Why Do I Defend Marriage?

I wrote this response to a friend on Facebook recently and felt that it was a fairly succinct summary of my reasons for defending marriage.  The first part is clearly religious and has its roots in my faith and membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But the second part outlines my secular/social science reasons for defending marriage.

T:

"I'm suggesting that we debate the merits of this Initiative [Prop 8], given that it was NOT a commandment of God."

Pearl:

Marriage between a man and a woman is a commandment of God. Take a hard look at The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Are you suggesting that God vacillates? I think it is clear that while we fickle humans invent moral relativity and political correctness, there are still absolutes. God is absolute. While practices and rituals have changed over centuries and ages, principles have not. And never will, no matter what we mortals believe. Good is good, bad is bad, white is white, black is black, and people who choose black and then attempt to pass it off as white will always be upset and unhappy and disillusioned when the general population sees right through the guise.

Following the Prophet is the best defense we have against the confusion of moral relativism. The Prophet asked the Saints to defend marriage between a man and a woman. Seems pretty simple to me. We don't just follow the Prophet when it is convenient for us or when his mandates, commandments, and supplications align with our own thinking. We do it no matter what we believe and it is after the test of our faith that we receive confirmation of the truth. For whatever reason, this concept is harder for some to grasp than others. We see it in the scriptures all the time, people demanding that God show them a sign before they are willing to proceed with His commandments. And always the answer is the same; they are chastised for having so little faith. Yet for those who humble themselves and follow "blindly" (having God as a guide hardly makes us blind), the reward is beyond our limited comprehension.

I have digressed.

Your whole premise (in your post) that Proposition 8 is "cementing bigotry" into the California Constitution is based solely on the fact that you don't believe upholding marriage between a man and a woman is a commandment of God. But you fail to recognize the myriad social reasons for which we uphold marriage. One could debate against homosexual marriage all day and still never touch upon a religious argument. Research, experience, and history all defend the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. And all you can come back with is yet another emotional appeal, vividly ignorant of reason, "cause pain to millions of people and leave thousands of families in doubt." Yes, their pain is real, but what of their choice to pursue the lifestyle and seek special status in the face of illegality in the first place? Why are they being released from the responsibility and consequences of their actions? And why is blame for disillusionment and disappointment being projected onto the so-called "oppressors"? A little quiet introspection is in order here, I think. There is a pernicious sense of entitlement that flows through our society that has risen to such soaring heights that natural laws and Constitutional freedoms are threatened by it.

Marriage, when executed properly (let's get rid of no-fault divorce), benefits children, families, society, and government by being the most basic and wholesome springboard to the future. When marriage is undermined by senseless and selfish redefinition, that springboard falters and crumbles. In the case of homosexual marriage, children grow up in gender confusion denied, by design, access to one opposite-sex parent through which important life lessons and character traits would have been learned, and through the observation of which, future decisions of career, spouse, family, and civic involvement are heavily influenced. A mother is vitally important for different reasons than a father is vitally important, but it is amply clear that the absence of one or the other has a definite, negative development effect on children that no amount of love can compensate for. Love, T, contrary to popular belief these days, is not all you need. If love is all you need, why do we have boundaries, rules, and discipline for our children? If love is all you need, why do we have so many people divorcing even while they proclaim their mutual love for each other? I love my brother. I love my father. I love my cousin. But I cannot legally marry them (and thank goodness for that). Government regulates marriage for the benefit of society; to ensure the best possible emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual outcome for the potential posterity of the marital union. It doesn't matter that that union may be sterile or that it may end up in divorce. Just because the human execution is malfunctioning (sterility) or flawed (divorce) or even broken (abuse), does not make the divine institution flawed. Marriage is what it is and those who pretend otherwise are endangering not only themselves by exposing their tender feelings to more disappointment (marriage appropriation will not yield the acceptance they so yearn for), but our country's innocent future as well - the children.

~Pearl

Technorati Tags: Marriage,Family,LDS Church,Mormon,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,Proposition 8,Prop 8,Religion,Social Sciences,Children

Attorney General Jerry Brown, AKA Fish-Out-Of-Water

"A flip-flop, flippty-flip-flip-flop you don’t stop…" says a community commenter at Michelle Malkin's blog.  The little ditty accurately describes the shenanigans taking place at the Attorney General's office.

Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General, came gallantly to the defense of the people's Prop 8 vote immediately following the November 4th elections, vowing to uphold the constitutional amendment against his own personal beliefs.  Now, however, in a perhaps-not-so-surprising turn of events, Brown has renounced his supportive position and fallen in with gay rights activists' "rainbow-love-change-civil rights-freedom" mantra, claiming that the amendment was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty."  RIP, Jerry Brown, RIP. 

Most outrageous is this quote from Brown himself that claims his change of heart was brought about by, "further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution."  It is my humble opinion that the astute and capable Jerry Brown, would undoubtedly already be quite versed in Proposition 8 and every aspect of its Constitutional repercussions; he is the Attorney General, after all.

Pearl opines:

How to win a 2010 governor's chair?  Jump ship on Proposition 8 in order to win popularity with the up-and-coming, "enlightened and progressive," young CA voter pool.

But really, can we really blame JB for being more afraid of the gay rights activists' reactions should Prop 8 be upheld than the traditional marriage supporters' reactions should Prop 8 be overturned?  Hm?  The answer is no, not if you've been following the blazing trail of GRA hate visible from outer space.

On a more positive note, joining the Yes on 8 legal defense team is the esteemed Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, former US Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit, and former US Solicitor General who has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court.

Evangelicals, Mob Veto, & Prop 8 Musical Reactions

So, I'm still here.  I've just been playing copy cat lately.  My new favorite site, Kingfisher Column, has apparently been hard at work boosting its visibility and I've been following suit, thus all the new buttons on my sidebar.  (Vote for me!)

