

I don't get it. Is this post meant to be ironic?

It doesn't make sense to support this proposition and also say,

"Why is it that if I believe one thing, and I respect your right to believe something contrary that's not good enough?

Why do I have to believe what you believe?"

Prop 8, if passed, will amend California's constitution to make sure that anyone who doesn't believe what 'you' believe will be constitutionally prohibited from practicing their own beliefs. Why push your religious, moral views on the rest of the State?
If you want California to be as discriminatory and closed minded as the South, by all means, go there.

Salt H2O said...

Anon-

This is one aspect of which I'm going to address- anyone that supports proposition 8 is automatically villified and called closed minded and bigotted.

Currently I can't sue any institution that believes in homosexual unions. (nor do I want to) If proposition 8 passes churches, organizations and people can/will be sued if they think and practice that marriage is a sacred union between husband and wife. California law will be litterally forcing all Californians to accept homosexuality.

More on this will follow at a later date. Like I said this is a series of posts. I haven't begun to scrape the surface- please save your rash generalizations and quick judgements until the end-

Why is it that those that feel compelled to condemn others do it behind Anonymous? You'd think if you were so terribly right, you'd be proud to post who you are.

Anonymous said...

None of this is true:

"Currently I can't sue any institution that believes in homosexual unions. (nor do I want to) If proposition 8 passes churches, organizations and people can/will be sued if they think and practice that marriage is a sacred union between husband and wife. California law will be litterally forcing all Californians to accept homosexuality."

But it sounds like you oppose the Prop -- so, fantastic! We're on the same page.

I don't know you and you don't know me -- what's the difference if my name is anonymous or Joseph Patrick Schmidt?

peetie said...

I realize we'll never convince each other; we exist on opposite ends of the Mormon spectrum, it seems. But I would like to hear your responses to these two lines of thought, one facetious and one more logical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPVISQR9fY

and

http://mormonsformarriage.com/

Also, I must say I thought your reasoning about gay pride parades being embarrassing seemed silly. Obviously that is not representative of the entire gay population, any more than BYU fans represent all of los mormones.

Taylor said...

anonymous obviously doesnt know what he/she/it is talking about. Even without prop 8 these things have begun to happen. A doctor was sued for refusing to give in vitro fertilization treatments to a homosexual couple. He referred them to a doctor in his building who would honor the same price, yet they still sued him and won. Much, much more messed up stuff will happen than this if the proposition does not pass. Its an extremely slippery slope.

Salt H2O said...

Anon-
You know what I meant- "if prop 8 doesn't pass" it was a typo-

As to who you are- I've found that the most argumentative and thoughtless comments on this blog come from individuals who won't post who they are or a link to their own blog- I believe there's a corrilation there.

I have many friends who disagree with me- often, and do so respectfully. I have blog for open dialog- not as a thoughtless message board. Which brings me to Peetie...

Peetie-
You don't know what you may or may not convince someone of.

My opinions change daily depending on evidence that is presented me. There are many things I am not afraid to be opinionless on simply because I do not have all the information.

It may surprise you that I voted for Obama in the primaries- I wish I had voted for Hilary. I am a registered Democrat.

I've found that most supporters of proposition 8 aren't nearly as vocal as those that oppose it, those that oppose it have lost a number of opportunities to share an open and respectful dialog because they are rash to start calling others names. So the supporters of Prop. 8 have found it easier to simply remain silent.

As to the gay pride parade comment-you're absolutely right. There's many a BYU graduate that I wish would never tell anyone they went to the Y. However, when you have a parade celebrating who you are, and you desperately want to be accepted as a normal every day piece of functioning society- wouldn't the best way to be accepted like everyone else to dress/ act like everyone else? To show that though you have a different lifestyle, you aren't so terribly threatening?

Salt H2O said...

Taylor-
If you have a link to the story I'd appreciate it.

Few believe that this kind of thing would happen.

Many others think there is nothing wrong for a lawsuit like that to occur and serves the doctor right.

