For the record

I’m curious. I know many supporters of Prop 8 have experienced nasty backlash from opponents. So I’m going to post up some polls to see what the numbers are.

Notice that the first two questions are aimed at Prop 8 supporters; the last two are aimed at Prop 8 opponents. Just to be fair, I thought we’d survey both sides of the board.

Advertisements
Published in: on October 21, 2008 at 12:35 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , , ,

How the Declaration of Independence relates to Proposition 8

This post is made up of excerpts (the whole thing was a bit long) from an awesome post:

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:26 PM

The Forgotten Founding Document:

 

The Overlooked Legal Contribution of the Declaration of Independence

And California’s Opportunity to Revive It Through Proposition 8

 

A. Scott Loveless[1]

The Constitution that eventually followed the Declaration was the Founders’ effort to frame a government that accomplished what the Declaration (and natural law) required.  Seen in this light, the “Bill of Rights,” comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, should be perceived as a further enumeration of the rights of the people vis-?-vis the subservient government they had created and therefore as a list of limitations on the authority of government (including the judiciary), not as a list of rights granted to the people by the government, in the tradition of King John and the Magna Carta.[18]  The Constitution is devoid of any reference to authority in the courts, for example, to create new law out of whole cloth, as in Roe or Lawrence, or to disregard and overrule the expressed will of the people on moral questions, as in Romer and In re Marriage Cases, let alone to install as the foundation of our laws a moral philosophy other than natural law.  Indeed, their use of the word “unalienable” suggests the depth of their conviction on this point.

            That the United States’ government (including the courts) was created under a limited delegation of authority from the people is further made clear by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which reserve to the people and the States, respectively, all rights not delegated from the sovereign people to the federal government.  Activist judges and justices, who take it upon themselves to create law or to substitute other ideas for the natural law foundation of our legal system, thwart this foundational framework and can be seen as usurping the natural law rights of the people, an “unconstitutional” act of the most serious kind. […]

It is critically important that we remember that the effects of natural law limitations on the government differ in one material way from their effect on the people.  Both are limited by natural law restrictions, but the government must perceive its limitations as a matter of deference to the superior “individual rights” of the people, whereas people experience their “rights” as freedom limited by social, interpersonal duties If we were to make the mistake of perceiving individual morality in terms of enforcing “my individual rights” against others, for example, rather than only against the government, it is doubtful that my duties and obligations will be foremost on my mind.  […]

            The American Founders recognized these principles as moral truths, but others have perceived them, as well.  As one jurist in the United Kingdom, Sir John Laws, recently observed,

A society whose values are defined by reference [solely] to individual rights is by that very fact already impoverished.  Its culture says nothing about individual duty – nothing about virtue . . .  Accordingly, rights must be put in their proper place. […]

Thus, at the inter-personal level of society, natural law morality has fundamentally to do with self control and self-governance in our relations with others, with how we treat other people.[22]  The American founders recognized this relationship.  John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[23]  James Madison: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea;”[24] and “If all men were angels, no government would be necessary.”[25]  Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”[26]  George Washington: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….  It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. . . .  Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” […]

While “we the people” may, as a society, decide that certain harmful activities and behaviors can be “tolerated,” and therefore either decriminalize them or not strictly enforce laws against them, such “tolerance-based rights” (for lack of a better term) must never be mistaken for the “fundamental rights” granted by natural law. […]

Nowhere in society are our pivotal responsibilities toward others more on display or more vitally important than in our marriages and families.  Marriage is perhaps the last refuge of voluntary duty- and obligation-based morality in our society, and it goes well beyond the minimal duty “not to harm,” but is rather a commitment to seek to benefit others – spouse and children.  To redefine marriage to refer simply to any amorous relationship, would be a devastating blow not only to the definition of marriage, but to the very principles on which this nation was established.

            Before the rise of the modern welfare state, much social welfare was provided by family, nuclear and extended, and most of the balance was provided by church communities.  Meeting others’ needs was generally assumed to be a family duty, a large part of what it meant to be family or kin, or to “belong” to a family.  Caring for one another’s kin in such ways, assuming this responsibility in life, was among the quintessential characteristics of family, and it still is – in strong families. 