But, this new fascination aside, I've still been keeping tabs on the SSM scene and here's what's caught my eye today:

Evangelicals Carried Prop 8

["Nearly one of every four Californians who voted last month describe themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians, and their overwhelming support for Proposition 8 was a key reason the ban on same-sex marriage was approved at the polls.

That is among the findings of a post-election survey of California voters released today by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

The survey found that 84 percent of self-described evangelicals or born-again Christians supported Proposition 8. Those voters represented 24 percent of the electorate."]

*

*

This full page ad appeared in the New York Times today.  It makes my heart sing that someone was willing to spend that kind of money to report this travesty in a paper that should have been all over it with their own news reporters and editorials. 

*

*

Prop 8 - The Musical drew quite a bit of negative reaction, and rightfully so.  The little ditty was way off-target and extremely offensive.  Besides that, Mark Steyn makes a good point in his summary of the tasteless theatrical:

[If every single Mormon in California had voted for Prop 8, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated. Instead, it passed - in part because of Obama’s coat-tails: He drew a large black turnout, and regrettably for Mr. Shaiman the majority of those blacks voted ”anti-gay”. What, no “Ol’ Man River” parodies about homophobic stevedores?

How about the Hispanics? “Ev’rything’s Straight In A-me-ric-ca!” And, if it’s religious intolerance you want to take a swipe at, where’s the big dance number set at the Oakland Halal butchers?

Ah, but then you might get a more motivated crowd waiting at the stage door, right?]

"Prop 8 - The Musical" - Starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, & John C. Reilly

*BEWARE - OFFENSIVE CONTENT*

Subliminal messages:

Gay marriage is trendy, youthful, and light; traditional Marriage is prudish, outdated, and black.

Love is all you need; the Bible is hocus pocus.

Gay marriage is right and good because all the money spent on weddings will save our economy. 

*Oh brother*

My take:

If this is what passes for comedy now days, I'll have no part of it.  It didn't make me laugh; it made me roll my eyes and throw my hands up in exasperation and disbelief.  I find it telling that the director went straight for mocking religious beliefs, completely ignoring the fact that there are stacks and stacks of secular research studies which prove that the gay lifestyle is violent, destructive, diseased, and unwholesome (check out the resources section here).  In truth, the reality of the gay lifestyle is a far cry from the bouncing, singing, "gaiety" depicted on the "beach" in this insipid musical.  The reality that is so conspicuously absent from this supposed "humor" is that of AIDS, violence and domestic abuse, broken homes, confused children, and a genderless, dead-end society, left stripped and scorned in the frigid cold, hugging its identity-complexed, family-murdered, dysfunctional self.

Reality Check:

Supporters of traditional marriage

(not anti-gay people, just anti-gay marriage)

Supporters of gay marriage 

(mockers and haters of all things religious)

Stark contrast, eh?  Let's be honest here, do these pictures inspire confidence in the gay community's touted love theme?  Does this look like a poor, victimized, minority that needs constitutional protection? Are these the same frolicking, gay beach-goers so "gaily" depicted in Prop 8 - The Musical?  The answer is a resounding "NO." Kinda like the one gays already got when 52% of Californians said that gay marriage was not acceptable to them.  Seems like we've got ourselves some kids who need a lesson on poor sportsmanship.  Gays need a modern-day Martin Luther who can teach them to be respectful and peaceful as they promote their so-called "rights."

And last....

Jack Black as Jesus?  Give me a break.  Check out this Jack Black Biography excerpt:

"This being the Seventies in Los Angeles, the parents believed that one should not say No to one's children, making life ever more volatile. Beyond this, there was what Black later described as weird family stuff, not wife-swapping exactly, but swinging. 'It was funny', he said 'and not funny ha-ha'."

Couldn't say "no" in the Seventies.  Gee, imagine that.  Perhaps, and this is just a theory, but perhaps the lack of parental discipline then is what feeds this sense of entitlement so prevalent among youth today.  Eh?  Can I get a "holla?!"  Just a thought.  So, anyway, back to Black.  He says he grew up with an awareness of the "weird" sexual practices of his parents, claiming it wasn't exactly ideal, but in a twisted turn-about he now supports the unconventional. (???)  Hm.  And then there's this....

"Black met cellist Tanya Haden, one of jazz great Charlie Haden's triplet daughters. In fact, he'd first met Haden back at his specialist high school, but the pair had never dated. Now, after just months together, they'd elope, getting married in March, 2006, with Haden bearing him his first child, son Samuel, that June."

Black doesn't exactly have the greatest track record to be able to establish what is good and right and to represent the Savior of the world.  When did sacred things become so openly and brazenly subjected to mockery without so much as a "by your leave?"  When were we taught to laugh at blasphemy and promote immorality?  When did Jack Black, Margaret Cho, and John C. Reilly become authorities on the Bible? And when did their opinion take precedence over thousands of years worth of Biblical teachings from the Savior Himself and His prophets?

Oh I could go on and on, but I'll save it for another post.  Coming up...discussion on how the media has spearheaded the moral neutering of society.

Mormon is the New Black - A Thanksgiving Story

Tonight (or I guess I should actually say last night) I watched Glory Road. Based on a true story, the inspirational movie chronicles a 1960's Black college basketball team who, against all odds, wins the NCAA Championships. The team was not completely made up of African American players, but after several incidents of racism, discrimination, and intimidation aimed at the Black members, Coach Haskins and "the White" teammates got fed up and turned the fight for the NCAA Championship over to their Black Brothers. In doing so, the NCAA win became a sort of "stick-it-to-the-man" victory.