Which is where we get into the state of California forcing it's inhabitants to accpet homosexuality, by law. Freedom of religon is gone.

kamilli vanilli said...

The same people who claim to just want tolerance and respect are the same people saying the vilest, most disrespectful and hateful things about people who support Prop 8. The hypocrisy is amazing. They don't just want your tolerance. They want you to change. They want you to be "enlightened"--to see the error of your ways--to change your mind and religious beliefs.

Things that are now having to be taught in Mass. schools, etc. are totally crazy. The importance of gender has now totally been diminished.

I recently read a very good article written by a liberal Democrat who supports Prop 8: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story

kamilli vanilli said...

Sorry..my link didn't copy fully. Here's the rest of my above link:

8sep19,0,2093869.story

Steve said...

I find your stereotypical references to gay pride parades as beyond cliche! Yes, those people exist, but to condemn all gay people or even supporters of Prop 8 as such would be to still hold all Mormons up as polygamists and zealots. Yes, some are, but not all and what if they do want to parade around like that 365, what right do you have to stop them or condemn them? Maybe I hate your blue shirt you always wear, does that mean I should support the anti-blue shirt prop?!?! No, it's your life and you should be able to live it the way you want and do whatever, whenever you want with your blue shirt. It's not like you are forcing or even asking me to wear your blue shirt!!!
As for suing churches, that is a huge stretch! There is no way that lawsuit would even be successful, if it even got that far. And in this case, the ACLU (I'm a member!) would side with the churches.

Salt H2O said...

Steve-
It has already happened.

Not to mention the number of individuals sued due to their belief system.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand what you meant above when you said, "If proposition 8 passes churches, organizations and people can/will be sued if they think and practice that marriage is a sacred union between husband and wife."

I don't think that churches or people can be sued for thinking something, or for practicing their beliefs. Were you referring to something in particular?

It seems this issue is about equality. Prop 8, if passed, would have the state offer rights to one group and deny them to another.

[I understand I'm opening myself up for attack for not posting my name, but I don't think I'm going to anyway.)

Salt H2O said...

Anon-
Yes, you can get sued for what you believe- see the links in the response to Steve.

A catholic charity in Boston was forced to close it's doors rather than comply with the court order that they place children with homosexual couples.

Then there is the photographer who got sued because he referred a homosexual couple to someone else rather than take photos of the ceremony.

Homosexuals in California currently have the exact same rights as a married couple.

It's not about rights- it's about acceptance.

No one is stopping homosexual couples from having civil union ceremonies- no one is saying a homosexual partnership should be able to visit each other in the hospital- the issue at hand is that homosexuals want be accepted as normal, as mainstream which is why they want the word 'marriage'.

Jonesy said...

Okay - I'm usually just a lurker here. I love reading what all you smart people think but lack the confidence to speak out. Until today - I really don't mind someone wearing the blue shirt. But if I believe that the blue shirt is immodest, or inappropriate for my child to wear, I find it offensive that someone, that my child has been taught to respect as an authority figure, would teach my child, in a formal setting, that there is nothing wrong with it. And if supporting the whole "anti-blue shirt" prop is the only way that I can be certain that my child will not be taught this - then sign me up !

Steve said...

Jonesy - Following your model would also make it ok for the white supremacists to continue teaching their children what they want. I'm not saying you are equal to one, but one parent can't dictate what is and isn't allowed in public. BTW, sooner or later your child is going to find out about gay people! Heaven forbid!

Salty - Don't expect any articles from Taylor, he doesn't provide support on his own blog, why would he in comments on other blogs.

The first article you posted is not supporting you; it's a non-profit, not a Church, that owns the property. So yes, it would fall under a discriminatory ban. And the second article, I fail to see the connection.

First of all, it is irrelevant what we outside of California care or believe since unless you are voting, it is only for California citizens to decide. So all these outside forces are essentially being anti-Constituitional and anti-Federalist.

Second of all, it was ANTI-gay movement that set up Prop 8, not the gays! They were all happy with their civil unions and now people want to take that away.