            Ultimately, this is why the same-sex marriage debate is so vitally important; redefining “marriage” to include same-sex couples vitiates the very core of duty, responsibility, and sacrifice intrinsic to what marriage really is.  If marriage becomes no more than a label of social approbation for an amorous relationship, we will truly have lost perhaps the last significant vestige of hope, the last remaining safe harbor of responsibility-based, natural law morality, the “foundation of the fabric” Washington described, on which he and the rest of the Founders pinned all their efforts and risked their lives.  We will have become just another society subject to the will of its government, in this case, a few elitist judges. […]

Natural law morality was largely dominant, assumed even, in the United States until the second half of the 20th Century, when a competing morality began to emerge, known as “political correctness” or “tolerance” or “moral relativism” or “religious humanism” or “secularism” or several other catch phrases, including the “rights-based approach to human rights law.” 

            This competing morality is diametrically opposed to the duty-based morality of not harming others under natural law.  It is an alternate claim of morality focused on one’s rights alone, ignoring, at least with regard to certain behaviors, one’s minimal moral responsibilities not to harm others.  It exacerbates the tension over such questions as, “How much harm can we allow without making an action criminal?” or “Do we overlook the harm if the action is between consenting adults?”  Arguments originating in this new morality have spawned new concepts such as “victimless crime” and “right of privacy,” and altered old words by giving them new meanings, such as “tolerance.”  In doing so, this competing morality tends to lower the standard of expected care and raise the level of actionable harm, but in the aggregate, seemingly minor harms to others – like secondhand smoke, the proliferation of pornography, or consensual casual sex – still have harmful effects in society. 

            This alternative morality assumes, wrongly, that the “rights” of the people vis-?-vis the government should also be the proper first focus of morality in the interpersonal realm.  It says, in effect, “I can do whatever I want as a matter of right, as long as it is not against the law, and laws that unreasonably restrict my freedom to act as I desire need to be repealed or struck down (and please don’t tell me I have moral ‘duties’ beyond what the law requires),” with the overall result of lowering the standards of acceptable social behavior. 

            It is worth observing that in those cases where modern judicial activism is most apparent, Roe, Lawrence, Goodridge, Romer, In re Marriage Cases, the courts have moved consistently in one direction only – away from the moral duty view of natural law, which requires a degree of self-control due to the unavoidable effects of one’s actions on others, and toward this new version of morality that perceives pure license as a protected moral good.  In the wake of this competing morality we now have a novel and virtually unchecked “right of privacy” with which the government may not interfere, invented in Griswold v. Connecticut (in the name of protecting the sanctity and importance of marriage).  This novel but seemingly innocuous right of privacy was later expanded in Roe v. Wade and its successors to deny completely the right to life of the unborn in favor of the right of the woman “to control her own body,” regardless of the views of mere state legislatures.   In Lawrence the Court expanded the privacy right to include how and with whom one might choose to have sex, without regard for the weight of precedent, such as Bowers v. Hardwick, and again without regard for the expressed “law” created merely by a state legislature of publicly elected officials, in favor of a morally (and judicially) favored sexual license, overlooking the real social consequences and possible valid reasons for which the Texas legislature, like many others, may have enacted its prohibition and satisfied the rational basis test in doing so.  In Romer the Supreme Court confirmed the elevation of homosexual practice to the level of full Constitutional protection by striking down a State Constitutional amendment that simply affirmed that homosexuality would not be considered a separate “protected class” under the State Constitution (but not denying homosexuals the same rights all other citizens held).  And more recently, in Goodridge and In re Marriage Cases, activist state supreme courts have relied on this same “right of privacy” and “dignity” to actually undermine the importance and sanctity of heterosexual marriage and its ensuing “natural” commitments, responsibilities, and the duties to renewed life in a rising generation.[31]  This competing morality also underlies “no-fault divorce,” which virtually swept the country in the 1970s and 80s, removing the duties of husband and wife to each other when those duties run counter to revised personal desires, often licentious in character. 

            In these critical cases, the courts have raised this version of morality to a Constitutional right, and in the process elevated themselves to a position of ultimate authority, denying the place of the Legislative Branch, much less the formerly supreme people, to speak to such questions, using their definition of the Constitution to defeat the very natural law-based rights it was intended to preserve. 

            We now witness this alternative morality in efforts to redefine marriage itself, using law in an attempt to reform an institution that precedes law and is a function of natural law.  These trends away from natural law morality have been promoted and accelerated by the news and entertainment industries, and by the tendency of judges and lawyers to follow trends in society (or rather, facilitate and enable them) rather than adhering to the legal and moral restraints imposed by natural law. 