Rising out of obscurity in a racist world, these Black basketball players were viciously targeted by White supremacists. At one point in the movie the players returned to their motel room after a game to find racial slurs, threats, and profanities splattered on their walls in blood. At another point, one of the players was surrounded by three White men in a bathroom, brutally beaten, and dunked in a toilet almost to the point of drowning.

In the wake of Proposition 8, a popular phrase has sprung into being and is being widely circulated on the Internet and throughout media outlets. I have heard it often alleged that "Gay is the new Black." Supposedly gays are the oppressed, battered, African-American sequels. I protest that comparison and would suggest a more accurate one. In a near-perfect echo of the horrific monstrosities played out against the Black Texas Western basketball players, I propose that in truth, "Mormon is the new Black." Seeing those blood-splattered motel walls immediately brought to mind the graffiti-littered LA Temple walls and angry, anti-Mormon epithets hoisted up on homemade signs, swaying to and fro above a seething, volatile crowd. "Ban the Mormons!" This is the current and beloved call of gay rights activists. Watching that Black basketball player being beaten senseless in a filthy public bathroom reminded me of the elderly couple beaten mercilessly by their neighbor for exercising their freedom of speech by placing Yes on 8 signs in their yard, and the young Hispanic women attacked by gay rights activists while trying to remove vulgar signs from sacred temple property, and the elderly woman in Palm Springs who endured the mockery and rage of a vicious crowd who promptly snuffed out her freedom of speech as they ripped her cross from her hands and crushed it under foot. The anger of this mob knows no bounds and the religious - Mormon, Evangelical, and Catholic alike - are the unfortunate victims.

The gay "rights" movement is steam-rolling forward powered by blood-lust and rage, leaving in its wake a carnage the likes of which this country has not seen since Blacks were sent to the back of the bus. While this new, millennial movement claims love and equal rights as its objectives; lying in its wake is the antithetical and conspicuous reality - the tattered remains of freedom of speech and religion. At the end of the rigidly pointing homosexual fingers stand the Mormons, being sent to the back of the bus for equally unfair reasons as their beloved African American brothers - they voted.

Mormon is the new Black.

Today, Thanksgiving 2008, I recognize and express gratitude for many wonderful things in my life. And at the same time I watch the steady vanquishing of freedoms so dear and so sacred. It's clear our country is in need of a Religion champion in the same way Lincoln championed Blacks.

["Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church.

Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?" - Neal A. Maxwell]

["When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn't a homosexual. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Catholic......then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me." - Neimoller in Nazi Germany]

Another One Bites the Dust

Los Angeles, CA -- Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, resigned over the weekend. Not wanting to bring the Film Festival any more negative publicity or reaction, he stepped down from his post due to overwhelming harassment and intimidation he was receiving for his $1500 personal contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign.

"After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.

Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, "No on 8" supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted.

...

Raddon's support for Proposition 8 has sparked debate within both the gay community and Hollywood, as many publicly worry about punishing people for free speech, even speech they deemed hateful, and his departure has already provoked ambivalence."

Read the full story here at the LA Times.

Martyr McGehee

Fresno, Calif -- There is, in the world of communication, a specific style of unhealthy conversation, aptly named "one-upping," in which the speaker embarks on an emotional telling of his tragic story and, instead of validating it (or in this case, even acknowledging it), the listener tries to trump it. This is the case with Lesbian mom, Robin McGehee, who is being raised up as a martyr for the No on 8 campaign.

Robin, whose 5-year-old son, Sebastian, was enrolled in St. Helen's Catholic School in Fresno, attended a publicized "No on 8" candlelight vigil, on Nov. 6th, following the vote that reestablished marriage as a union between one man and one woman. She is also the Central Valley program coordinator for the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and has been interviewed several times on television. And while she never walked around campus sporting a "No on 8" pin, McGehee was, nonetheless, open about her sexuality.

After her appearance on television and her "No on 8" rally attendance, she was approached by Father Salvador Gonzalez, Jr., of the Fresno diocese, and asked to resign from her volunteer post as president of the PTO (Parent Teacher Organization). Her visibility as an opponent of traditional marriage was seen to be in direct conflict with the Catholic Church's teachings that marriage is between one man and one woman.

That's it. That's the story folks. However, if you read it here, you will get an earful of sentimental background fluff, building up and lauding McGehee for her participation in school projects, her donations to fund-raisers, and her various volunteer efforts with walk-a-thons and holiday-themed parties - efforts that many mothers in this state make on a regular basis for the enhancement of their child's education. We get it, we do; she is a great mom. But this blatant immortalization effort is a transparent attempt to build up a martyr for future, inaccurate claims of victimization. Oh, and let's not forget where the story conveniently breezes over the fact that darling little Sebastian has two mommies AND two daddies:

"[McGehee and her recent bride Kathy Adams] have two children 5-year-old Sebastian and 2-year-old Jackson. Also, two fathers, William 'Aj' Kruth and Aaron Olson, are a part of the family."

Homosexuality or Polyamory? Honestly, I don't know. But it's obviously a hugely altered definition of a family. And this is what we have to look forward to with legalized same-sex marriage. Suddenly we live in an "anything goes" society. I think even those in favor of gay marriage might take issue with this. But, setting random and unsettling redefinitions of family aside, let's forge onward with McGehee the Martyr.

Contrary to popular gay belief, McGehee's story does not compare to the intolerant and bigoted targeting of Scott Eckern which lead to his resignation as artistic director for the California Musical Theater over a $1000 personal donation to the Yes on 8 campaign. Let's take a look at these two cases in a side-by-side comparison, shall we?

Scott Eckern

25 years at the California Musical Theater.