In the end, this comes down to semantics. It was clear in the VP debate. Conservatives fear "marriage" is going to cause them some harm, but no one is going to force these couples to get married in churches, thus in your eyes, especially Mormons who only believe in Temple marriages as actual "marriages", this isn't even close to happening.

And regardless, even if it passes, then what?!?! It's not like gay people are going to disappear or won't just find another state that is friendlier to their plights to start the battle up again, wasting lots of time and money on both sides.

This is one of the most pointless arguments ever at this level of government!!!!

Allie said...

These types of discussions are always messy.

I was reading the comments on a prop 8 blog over on FMH, and one person described how difficult this has been for her and how she has come to the conclusion that she needs to support prop 8 (not that she lives in CA, so it really doesn't matter). I may disagree with her conclusion, but her thought process was exactly the same as mine had been, so it really bothered me that she was getting beat up because of it.

My sister doesn't want to wear flamboyant clothing in a parade, she'd just like to walk down the street holding hands with someone she loves without it having to be a political statement.

Good luck with your future posts, I hope it doesn't cause you too much stress.

Salt H2O said...

Steve:
"one parent can't dictate what is and isn't allowed in public" but what gives the public the right to dictate what is taught to a child?

Do you really think that what happens in California will have no impact on the rest of the nation? Um, remember Enron? Remember your liberal friend Grey Davis? Thanks to him you and I are going to be extending a loan to California. Besides- my family is there and I was planning on moving back someday.

No one wants gay people to disappear. It's about forcing others, by law to accept homosexuality.

Considering that homosexual couples in California already have the rights of a married couple- can you explain what the homosexual couple's plight is?

Allie-
One thing I've been reminded of is that only Conservatives are expected to be tollerant and respectful- which is one of the reasons I broke up with FMV.

Liberals get a free pass- they can say what ever they want to who ever has a differing opinion. Civility goes out the door if you're dealing with a conservative, which is why I was hesitant to post about this.

I think you'll find that majority of supporters of Proposition 8 will have no issue with your sister holding a loved one's hand in public.

I very much welcome and look forward to your opinion on this topic and especially with one of my future posts that will more directly address Mormons that oppose prop 8.

Anonymous said...

Proposition 8 isn't about education. And the California education code doesn't dictate that schools teach kids about marriage. So whatever it means to say, 'what gives the public the right to dictate what is taught to a child?' doesn't really apply. This is about eliminating the right of marriage from a particular group of people.

Separate is not equal. It kind of sounds like you're saying, "We're not saying they can't get ON the bus, we're just telling them where they can sit." When the state allows one group to enter into a contract, but does not allow another (another group that is protected per California law), it's discriminatory.
Beside, if all the rights are the same, then how come people are fighting to take away the right of marriage?

It's not about forcing anyone to accept homosexuality. It's about equality.

I think Allie's point was that her sister, and most others, don't want this to be a political issue. But it seems that by denying rights, the majority wants to make it political. Right now, both Allie and her sister can marry the person each chooses. If Prop 8 passes, her sister cannot. That's discrimination.

Salt H2O said...

Anon-
You continue to state the same argument with out recognition of arguments that have been previously made- nor are you bringing any new light to the conversation.

You're becoming wearisome.

Jonesy said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that white supremacists most likely do teach their children what they believe. I'm not saying it's okay, but it is what it is.

Furthermore, my children will learn about homosexuals, in fact they already have, and they have done it in my home, with the guidance and teachings that I deem appropriate. I am the authority figure in their lives that teaches them about issues with moral consequences. Our (public)school has to ask our permission to teach our children sex ed or even about AIDS. These are subjects that have morals attached to them and I want to be able to hedge my own bets with my children.

I do tend to agree with you - Steve- that this comes down to semantics. The gay community wants to use the same word for their union that the straight community does. (since prop 8, as I understand it, does not extend or deny any other rights) However, in the eyes of those who support prop 8, this interferes with how and when we want our children taught about homosexuals and their relationships. So, why can't the gay commnunity choose another word since they have chosen another lifestyle?

