I've reread the blog discussions, I've "studied it out in my mind", and I'm going with my gut on this one. Some may blast me for going with my inner feelings, but that has served me very well over the years. I like to believe that those feelings are the whisperings of the Spirit. I know that I am not always living in a way that I should be allowed those whisperings, and sometimes I don't get them and feel that I am floundering. But I don't feel that way right now. I WILL vote YES on Proposition 8 because something struck me hard again today in the Proclamation on the Family, which I believe was written through inspiration by the First Presidency of the Church. There are not many men I admire more than Gordon B. Hinckley and his name is on that document. It says, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." Obviously, this is not always the case but I feel I should do what I can to promote the ideal. 
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Decision 2008
I've reread the blog discussions, I've "studied it out in my mind", and I'm going with my gut on this one. Some may blast me for going with my inner feelings, but that has served me very well over the years. I like to believe that those feelings are the whisperings of the Spirit. I know that I am not always living in a way that I should be allowed those whisperings, and sometimes I don't get them and feel that I am floundering. But I don't feel that way right now. I WILL vote YES on Proposition 8 because something struck me hard again today in the Proclamation on the Family, which I believe was written through inspiration by the First Presidency of the Church. There are not many men I admire more than Gordon B. Hinckley and his name is on that document. It says, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." Obviously, this is not always the case but I feel I should do what I can to promote the ideal. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I BLAST YOU!
Come on, JT. Go easy on your poor auntie.
You're not poor, Shawn. You gotta go with what you feel is best, as do we all.
BLASTING RESUMED.
Don't worry, Mom, I have a blast-ray neutralizing vest you can wear! I'm proud of you.
I agree that you need to do what you think is right.
But two comments. One, I still don't see how this has a legal leg to stand on. Two, it is my understanding that the Constitution of the U.S. is the supreme law of the land and supersedes all others (supremacy clause). The constitution says (in different words) that marriages valid in one state must be considered valid in all others. If this proposition passes, it will cost the tax payers of California millions in legal expenses, and ultimately be overturned by the Supreme Court.
I am pretty sure this is correct, but Fred would know for sure.
Just something to consider when you go to the ballot.
Legal, shmegal. Blasting, shmasting. There will be lawsuits and millions of dollars spent either way, I'm sure of it. I'm also sure God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman whether that has a legal leg to stand on or not. Guess I'll just have to borrow Jamie's blast-ray neutralizing vest to wear from now until I finish filling out my ballot. And November can't come soon enough because I'm really pretty sick of politics AGAIN. Here is a summary of how I am feeling today:
Obama, Shmobama
Biden, Shmiden
Palin, Shmalin
McCain, ShmaCain
Prop 8, Shmop 8
Fighting, Shmighting
Lieing, Shmieing (both sides do it and you know it)
Arguing, Shmarguing
Both sides may be dishonest. But since we have to chose, I think it is worth making the distinction between which side is worse. Just for the record, when Carl Rove and Orrin Hatch tell you that your ads have gone too far from the truth, you have to take that seriously.
P.S. The only blasting here is the hot air flowing from my mouth.
I'm not commenting on your decision. Only on your graphic.
That poster is somewhat disingenuous, as it makes these 4 judges out to be egomaniacal powermongers giving the not-so-proverbial finger to the good people of California.
The sign would be more accurate if it said something to the effect of, "61% of Californians voted against gay marriage. Only 4 Californians could read." Or, "Only 4 Californians cared about the rule of law."
The judges are not activist. They are in no way out of line, even. They are simply doing their job, which is to apply the state constitution to any laws enacted by the legislature. In this they were perfectly — and more importantly until this nation becomes a theocracy, legally — justified in striking down that law which was, under the constitution, illegal.
Which is why the righteous people of California are now trying to amend the constitution. When that is done, then — and only then — will it be legal for Californians to deny equal rights to a small fraction of their fellow citizens.
Okie dokie. I'm on to more innocuous posts. I can't take battling with my nephews, or anyone else for that matter. My skin's just not thick enough or my medication's not strong enough, one of the two. But before I go, I have one more thing to say:
California, Shmalifornia
sweet auntie, just a reminder of something you know already: the nephews love and respect you. that's why they share their opinions so unsparingly. jamie too, and all who care enough to keep the see-saw going, and the ideas popping and the thoughts running. we're kind of generating our own source of power with all this back and forth.
let's give ourselves a hand for being good environmentalists.