Robin McGehee

Six months as president of the PTO.

Scott Eckern

Forced to resign from his paid position, his job, his livelihood.

Robin McGehee

Asked to resign from her volunteer position.

Scott Eckern

Publicly targeted and forced to resign for the personal, legal donation he made to a cause he believed in.

Robin McGehee

Privately asked to resign from a leadership post for not only living, but championing a lifestyle that is in direct opposition to the teachings of the church she was volunteering for.

Scott Eckern

Vilified for participating in a democratic process and having an opinion.

Robin McGehee

Has not been vilified.
Has not received hate mail or slanderous accusations aimed at her.
Is still free to live her homosexual lifestyle and be involved in her child's education, just like any other parent...just not in an authoritative, leadership role. The church even asked her to keep her son in school, but she and her partner made the decision to pull him.

This is a case in point for the "six consequences" which caution that, following legalization of same-sex marriage, churches will be accused of hate speech and discrimination simply for standing behind their beliefs that homosexuality is immoral. It is already happening even with Proposition 8's success. Robin McGehee was not asked to resign for being homosexual, she was asked to resign for being a vocal opponent of Proposition 8 and a highly visible proponent of the No on 8 Campaign. The Catholic Church is well within its rights to monitor the teaching and volunteer activity and leadership of the children attending its private schools. Thus, the real victim here is the falsely vilified, unjustly slandered Catholic Church, not Ms. McGehee.

And yet....

Collateral Damage: Tolerance vs. Collateral Damage: A young casualty of Prop 8

...notice the "bleeding heart" title of the latter?

The Catholic Church is misrepresented, and yet the gay community cries foul and promptly writes a heartrending, fervor producing, purely sentimentalist story that is conspicuously lacking in thoughtful reasoning. But that is, and always has been, their platform; "It feels good, we feel good, help us to feel good and you'll feel good too. Forget thinking, it's not important. Just feel (*imagine lulling, hypnotic music and the pungent smell of incense*). What we do in our lives won't hurt you in yours." Mm hmmm. Zzzzzz.

NO! BAD! WAKE UP!

Wake up, people of America! Wake up and step away from your collective Id for a moment. Give your Super-ego the chance to sound that warning bell that's saying: "ERRR. Wrong! Wrong! Warning! Warning! Don't try to fix something that's not broken. Don't tamper with marriage!" Marriage between a man and a woman works. The traditional family unit is what society relies on to exist and survive and thrive. Evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be dangerous and destructive. Now is not the time to be Id-driven, allowing our feelings to govern and control us. We must give research it's day in our cranial courts. We must allow logic and self-restraint to temper passion and emotion. We must protect marriage to protect our little ones, our innocents, and to ensure the continuation of our society and government.

Image: "Female Martyr" by Jacob van Oost the Elder, oil on canvas.

Dr. Phil - Friday 11/21/08

So there's been all this talk about Dr. Phil's show tomorrow, 11/21, on CBS. I finally went and watched the preview here, and all I can say is...ugh. I don't know if I can actually bring myself to watch that show tomorrow. I got the most awful feeling just watching the preview; the few seconds of heated debate with members of the audience popping up and yelling at each other. This is what that short segment reminded me of, a quote from Elder James E. Faust, late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

["Who has not heard and felt the enticing of the devil? His voice often sounds so reasonable and his message so easy to justify. It is an appealing, intriguing voice with dulcet tones. It is neither hard nor discordant. No one would listen to Satan’s voice if it sounded harsh or mean. If the devil’s voice were unpleasant, it would not persuade people to listen to it....Some of Satan’s most appealing lines are 'Everyone does it'; 'If it doesn’t hurt anybody else, it’s all right'; 'If you feel all right about it, it’s OK'; or 'It’s the ‘in’ thing to do.' These subtle entreaties make Satan the great imitator, the master deceiver, the arch counterfeiter, and the great forger."]

I can guarantee you'll hear some of those very same phrases tomorrow if you can stomach the show. Here's what Pastor Jim Garlow said of the experience as a guest for the Yes on 8 side:

["With these guests, plus a fired-up studio audience that hassled, yelled, catcalled and tried to drown us out at times, it made for an (how do I say this?) interesting experience. It was so intense that Dr. Phil- after the hour taping ended- decided to keep us there for another taping, for another show to be aired (we are told) in December"]

Gas and Same-Sex Marriage

What? Seriously? What could gas and same-sex marriage possibly have in common? Well, I'll tell you if you can sit still for a minute (or 10). Tonight as I drove toward Mexican food, like a mosquito heading for light, I noticed the local gas station prices and narrowly avoided crunching the car in front of me while doing double takes. Hallelujah (!), I thought, but my elation was short-lived as I pondered the reason for the gas price plunge. With gas, we've won a battle, but the war against our failing economy is far from over. The declining gas prices are a symptom of a larger problem. With the economy taking hit after hit and consumerism at an all-time low, it's a given that prices (i.e. gas) will also fall. I tremble to think what the future holds for our economy and that, sadly, there might come a time when I won't even be able to afford gas at the price it stands now, in all its deflated glory. But, that's another conversation for someone else's blog.

This same sense of winning a skirmish then falling back to regroup applies to the same-sex marriage issue. The demand for legalized gay marriage is a symptom of a greater societal problem. With Proposition 8, we have won a battle, but it is ever-increasingly apparent that the war against moral relativism is really just beginning (or, if we're being honest, began with the 1960's Hippie movement). Regardless of when moral decline began, however, it is definitely rearing its ugly head with this homosexual movement that is threatening to redefine marriage and wreak havoc on the fundamental unit of society - the family.