Furthermore, you'll need to show me where, in mormon doctrine, it states thate only Temple marriages are recognized as "actual" marriages.

Anonymous said...

Some facts in response to some of the above arguments as presented by a BYU legal professor.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

Steve said...

Jonesy - Your school district has to ask permission? That sounds foreign to me. How can they ever get anything accomplished? AIDS has nothing to do with morals, I am sorry. A kid could get it playing football or doctor with a friend just as easily as having sex. So the sooner the facts are known, the better. Plus, what about the backwards parents that deny or even suggest that "God" gives AIDS to people. No way am I suggesting you are one of these people, but an educated society is needed to protect and understand itself. The same argument can be said about gays.

As for the term, gays are more than happy to use "civil unions" and only go to churches that accept them. The problem I see with Prop 8 is that by defining "marriage" as impossible, it will be a very slippery slope for businesses, insurance companies, schools, etc., to allow inadvertant discrimination b/c "you are not married". This will then force the federal govt to rule, which it has no place for several reasons. Again, the conservatives started this fight on Prop 8.

As for this suddenly causing all kinds of problems across the country, I've yet to see any impact on my state or local states or in the federal govt related to the Mass, Hawaii, or any other states 'sllowing' gay 'marriage'. This is similar to the argument about prostitution in Nevada. It is still ONLY in Nevada after all these decades and as far as I know, it has yet spread to any other jurisdiction, big or small.

Robin said...

Wow Kory. Is Anonymous the same person every time? Check your site meter and see.

You go girl!

JustRandi said...

wow Kory! You're brave for taking this one on. Especially if you don't live in CA. (Which I always thought you did!)

I agree with you 100% about conservatives being the only ones accountable for civility.
If I don't vote for Barack Obama, I'm being accused of being racist.
Yet conservatives would never accuse someone not voting for the McCain/Palin ticket of being a misogynist. We're not allowed.
(I'm not saying that's the case, just saying there's a difference between allowable tactics in the parties.)
Wouldn't it be great for the tolerance door to swing both ways?

Silvs said...

Steve, homosexual couples are not content with the term civil unions. It's the reason why the case was appealed to the state supreme court in the first place. California affords same-sex couples all the rights of heterosexual couples through the Domestic Partners Act AB 205, that has been broadened to include all rights, privileges, and protections that heterosexual couples have. Consequently, in California same-sex couples are virtually indistinguishable under the law from heterosexual couples.

It's not the legal protection that they're seeking, it's the institution itself, and the endorsement of the rest of society.

Jonesy said...

Okay - here goes - foreign or not - I get a paper home from our public high school whenever my child is to be taught about sex ed which includes STD’s which includes AIDS. I can choose to not have my child participate in this curriculum. I have, however reviewed said curriculum and have found it to be in accordance with what I would teach (abstinence) and therefore my child does participate. You’re right, it slows down the works but because it does include moral decisions - parents get to choose. I think that your statement that someone could get AIDS as easily from playing football as from having sex is a bit of an exaggeration. Football is not behavior that is high risk for AIDS, promiscuous sex and IV drug use are, thus making AIDS a subject with morals attached as both of these activities can be considered right/wrong choices. Homosexuality in and of itself may not be a moral choice. However, I believe that choosing to live the lifestyle associated with it is. Consequently, I would like to dictate how it is taught to my children.

As far as discrimination is concerned, we are all “victims” of some discrimination based on our choices. Non-smokers get better insurance rates, as do healthy, people who choose to eat right and maintain a healthy weight. An athlete who chooses not to participate in a game that is played on Sunday may get less playing time at other games. These are all lifestyle choices. We all face the consequences of our choices. If Mormons want adoptions according to their standards they should start their own adoption agency and fund it themselves (oh yeah - they already have) Catholics could do the same (Oh Yeah - they have too) The Gay community could do the same. If they want a doctor who will inseminate regardless of marital status they may have to do a little searching but they are out there. But I don’t think that a Dr. should be punished if he/she does have criteria. At one point, when choosing a practitioner, I wanted one that was LDS. Because of my choice, I was limited to certain days of the week that I could be seen and my insurance did not cover the caregiver that I chose, even though they did not offer someone with the criteria that I had. I had to pay out of pocket. Discrimination ? It is what it is. I wanted what I wanted so I paid the price.