            A common belief is that there is no harm in such actions.  The high and rising rates of crime and violence, even among the youth and in schools; child and spouse abuse; the general coarsening of society; the AIDS pandemic and sexually transmitted diseases; drug and alcohol abuse and addictions; as well as the recently much publicized ethical breaches in business practices, indicate that such is not the case.  Where people feel that freedom equates to personal license, other people inevitably suffer. […]

Increasingly, the Constitution is being reinterpreted by the Supreme Court and various advocacy groups to resemble the government style of King George, where novel “human rights” of the people are first defined by the government (Supreme Court), dictated (or “granted”) to the people, and then also enforced by the government.  And we are incrementally losing something extremely precious in the process – the “natural” freedoms from having the government dictate what rights we have and do not have, and increasingly, a society composed of individuals who perceive fewer and fewer responsibilities toward others.  Indeed, to return to the question the founders were addressing, what right do the courts or the Congress have to abandon the “unalienable” premise of the Constitution itself, natural law, and supplant it with a substitute morality?  Such powers lie outside the scope of the limited delegation from the people to the government and amount to a rewrite of the Constitution and an abandonment of the very foundation of our independence.

            In a true irony, under this “new morality” a great many harms to others and significant costs to society are being legally justified and thus fostered in the name of “human rights,” another phrase whose meaning has been turned on its head by the morality of license.[32]  Most significantly for voters in California, these same ideas are now being urged upon us in the form of attempts to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but when a “legal right” is a “moral wrong” under natural law, there will be unavoidable harmful consequences to society. […]

California, this is what is ultimately at stake in Proposition 8.  The vitality of our very Constitution lies on the block with marriage.  The Founders chose natural law.  Some, including the activist judges, appear to wish to undo the Founders’ choice and replace it with their own ideas on morality, and the people of California now face that same choice.  But it should be an informed choice, not a matter of political pressures, whims and winds.  Who will it be?  A unanimous Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and George Washington, or Oliver Wendell Holmes and a one-vote majority on a divided California Supreme Court?  And Arizona, Florida, and yes, Massachusetts, are you listening? […]

Rights, duties, freedoms, virtue, morality, public order, and the general welfare.  These concepts can only coexist in a pluralistic society when the individuals comprising the larger society assume a personal responsibility toward others.  We humans exist in a web of relationships, families in particular.  Natural law morality guided by conscience preserves and strengthens those relationships and social bonds, builds trust, inhibits our selfishness.  We need to regain an appreciation of the morality of natural law as the foundation for our law, both domestically and internationally, and the courts must self-police in recognizing the consequent inherent limitations on their powers, or the grand aspirations of the American Declaration will have come to naught. 

            The People of California need to reassert their natural law rights against a State Supreme Court that has disdained and disregarded them.  They need to overrule the Court’s decision to redefine marriage according to a morality that sees only libertine license as good, with no counterbalancing duties and responsibilities.  A State, any State, is a poor substitute for responsible self-governance, self-control, and self-discipline.  Nothing less than freedom, true freedom, is at stake, for our children and grandchildren, if not for ourselves. 

            Please, California, enact Proposition 8.  Much more than marriage is at stake, and not just on your fair shores.  Help protect our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages, and in doing so, help us take back our Constitution from those who were sworn to preserve it but have been its greatest undoing.

motherhood vs fatherhood

I believe that a child needs both a mother and a father to be raised successfully. Obviously, this is not always possible, but in the case of gay marriage, we will be taking that opportunity away from children right from the start. Studies have shown that children need both parents. Here’s a few things I’ve noticed that my three year old daughter has learned from one of us, or how she interacts differently with us:

My daughter loves music. (Mom)

She loves to pretend. (Mom)

She loves to read. (Mom)

She loves to help me cook. (Mom)

She knows all about instruments and musical terms. (Mom)

Mom knows the words to just about every kids song she ever wants.

Dad makes up the words when he doesn’t know them. So does she.

She is much more willing to sit and read a whole book with Mom than with Dad.

When she wakes up grumpy, Dad can silly her out of it.

She cuddles a little bit more with Mom than with Dad.

Mom loves hugs, Dad loves kisses.