["When you stop and think about it from a diabolically tactical point of view, fighting the family makes sense. When Satan wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he doesn’t poison the world’s peanut butter supply, thus bringing the Church’s missionary system to its collective knees. He doesn’t send a plague of laryngitis to afflict the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He doesn’t legislate against green Jell-O or casseroles. When Satan truly wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he attempts to confuse gender and he attacks God’s plan for His children....That’s all it takes, because Satan knows that the surest and most effective way to disrupt the Lord’s work is to diminish the effectiveness of the family and the sanctity of the home....Lucifer is the enemy of the family!" -Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]

The successful outcome of the Prop 8 vote on November 4th felt a mite bit empty as I ruminated on the slim margin of victory, evidence of a shifting cultural perception toward and acceptance of homosexuality in general. And the victory, quietly and humbly celebrated by good people all over the country, became even more bitter-sweet in the terrible, violent, anarchical backlash that followed from the opposition.

Now, ask any defender of traditional marriage what they think the future holds for same-sex marriage, and you may be surprised to discover how many readily admit that legalized same-sex marriage is not only likely, but inevitable. We are optimistic, not dumb. We won't soon forget how the interpretation of four judges overturned the will of millions. We aren't blind to the upcoming new voters - the MTV educated, A-list influenced, slogan screaming, automated, entitled young people of America. We won't soon forget the incredible sham of media bias and slant displayed during these 2008 elections - teaching us more about Gov. Sara Palin's clothing expenditures and personal life than we know about President-elect Obama's political platforms and plans. This same media is guilty twice over on the marriage front for first perpetuating lies such as Jack O'Connell's empty promises, then hiding behind a conspicuous silence as the world watches the gay community openly ferret out and attack one religion for the part its members played in a free and democratic process and vote. Religious bigotry has gone not only unimpeded, but largely unacknowledged by the mainstream media. More than shameful, it's alarming! We democratic people of the world are watching in shock as all three branches of the government here in California brazenly disregard the will of the people whom they claim to represent, urging instead the reversal of Proposition 8 and crying the acceptance of a destructive lifestyle in the name of equal rights and...wait for it...love.

Again I say, this war is far from over. It's a war that has come and gone in cycles since Adam and Eve were escorted out of the Garden of Eden. Trying to keep people from forgetting God in times of wealth and prosperity is like trying to herd cats. For some reason, money and God are like oil and water. Money tends to create and then influence the slinky little folk like pride and corruption and greed. We were doing great, we were feeling good, economy was thriving, then BAM, we're back at the bottom of the world economic food chain and begging the Lord to remember us when we've forgotten Him. This happened with 9/11, too - we remembered God in a very unified manner after those attacks, praying and mourning together. Then slowly, ever so slowly, we forgot Him again once we had moved beyond feeling threatened, once complacency and economic success replaced fear and re-engaged our consumer-driven, self-gratifying, greedy impulses.

Here's a little lesson from the scriptures (The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ). Read Alma Chapter 1 and Helaman Chapter 4, in the Book of Mormon. It's like reading about this very situation we're experiencing right now. While some in the gay rights camp use the "history repeats itself" card against the Church and bring up Blacks and the Priesthood, Polygamy, etc., I say, historically more noteworthy is the repetition and effect of "altering" and "trampling" and "corrupting" the laws the Lord has commanded us to live by, and the denial of "the spirit of prophecy" and "the spirit of revelation." But don't take my word for it, read it yourself!

Alma 1:3-4 (Note: Nehor is an anti-Christ)

["And he {Nehor} had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church...."

"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life."]

Alma 1:6

["And he began to be lifted up in the pride of his heart, and to wear very costly apparel, yea, and even began to establish a church* after the manner of his preaching."]

*Establishing the church of irreligion as described by syndicated columnist, M.J. Sobran:

["The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law 'respecting' the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge 'the free exercise' of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it."]

This new church of unbelief is also discussed by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a 1978 discourse:

["This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened."]

1978, people! This man, an apostle of the Lord, special witness of the Savior Jesus Christ, prophesied the moral decline of this nation. He knew the path we were walking down then would lead to where we are now. And people wonder why we put our faith in the leaders of this Church. There you have it - continuing revelation through the Lord's Prophets and Apostles. Okay, back to the scriptures....

Alma 1:7,9

["And it came to pass as he {Nehor} was going, to preach to those who believed on his word, he met a man who belonged to the church of God, yea, even one of their teachers; and he began to contend with him sharply, that he might lead away the people of the church; but the man withstood him, admonishing him with the words of God."

"Now, because Gideon withstood him with the words of God he was wroth with Gideon, and drew his sword and began to smite him.* Now Gideon being stricken with many years, therefore he was not able to withstand his blows, therefore he was slain by the sword."]

*Hm...now whose response does this remind us of? "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to draw my protest sword and climb the walls of your temples, vandalize your property, and spew slanderous and false accusations at you, intimidating you into giving me what I want or else...."

So, Nehor is sentenced to die according to the law Mosiah had established. But with his death, the spreading of priestcraft did not end. Those who enjoyed his teachings of "eat, drink, and be merry," continued to spread that false doctrine under the inaccurate pretense that their teachings were a system of "belief." Because, as it says in Alma 1:17

["...now the law could have no power on any man for his belief."]

But, it wasn't enough for these malcontents, members of the Church of Irreligion and Unbelief, to co-exist with the members of the true church of God.

Alma 1:19-20

["But it came to pass that whosoever did not belong to the church of God began to persecute those that did belong to the church of God, and had taken upon them the name of Christ."

"Yea, they did persecute them, and afflict them with all manner of words, and this because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes, and because they did impart the word of God one with another, without money and without price."]