Sherry Carpet is right, Shawn.
I blast because I love. :-)
(Also because I'm the angriest person you know.)
Thank you, my lovelies. I love all of you too. But I am kind of a wimp sometimes. And although insecurity isn't very pretty, sometimes I am that too. But I think I will BLAST all the wimpiness and insecurity and take Sherry's suggestion and pat myself on the back for my part in the environmentalism. OK now, don't you just love the pictures of little Tanner and Jamie--and Greg with all that hair?
How is denying two men marrying or two women marrying denying a right? Everyone has the right to marriage, it's just that in the previous proposition, we reaffirmed the long standing (since, oh, pretty much the beginning of time) that that union is defined as being a man and a woman. So a gay man can marry a woman if he chooses as a lesbian can marry a man. I don't know why they'd want to, but it's not denying a right.
It's not too hard, BYUCoug. The state has long endorsed the union of two (or more) consenting adults in marriage, according them special protections.
While you are half correct in suggesting that state-sanctioned marriage has traditionally been conceived of as a heterosexual (or polyheterosexual) union, it has not been legally defined as such.
Marriage and (perhaps more importantly) the civil protections it provides are indeed legal rights. At least until a majority of Californians amends the constitution to deny that right to a very small percentage of their fellow Californians.
Temporarily and futilely, I might add.
Sorry, Disneycoug; I mistook your name. My apologies!
Justin, I didn't think I'd write again but this quote of yours on my friend's blog upset me.
"Is it simply because you don't care what those different from you suffer as long as you can feel righteous?"
This has nothing to do with self-righteousness or holier-than-thou ness. Maybe for some people it does but not for me and not for my friend. You accusing us of that is just plain mean and perhaps grasping at straws.
What gay couples in CA have you talked to that are "suffering"? California has really good domestic partner/civil union laws. From what I've heard (from another friend who read the laws), about the only thing they can't do that married people can do is file taxes jointly. Why don't they just fight to change the tax laws instead of fighting to change what marriage means? I know that the Brethren aren't perfect, Justin. But I certainly wouldn't call them irrational. They are well educated and well read too. There are lawyers and at least one former judge in that quorum. Don't you think they understand the legal side of things too? They have asked (not forced) us to help pass this proposition. They have said that members should not feel pressured and should choose their own level of involvement, which means that if someone isn't comfortable with it, they don't have to help. If we sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators, couldn't it be possible that they could see down the road a little and know some of the possible consequences that social scientists don't have enough data to figure out yet?
It could be possible that the Brethren are that far-sighted, Shawn. But on this issue I think it's highly unlikely. I can very easily sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators without believing that they can see into the future (or that they're seeing into the future on this issue).
If they did have some sort of vision of the future that was based in revelation, why not share the specifics with us? If they know what the consequences of same-sex marriage will be, why don't they clue us in, instead of simply reiterating maddeningly vague threats? If it's that important that they have to move ahead of the social scientists and mobilize the rank and file, I just don't understand why they can't provide a reason.
The slippery-slope argument they cite is so, so persuasive because it frees our minds to dwell on the worst consequences — even those that are implausible. It's also so, so dangerous, because those imagined consequences breed distrust, exclusion, and xenophobia.
Why wait for the social scientists? Because in this instance, the Brethren have stepped from the sphere of their religious influence into that of politics. Since their decrees are going to affect the law of the land, they should be able to provide rational arguments for why this law is necessary.
And you're absolutely right that I did overstep in my rhetoric with your friend. I've posted an apology on her site, and won't bother her again.
I know you probably won't respond, but I wanted to address a couple of other things:
--Mormons shouldn't feel pressure to oppose Prop 8.
It was nice that the Brethren included that clause. Helps me sleep a little easier at night. But it does nothing to mitigate the fact that I'm still not "following the Brethren" in their eyes or the eyes of my ward members.
Our religious culture has developed an incredibly powerful social system that has tremendous effects on people. Don't go on a mission? Come home early (for any reason)? Don't marry in the temple? Smell like cigarette smoke? Oppose the Brethren? etc, etc. Anyone who answers yes to any of the above will face definite social consequences. Just because they're not disfellowshipped or exed in a church disciplinary proceeding doesn't mean they don't face very real castigation on a social level.
--Why don't supporters of same-sex marriage just fight to change the tax law instead of fighting to be allowed to marry?
