Thursday, November 27, 2008

A Letter to the Editor

Although the debate over Proposition 8 rages on, no one is addressing what in my mind is the first and most important hurdle, the effect on California’s children. In Massachusetts a first grade teacher walks into a classroom, traumatizes the students with a detailed description of the operation that changed him from a man into a woman and does so under the guise of DIVERSITY and TOLERANCE. Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes made in Massachusetts? Shouldn't this type of “teaching” be age appropriate instead of self-serving?

As someone who has helped raise a generation and is a grandfather to the next, I would have to say that this is by far the most important hurdle. Child abuse comes in two flavors, physical and emotional. They cannot vote. They are without an advocate especially when our “public servant” Jack O’Connell served them up as “guinea pigs” to further his own political career. Like the children in Massachusetts, the door would have been wide open, whether you liked it or not and parental rights would have been limited.

While I am sympathetic towards those who oppose Proposition 8, I cannot comprehend how parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters voted to bring this “teaching” into the schools without having guidelines defining what would be age appropriate topics. I can’t believe that any reputable child psychologist would disagree with me.

To those who would argue that these would be isolated cases, I would say that one is too many considering that children have to deal with terrorism, predators, obesity, diabetes, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. – things that their parents didn’t have to deal with. Isn’t it better to plan than to have to clean-up after the fact?

To those who would say that Proposition 8 should have targeted school reform rather than marriage, I would say, I’ve only addressed the first of at least five hurdles. Once the state asserts that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, it must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes. That redefinition not only affects children but adults as well.

My thanks to you.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

The Reality of Proposition 8

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for equality, tolerance and respect, but after spending hours reading articles and blogs for and against Proposition 8, three main “issues” were articulated. 1) Homosexual couples don’t have the same rights as those afforded heterosexual couples with regard to state granted rights (deathbed visitation, right of survivorship, etc.) – in California the Domestic Partner Act grants the same rights to all couples. 2) Homosexual couples don’t have the same rights as those afforded heterosexual couple with respect to federally granted rights (social security, etc.) – those are issues that are governed by the Federal Government and not alterable by state regulations. 3) Homosexual couples can’t be happy unless they are married – having had a marriage license the first time I got married didn’t make me happy, happiness came as the result of who I was with not a piece of paper that I had. So, in reality the goal is to change the definition of marriage, but with that redefinition comes reality.

Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes, thereby, creating a paradigm shift in the social order. That redefinition will affect children and adults alike. This in and of itself isn’t bad as social change has been with this nation since its foundation, but unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private rights.

The first conflict that arises with redefining marriage is school curriculum. When the state says that same sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples, school curriculum will inevitably have to support this claim. Contrary to what Jack O’Connell (Superintendent of Schools) says, the CA Dept of Ed web site says that 96% of all school children will be taught about same sex marriage. Parental “rights” will be taken away because they cannot “opt out” of this portion of the curriculum.

The next conflict, if same-sex couples can marry each other, they should be allowed to adopt. Anyone who says otherwise is acting against the policy of the state. The state must tell religious adoption agencies that they cannot refuse to place children with same-sex couples. It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese has closed down its adoption program in Massachusetts. Freedom of religion will be lost to intolerance. Maybe that isn't important to you.

Third, certain portions of the Bible may be censored because they teach us that homosexual behavior is a sin. While I personally cannot judge another person, I can certainly identify sins. Otherwise, how do I know what I should and shouldn’t do, or how are we to judge criminal behavior? Are we to loose freedom of speech as well? Can’t happen you say – tell that to the pastor in Sweden who is facing a possible six month prison term for preaching against sodomy or the Canadian who can no longer distribute pamphlets against homosexuality. I guess freedom of speech doesn’t matter much either.

Fourth, businesses and individuals will not be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples for what would be termed discriminatory. While refusing to perform a procedure, such as an abortion, for religious reasons is not discriminatory because it would apply to all patients, refusing to perform a procedure on a particular person because of their sexual orientation is. A doctor in California is already in litigation and a wedding photographer in New Mexico was fined $6800 by the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. Now we have good, decent, hardworking people being persecuted as the result of a modest reform.

Finally, the state of California would begin to issue marriage licenses for polygamy, polyandry, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, first cousins, brothers and sisters, and the disciples of David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, etc. After all, refusing to do so would be bigoted, discriminatory and wrong. Is there any doubt that the ACLU wouldn’t champion their cause?

The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.

My thanks to you.

Responsible Media

The news media has been reporting a one-sided story with respect to the post-election struggle over Proposition 8 here in California. Unfortunately this bias has tainted the reality of the situation. The involvement of the FBI, I guess, made it news worthy to print the story.

After the Larry King show, hosted by Joy Behar, it became apparent that someone had to speak up. I believe that the news media, specifically NBC, CBS and ABC need to move back toward the middle of the road with respect to news coverage. While this may cause less sensationalized reports, it is best not have the “Nazi” Broadcasting Company, the “Communist” Broadcasting System and the “Al-Jazeera” Broadcasting Company tainting what the American populace sees. They seem to be afraid to show the nation the truth because it doesn't fits with their agenda.

I urge you to join with the Californians that are being targeted for using the election process to speak our minds. I would like all Americans to let the media know how disgusted you are with the biased coverage that they present as news. Until then the have nothing on Al Jazeera, Pravda and Der Stürmer.

While even the Sacramento Bee is biased, I have included a link to the section on Proposition 8.

My thanks to you.