It's so interesting to me that many in the gay community are tossing around this "live and let live" bit, yet when you read something like this last passage, it becomes obvious that the irreligious are never satisfied with just co-existing. The ultimate goal (whether conscious or subconscious) is to bring down the religious, the humble, the moral. Now, let's switch gears and take a look at Helaman, Chapter 4, where the Nephite society suffers defeat after defeat (at the hands of the Lamanites) because of its own citizens' wickedness and failure to remember God.

Helaman 4:11-13, 21-23

["Now this great loss of the Nephites, and the great slaughter which was among them, would not have happened had it not been for their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea, and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church of God."

"And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away in the the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites--"

"And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands."

"Yea, they began to remember the prophecies of Alma, and also the words of Mosiah; and they saw that they had been a stiffnecked people, and that they had set at naught the commandments of God;"

"And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people, insomuch that they were wicked even like unto the Lamanites."

"And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face."]

So, gas and same-sex marriage. I promise this all ties back together somewhere here. In essence the gist of this super long post is that we are waging a war here, one of epic proportions the likes of which you'd see in, oh, Lord of the Rings. Despite all the demands for facts and proof and philosophical debates on the relative merits of the homosexual lifestyle, this war is truly a simple one. It is classic Good vs. Evil. Heterosexual love vs. Homosexual love. Now before you walk away in disgust (that is, if you haven't already, my nemesis readers), hear me out. I am not calling gays evil. Let's clear that up right now. I am calling homosexual love/sex evil. I don't believe that homosexuals are "born with it" insomuch that they are left without choice. That would be Satan's plan and we all know that Satan didn't win in the pre-existence. I believe that homosexuals are born with strong feelings of attraction for the same sex, feelings that can and should be denied and, in some cases, can even be overcome and replaced with appropriate attractions for the opposite gender. Satan, however, being his usual cunning and wily self, has placed into the hearts of men a thought, simple yet powerful in its ability to cut the traditional family structure to the core. "Why?" That's it. "Why should I deny my feelings?" By planting the seed of entitlement to self-gratification in these individuals' hearts and minds, Satan is effectively working toward the destruction of that which he desires above all, but can never have - to be a father and have a family. If all people began to demand concessions based on self-gratification, government would disintegrate and anarchy would rule the day. Black is still black and white is still white, people, and even if the entire population of the world were to scream that black is acceptable, that evil is good, it would still be untrue. Good is the family as the Lord has outlined it to His Prophets and Apostles in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Evil is any other definition of the family, including same-sex marriages. It's truly as simple as that. So, for now, a battle is won, but the war wages on. And for the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would plead that we all make a special effort to stay close to the spirit and follow the chosen and anointed Prophet of the Lord, for therein lies safety and truth.

To wrap this all up nicely, I am including my own father's powerful testimony and a prophetic quote below.

["I bore my testimony to my students today. Those who claim that 'prophets ought to keep their noses out of politics' have never read the Old Testament! Think about Moses, and Elijah, and Isaiah, and Amos, and others; they went directly to their respective political leaders and told them what the Lord wanted them to do, what course to pursue. (Can we limit what God can say about anything?)"

"I testified that the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles is the wisest group of leaders on earth (!), and not just from their cumulative intellectual prowess (world-class heart surgeon, nuclear physicist, judge and legal mind, etc., etc.) but because of their direct connection with Heaven, and living by the Spirit every day. I testified that the sifting has begun. And I encouraged them to remember that we’re on the winning team – the Lord’s Team. In all other dispensations the truth has been lost; there has always been an apostasy; but not anymore. The truth is restored to stay. It will never again be lost or taken away from this sphere. This great Cause, in the end, will triumph. So, I warned them, don’t ever quit the Team! In the future, stay with this wisest group on earth – whatever the issue."]

["President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him: I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. . . .Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'" [In Conference Report, October 1960, 78]]

Alice in Queensland

Have you ever seen Alice in Queensland? Well, it's not really a movie, it's just a part of a movie, but if you haven't inserted that DVD in your machine for a while, don't worry, you've been watching its live remake on the news for the past couple of weeks. See what I mean....

Queen of Hearts Campaign

Moral of the story: It's generally better to "campaign" before the vote, not after.

The "Right" to Win

Thomas Sowell has done it again. The man is brilliant. In a world where grey is the new green, Sowell re-emphasizes that white (free and democratic election) and black (anarchical aftermath) still exist.


The Right to Win
by Thomas Sowell

[Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.

Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.

In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco supervisor who said "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.]

The Camilla Letter

Camilla, a high school junior with an opinion, took the time to write an e-mail letter to the CTA (California Teacher's Association) concerning her disappointment in their $1 million donation to the No on 8 campaign. Participants in this electronic conversation are as follows: Camilla, high school junior; Barbara, Camilla's mom; Jim Rogers, CTA Coordinator; Debbie, Barbara's Cousin; and David Sanchez another member of the CTA Board of Directors. Just read the following transcript below to see the condescending response Camilla's thoughtful letter received from Jim Rogers (start from the bottom and read up):

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:39 PM

To: Sanchez, David

Subject: RE: Disturbing Communications with Jim Rogers of the CTA Board of Directors

From: Barbara X

Thank you for your prompt e-mail response and especially for your apologies to Camilla and for supporting her rights. We do appreciate that. I would like to reiterate my position at this point on this matter is NOT to debate same-sex marriage issues or the CTA’s political donation but rather to protest Mr. Rogers’ responses to Camilla (and my cousin) and to seek whatever disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the NEA or whatever governing board has jurisdiction in this matter. Please let me know the outcome of your meeting with the Board of Directors and what action(s) are planned.