She loves to tickle. (Dad)

She loves being silly. (Dad)

She loves to dance. (Dad)

She loves animals, acting like them, and making their sounds. (Dad)

She loves “baseball Dodgers.” (Dad)

She knows the difference between baseball, football, and basketball. (Dad)

She loves playing ball – soccer and catch. (Dad)

She thinks Dad’s juggling is pretty cool. (Dad)

She loves flying her plane while Dad flies his helicopter. (Dad)

She can say words like helicopter, fire truck, and tow truck. (Dad)

She loves to run around in circles. (Dad)

She loves to play hide and go seek. (Dad)

I love this picture that says so plainly what I have been thinking about. It’s from http://www.iprotectmarriage.com

Our daughter has learned so many things from each of us that she probably wouldn’t have learned from the other. She plays more actively with Dad than with Mom – partly because Mom is so worn out from taking care of both our girls all the time. Dad can always find some energy for a round of tickles or hide and go seek. Mom can always be lured into reading her a story. Sometimes when she wakes up scared in the middle of the night, she wants Mom. Sometimes she wants Dad. It depends on why she’s scared. Her life is so much more full because she has a mom and a dad. I don’t think I could handle her without my husband to help run out her energy at the end of the day. And I don’t think she would calm down for bed some nights without Mom to help settle her down.

Just as I believe that every child has a right to be born, so I also believe that every child has the right to come into a family with both a mother and a father. How can we deprive these children of something as vital as a parent, without considering their needs? Our babies cannot speak for themselves and tell us what we need. When we think about marriage, we have an obligation not only to think about the adults involved, but about the children they will raise who have no voice.

Published in: on October 21, 2008 at 9:11 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , ,

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is one of the things that is bothering me about Proposition 8. I know it is a sensitive issue for a lot of people on both sides. But when people start saying hurtful things to those they disagree with, when people are physically attacked for their beliefs, and when we can’t even put up simple yard signs to express our political views on our private property without vandalism and theft, something’s wrong.

America was founded on principles of freedom. Our forefathers left European countries to embrace a lifestyle where they would have more freedom. Religious freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech. No one should ever be attacked for simply expressing themselves in a calm, concise manner. Disagreement does not justify disrespect.

I have a religious belief that homosexuality is an immoral practice. Under the First Amendment, I am free to believe that. It is part of my religious freedom. I also have the right to express my belief without fear of physical harm ensuing. I also have the right to raise my children to follow my religious beliefs, and not have contradictory beliefs pushed on them at school. Other people are free to make a different choice – to be gay, and to express their preference for that lifestyle. However, why should my daughter go to school and have to listen to her teachers telling her that her religion is wrong? We should be teaching tolerance at schools, but not affirmation of lifestyles that are considered by most religions to be wrong.

I’m not sure when we decided as a society that in order to be tolerant of our differences, we had to embrace and promote them. I can be tolerant of my gay friends’ choice without teaching my daughter that a gay lifestyle is a perfectly normal, acceptable lifestyle that is equal to my heterosexual relationship with my husband. I don’t believe it is equal, and I don’t think it is a behavior we ought to be promoting.

If Proposition 8 fails, then my religious freedoms will be infringed upon. As has been evidenced by cases in Massachusetts, parents will not be notified every time homosexuality is discussed in school. If classrooms are going to discuss sexual behavior, then yes, they have to notify the parents. But if they are simply discussing “families” and homosexuality as a social trend, then they don’t have to notify the parents at all. Don’t believe me? Check out the video in my previous post, where a father was actually sent to jail after requesting that he be notified when such things were going to be discussed in schools. And if California schools aren’t excited to be teaching about homosexuality, then why did the California Teachers Association donate $1 million to the No on 8 campaign? I’m apalled that $1 million, which could have been used for books, classroom supplies, and funding of school programs, was taken from teachers’ dues and donated to a political cause which many teachers don’t support. If I paid dues to a union, I would expect them to represent my interests; if people are bound to disagree on a controversial issue, then maybe that’s not someplace they ought to be donating their money.

And before people start commenting about their “right” to get married, go read the Constitution. There’s nothing mentioned anywhere about marriage. No one’s right to be married is guaranteed by our Constitution.

Published in: on October 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm  Comments Off on The First Amendment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Why I worry about what Proposition 8 means for my kids

Supporters of Prop 8 keep getting told we don’t need to worry about homosexuality being taught in schools, because we will be forewarned and have the choice to keep our children out. What happened to this family obviously illustrates that that isn’t the case. When sex ed is taught, parents will, as always, have the choice to teach their children about it in the privacy of their own homes. But sex ed isn’t the only time homosexuality will be discussed, if Proposition 8 fails.