Because they're human beings who have been raised in a culture that says that you marry the person you love in order to show society and each other the depth and beauty of your commitment.
Why didn't you and Greg just seek civil unions? Why didn't Kitti and I? Because there's something about marriage that goes beyond partner benefits.
I haven't spoken to any suffering couples. Why should that be an issue? I've never spoken to any of the sufferers in Darfur, either, but I doubt you'd challenge my assertion that they exist. (And no, I'm not comparing anyone in California (or their suffering) with anyone in Sudan.)
I simply infer that — from the number of ecstatic couples who flocked to be married after the Supreme Court decision striking down the law prohibiting it and the happiness and relief to which they testified — some emotional need that had hitherto been unfulfilled. That unmet need is what I refer to as suffering.
Justin, first let me apologize. I was writing while pretty hot last night and I think I might have come off stronger than I wanted to. (And for the record, thanks for the apology to my friend but she didn't say anything so I don't think she was offended. I was just ticked about it--I haven't even talked to her about it.) I love you so much and I don't want to fight with you. And, believe it or not, I do want to agree with you wholeheartedly on one of the issues you mentioned. You are right about the incredibly powerful church social system and its effects on people. I have seen that happening a lot regarding Prop 8. But also in other areas too. I have definitely been judged as not doing all I can for the proposition because I told people that I don't feel comfortable going door to door. But there are many who don't judge me for it too. I have to tell you about a young mom in our ward who got up in our combined meeting at church and said that she was going to skip Time Out For Women (women's conference) on Saturday to go door to door and that she was going to sacrifice her $60 and that she hoped others would follow her example. There were a number of us who were quite put off by that, to say the least. It didn't matter that she was told that she could walk any time and didn't have to do it that particular day. She felt we should "sacrifice" and that if we weren't, we weren't doing what the brethren had asked. Another woman got up in testimony meeting in Relief Society and talked about her LDS friend who was going to vote against the proposition. She just couldn't understand how a member of the church could do that and said she was going to pray for her and that she hoped we would pray for her too. You would have thought the woman was going to lose her soul to hell or something. So I do know what you mean. I feel for my poor sister-in-law in Utah who is going crazy trying to make sure that her boys not only go on missions but also get their Eagle Scout rank and their duty to God or whatever that new program is called. She says her Bishop talks about it over the pulpit all the time and I can tell that she feels real pressure. And I can't even go into how I feel about some of the things my Bishop has said and done. So I know that the way things are in the church is way less than perfect and very bothersome sometimes. I guess we just have to separate the people from the atonement and the other truths of the gospel and try our best not to let the other people get to us. And yes, sometimes it is the brethren who get to us. But I have to say, when I have been put off, it has usually been by someone in the area authority or someone in the local leadership or general membership, more so than the 12 or the 1st Presidency. I realize they are just men too but I do believe they are Just Men also, get it? That doesn't mean they won't make mistakes. That doesn't mean we won't feel pressure sometimes from them but I think that it mostly comes from the general membership of the church. I usually feel pretty good about myself when I listen to the apostles speak. I feel more loved and less judged. And that's the way it should be. There is very little really that one has to do to be a good disciple of Christ but I sure know a lot of people who can make us feel otherwise if we let them. So Justin, I certainly hope I haven't come across as judgmental. I probably have because I know I have in the past and I realy don't want to be that kind of a person. I just feel strongly about this issue and I know you do too. So let's just agree to disagree and FEEEEEEEEL THE LOOOOOOOOOOVE again. You might be right about a lot of the things you have pointed out because many of your arguments sound really good but the church's stance might be right too. This time I choose to go with voting for the proposition. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
You've nothing to apologize for, Shawn.
My offensive comment to your friend is born out of a real inability of mine to understand just why the Church feels justified in supporting this proposition as a church. There has been no rational explanation given me that would justify it, so I am, as you say, left grasping at straws.
I've probably accosted you all I need to on your blog, though. I'll limit myself to my blog for discussions of this topic from now on.
Thanks for sticking up for me, Shawn! I have to say when I first read that comment, I was pretty livid myself, and was about to write a nasty response, but before pressing submit, decided to calm it down a bit. But thanks for bringing it up, because I too thought it was grasping at straws.
But Justin, I had to laugh when your aunt told me the reason for the name 'richard dandelion'. Hilarious!
I'd prefer that bloggers & commenters use my online name (Richard Dandelion) when addressing me in public. Thanks!
Post a Comment