Regarding your question about whether I was aware that the media had contacted you about this issue, I was not aware that this had transpired and was not contacted by any members of the media myself. As I mentioned in my e-mail to you earlier this morning, I did forward Camilla’s letter and Mr. Rogers’ response to about 25-30 family members and friends to make them aware of this highly inappropriate situation. I had no idea that it would be shared with so many others or that it would become so wide-spread, but this only validates the fact that this issue is of concern and is unacceptable to many Californians. Several of the e-mail responses I received told me that this should be shared with the public via the media. I told those people, after consulting with Camilla, that we would be willing to share this story if they so desired. I have not sought out the media but I do agree that the public has a right to know about this situation and that CTA members who do not agree with the policies of the CTA should voice their protests to your organization.

Barbara X

— On Tue, 11/11/08, Sanchez, David wrote:

From: Sanchez, David

Subject: RE: Disturbing Communications with Jim Rogers of the CTA Board of Directors

To: “Barbara X”

Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 8:51 AM

Thank you for your email and concern regarding communication between your daughter and several of our Board members. You can imagine the number of emails we received from folks from all over the country, surpringly….many of them were non members who had responded to a church call to email our board. Some of the most hateful, vile, un Christlike messages sent to us. It was truly disturbing what some folks wrote and then signed it…yours in Christ.

With regards to your daughters email. It was well done and she was expressing her own viewpoint. I do recall receiving it. Question for you is…how is it that we got a call from the media about it? Were you aware that that had transpired?

If you have a chance to look at a CTA Policy handbook, check out who the State Council of Education is. They are the governing body of the California Teachers Association and they alone set the policy and direction for us. Over 800 educators from throughout California voted by more than 2/3 to take positions on the initiatives we made recommendations on. Same with the funding of those initiatives. It is not the CTA Board who makes those decisions, we are given the task of implementing those actions.

You are right in saying that we might not be in agreement on everything, in particular on issues pertaining to all of our members (remember…Prop 8 folks pay dues as well), but we must do so respectfully and move forward.

I will be seeing the board as a whole and will discuss your concern with them. Again, thank you for taking the time to express your concern in a non hateful manner. Big thanks to you for sticking up for your daughter. She’s lucky to have that kind of support. Please extend my apologies to your daughter and tell her I appreciate the time and effort she took to express her point of view.

David A. Sanchez

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

—–Original Message—–
From: Barbara X

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 03:04 AM Pacific Standard Time

To: Sanchez, David
Cc: Luckinbill, Mary Ann

Subject: Disturbing Communications with Jim Rogers of the CTA Board of Directors

Mr. Sanchez;

I need to bring to your attention a series of disturbing communications from one of the members of the CTA Board of Directors, Mr. Jim Rogers, the CTA/NEA Coordinator. Following my note to you, I have included a string of e-mails for your review in regards to this matter. The first e-mail was written by my 16-year old daughter Camilla and was sent to CTA Executive Officers and Board Members including yourself on November 5, 2008. So far I have received responses from three of the members of the Board of Directors, including Mr. Rogers. Of the other two responses, one was somewhat condescending but at least informative and mostly civil and the other was professional and appropriate despite the opposing views of this board member. (If you would like me to forward these responses to you as well, I will be happy to do so.)

However, the response received by Mr. Rogers (highlighted in red) was disrespectful, unprofessional, extremely condescending and downright rude. I was so shocked and outraged by his treatment of my daughter that I forwarded her letter and his response to about 25-30 family embers and friends, including many of her former teachers.

One of my cousins, Debbie (I have removed identifying last names and e-mail addresses in the e-mail string in order to protect their privacy) sent a letter to Mr. Rogers and forwarded it to me, along with his ensuing response (highlighted in pink) and her final communication to him in response to his comments. Please note that I did not solicit her letter nor did she consult me prior to sending it. In fact, I have not solicited any of the 40+ e-mail responses we have received from others who received the original letter of Camilla’s along with his response either from myself or forwarded from others. Mr. Rogers’ response to Debbie was ironically hypocritical as well as unprofessional and unthoughtful.

In way of background information, I did not encourage Camilla’s staying home from school and tried to talk her out of doing so because I understood that her missing school would not directly have an effect on the CTA but rather our school district, which already struggles under tremendous financial constraints. I also do not encourage her to miss school for reasons other than illness or emergency medical appointments and her attendance is normally excellent. However, she felt very strongly about this issue and wanted to make her voice heard and felt this was one way she could do so. I finally consented with the stipulation that she had to write a letter to the CTA voicing her protests, which she gladly agreed to do and spent a couple of hours doing. (She actually attended the first two periods that day, so it turned out that the school did not lose her ADA funding for the day.) This was her letter, written in her own words and with much time and effort on her part; I edited it later for proofreading, grammatical errors, etc. prior to sending it, which is the reason for the delay between when she wrote it and when I sent it I sent it for her in order to protect her e-mail address and so that if she received any responses, they would not be filtered out and lost in her spam or trash folder. I have forwarded the responses and numerous e-mails to her.

I am not sure how you view this matter but in my opinion, as well as that of numerous others who have responded on this issue, Mr.Rogers’ actions were way out of line with what should be appropriate behavior for an educator, especially one in his leadership position. He has blatantly violated numerous basic principles and goals outlined in the CTA’s Mission Statement and Code of Ethics (see attachment, emphasis on key points added by red highlights) and should be subject to whatever disciplinary action or remedies as specified by the NEA for his violations of provisions of the Code of Ethics (as noted in the attachment, highlighted in purple).

I understand that my daughter’s letter presents an opinion that is in opposition to Mr. Rogers’ as well as many others on your governing board, as evidenced by CTA’s large financial contributions to oppose Proposition 8.