Thanks for humoring me. I’m a SAHM that doesn’t get out much. I appreciate intelligent debate.

Jonesy said...

ps - here's the link to the story that Taylor was referencing - or at least one like it:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080527-9999-1n27insem.html

Daisy Paige said...

"It may surprise you that I voted for Obama in the primaries- I wish I had voted for Hilary. I am a registered Democrat."

Kory, now isn't that a little misleading? When you registered, you admitted you did it only to pick who you wanted to go against Romney because you knew he'd win Utah in the primaries.

Daisy Paige said...

PS - from the California state constitution:

“Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)

Steve said...

Thank You DAISY!!!!!

Jonesy - BTW, it has been shown that abstinence ONLY teaching is more or less ineffective to stop unwanted pregnancy and HIV prevention. Not that I disagree with you about high risk activities increasing the odds. I disagree with you about the "choice" of living gay, but I know where you are coming from and neither one of us will change the other's mind since I don't believe that gay people should be required to live as second class citizens. I do agree with you regarding gay favorable businesses and services, which DO exist as well as the ones you mentioned. The thing that worries me is that physicians and pharmacists that take an oath to serve are being given this cop out. What if police, soldiers, firefighters, etc. start doing this?!?!? Plus, what happens if a gay individual dies b/c he is denied treatment? I have no proof this has happened, but with this scenario it could. It is bad enough that pharmacists are allowed to not dispense certain medicines (such as RU-486) based on beliefs. In my opinion, these people should be barred from practicing.

Salt H2O said...

Daisy,
First- I voted for Obama based on that at the time he was my favorite democrat candidate- and at the time I thought he would be better in the white house than Hillary- I have since changed my mind.

Like you said, I love(d) Mitt Romney but as Utah was going to carry Romney anyhow I figured I'd vote for my favorite Democrat of the bunch. I was wrong.

As to the California constitution: it's been changed a number of times thanks to judges- ie we had this debate what 4 years ago? and a judge decided what the people had voted on was unconstitutional and sent it back to Californians a second time.....I've got to think about this some more (and of course read some more)....more to come...

Jonesy said...

I'm not arguing what is the best prevention of unwanted pregnancy or HIV - I am arguing that the method that I want/hope my children will use is abstinence. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for me to teach "safe sex" and then expect them to abstain.

I'll have to spend some time thinking about your next point. I would never want anyone who needed treatment to be denied. But certainly there is a difference between elective procedures and medications ( artificial insemination, cosmetic surgery) and life saving procedures and medications. However, the person in the story was not denied treatment because she was gay, she was denied treatment because she was not married. I think we're talking apples and oranges here.

Jonesy said...

Steve - could you explain what "live as second class citizens" means. I hear that used but never quite understand what is meant by it. Do you mean not having all of the rights and priveleges of a first class citizen ? Am I a first class citizen ? What defines that ?

Rowboat said...

i'm glad you're posting about this. the more i learn about all of it, the more frustrated i become. there's a difference between having to respect someone's right to believe as they want, and having to ACCEPT it. ugh.

Silvs said...

Is this a comment-record post yet?

This Prop 8 stuff is unbelievable. Very divisive. My friend is running a Yes On 8 table at his law school in Orange County and people that were his friends are calling him a bigot and such, and that's the light stuff.

It'll be nice when this election is over and The Rapture is here, i.e. Please save us Obama!

Steve said...

Silvs - I agree, I just want to move back to Europe and forget all about this election, haha.

Salt H2O said...

amen.