While I share many of my daughter’s viewpoints and disagree with CTA’s financial contributions on this issue (as do many of the teachers we have heard from), both of us realize and respect that many others disagree with our viewpoint and we respect their right to do so. In return we expect respect for our differing opinions, especially from an organization which claims to be promoting human dignity and civil rights to students and to all members of society, regardless of their background. As I see it, this issue is NOT about Prop 8 but rather about the exercise of a student’s freedom of speech and how her sincere efforts were treated. I would hope that the leaders in your organization would be expected to encourage activism and involvement in the political process from students rather than to belittle or degrade them for doing so simply because of opposing viewpoints, whether professional or personal. The letter Camilla received from Dana Dillon would be a good example of such a response, one which seeks to educate and validate Camilla’s efforts despite obvious differences of opinion.

I know this has been a lengthy letter and I apologize for that, but I wanted to be sure you were made aware of the background and details of this matter in order to appropriately address it. I hope your response will be thorough and fair and I would appreciate your prompt response. Please contact me if you need additional information; thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

Barbara X

— On Thu, 11/6/08, Tony and Debbie wrote:

From: Tony and Debbie

Subject: Re: Preposterous behavior

To: “Rogers, Jim”

Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 2:04 PM

Mr. Rogers,

To call Camilla’s email or my email bigotry or hate is slanderous. I wish not to continue correspondence with you directly because you continue to reduce things to a personal level which is unprofessional. I only hope that you will take your elected position for what it is, a position of service and commence to leave your personal ideals out of the situation. Also, when the youth of America are exercising their right to democracy, please encourage it instead of suppressing it.

Respectfully,

Debbie

--------------------

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Rogers, Jim (JRogers@cta.org) wrote:

Such hate and bigotry… Such a shame.

*(emphasis added)*

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

—–Original Message—–

From: Tony and Debbie

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:57 AM Pacific Standard Time

To: Rogers, Jim

Subject: Preposterous behavior

Mr. Rogers,

Your condescending and pompous email is now being circulated on the internet to friends and family of Camilla. I have already put in a calls to State Council of Education Representatives to discuss your behavior. Regardless of your personal feelings on a matter, Camilla was exercising her rights as an American to discuss her views and opinions with appropriate representatives. The message you are giving reflects your personal and selfish interests (not appropriate as an elected board member) and also sends the message that it is not okay for citizens to express their views.

Camilla’s letter was thoughtful, respectful and eloquently written. Your response showed little to no thought and was not respectful. I will continue to make calls to ensure that this type of behavior is not allowed in the California Teacher’s Association.

Respectfully,

Debbie

-----------------

From: Rogers, Jim (JRogers@cta.org)

Subject: RE: In Protest of CTA’s $1.25 million donation to the “No on Prop 8″ campaign

To: Barbara

Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 11:37 PM

Thanks, Sweetie, but it’s over for now. And it’s really none of your business.

*(emphasis added)*

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

—–Original Message—–
From: Barbara

Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:27 PM Pacific Standard Time

To: Sanchez, David; Vogel, Dean; Vaughn, Dan; Allen, Larry; Bridge, Don;
Bustos, Michael; Cabell, Tyrone; Cichocki, Mikki; Crummey, Dayton; Dawson,
Don; Dillon, Dana; Groth, Jim; Hasson, Dian; Heins, Eric; Henley, Lynette;
Jackson, Mignon; Meeden, Marty; Melendez, George; Ortega, Mary Rose;
Pena, Cynthia; Porter, Lloyd; Shatun, Bonnie; Stone, Michael; Rogers, Jim

Subject: In Protest of CTA’s $1.25 million donation to the “No on Prop 8″ campaign

My name is Camilla and I am a junior at Folsom High School. On October 21, I stayed home from school to protest the $1.25 million your association donated to the “No on Proposition 8″ campaign. I believe that this is something that CTA, which speaks for all teachers, had no right to do. Did you ask the teachers if this was okay with them? Did they approve this? You can tell me that your board and representatives voted and passed the decision to donate this amount of money for this proposition, but as I understand it, your board should make decision for education, not for political agendas. You spent the teachers’ funds on a very controversial issue with which many of them do not agree.

Marriage between a man and a woman has existed since the beginning of human life on earth. Should Proposition 8 fail, it would cause the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to be diminished and its powerful influence on society to be lessened. The failure of Proposition 8 would result in the meaning of marriage becoming little more than a casual relationship between any two adults and the weakening of the importance of the roles of a father and a mother in a child’s development. Marriage is not just about love or the desires of the parties entering into it. It about providing what is best for children, ideally a mother and a father who love them. Does it really serve teachers and students best to sponsor changing the institution of marriage in this way?

While you have stated that you made this donation because all people should be allowed equal protection under the law, you must understand that many people do not agree that denying same-sex marriage equates to unjustified discrimination. Domestic partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual, already have all the same rights and privileges afforded to them by law as do married individuals EXCEPT that their union cannot be called “marriage”. I believe that this type of “discrimination” is very different from the withholding of basic rights to individuals based on their race or ethnicity, something that cannot be chosen or changed. Even if homosexual individuals do not choose their sexual orientation, their desire for their relationships to be considered equal in all ways does not justify changing society’s definition of marriage, especially when there are already laws in place which give them equal protection and rights.

I thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I hope that I will get a reply. I hope that you understand why I stayed home. It was not to get the day off but to say that I do not agree with this donation and am not for same-sex marriage and do not appreciate the representatives of the teachers in our public education system taking sides on such a controversial issue. I know that my actions did not adversely affect you but I did this as a matter of principle. I do wish to thank you for the good work you do in seeking better pay and benefits for teachers. My teachers make a positive difference in my life and I appreciate anything you do that will truly help them.

Sincerely,

Camilla