The family in the video had their child exposed to the idea of same-sex marriage in kindergarten – way before a child needs to learn about such issues anyway. I applaud the idea of diversity. But treating same-sex marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage isn’t about embracing diversity – it’s about calling two very different things by the same name. Apples and oranges, if you will. The relationships are fundamentally different. And by trying to teach our children to be accepting of those few individuals who choose a homosexual lifestyle, teachers end up pushing homosexuality. To get the message across, they have to talk about it more and praise it more than they do a normal, heterosexual relationship.

Children are impressionable, and easily confused. What their teachers tell them at school is very important. How many little kids’ first crush is on their elementary school teacher? They soak up every word they hear. For example, my three year old loves her uncle Trevor. I think he’s probably her favorite relative. Trevor is a very animated person. Whenever he comes over and plays video games with my husband, he has to be very careful what he says. He’s resorted to yelling “Flowers and puppies and happy things!” when something doesn’t go right in his game. All because my little girl adores him and repeats every word he says. (After the “fat cow” incident, we had a little talk about watching his language around her.) Kids adore certain adults, and what those adults do and say leaves a stronger impression on a child than they realize. So if my kid’s teacher tells her homosexuality is a great thing, it’s just as good as your mom and dad’s marriage, she’s going to have a hard time when mommy tells her that’s not what we believe. Children shouldn’t be learning two different sets of standards and morals.

And imagine the fun literature our kids will be reading as they get older. When I was in middle school and high school, we read a lot of literature about the oppression of blacks, about families who experienced horrible things like child abuse, and about turbulence in Latin America. We read about things our school district decided would probably be issues we would hear about in our lives, to help prepare us for the “real world.” Evidently, preparing us for the real world entailed reading about horrible things, difficulty, and diversity, rather than reading any literature from our own culture… So if gay marriage becomes a legalized practice, doesn’t it follow that our children are going to start reading gay literature too? If we represent every other group in our English classes that has experienced what some would term oppression, it seems logical to assume that we will someday at gay literature to that list.

It’s not just something kids are going to hear about in sex ed. They are going to hear about it anytime marriage is discussed. They will be exposed to it when gay parents take our kids on field trips. As the recently squashed Harvey Milk day idea suggests, in the future our kids may be taught to celebrate homosexuality. As I recently blogged about, kids were taken to a homosexual wedding, which was considered an appropriate activity for young children and an appropriate use of school funds.  Our kids will be bringing books home from school that will, in our hearts, horrify us if we don’t believe homosexuality is a moral practice.

And since when did it become the school’s job to teach our children morality? Especially when the school is going to be teaching our children that immoral behaviors are, in fact, moral? Let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room: Most Americans don’t practice homosexuality. The majority of religious citizens believe that homosexuality is immoral. In our efforts to be politically correct, we have taken the idea of tolerance to a whole new level. Not only do we accept what people choose to do in private, but now we are going to be teaching our children to accept abberant behavior in our public schools. Being tolerant of others’ beliefs doesn’t mean embracing them and teaching them to our children. Just because we are tolerant doesn’t mean we have to legalize what most Americans term immoral behavior.

What is marriage?

It seems to me that the heart of this issue isn’t so much about equality, but about how we as a civilization define marriage.

To me, marriage is a mutually loving relationship between a man and a woman; they provide support for each other economically, socially, emotionally, and spiritually. They provide the same support for any children that they bring into the world or choose to adopt. As parents, they also provide role models for their children on how to become a happy, successful adult who knows how to interact with others in society. Parents model appropriate behavior, teaching their children how to act in a loving relationship to family members and a future spouse.

To me, marriage is not only about the relationship between the spouses. It is also about providing stability and support to the rest of the family. Just as I think that every infant who is conceived has a right to be born, I also think that every infant has the right to join a family with both a mother and a father. Children need the influences of both a male and female parent in order to grow up in a truly healthy environment. (For more influence on actual studies that support this, go check out Troy’s blog post about Prop 8.) A gay couple cannot provide this to any children they might adopt. Their marriage cannot bring children into the world, they cannot provide all the nurturing a child needs no matter how hard they try and how loving they are, and many homosexual relationships are less stable than heterosexual ones (again, go check out the stats on Troy’s blog.) How does endorsing gay marriage, then, benefit our society as a whole?

Now I know I define marriage differently than many of you out there. So go ahead, tell me what exactly marriage means to you?

Published in: on October 14, 2008 at 2:08 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , ,

Private or Public affair?

People who oppose Proposition 8 keep telling me that it is ridiculous to claim that allowing same-sex marriage will affect my life in any way. “It’s only going to allow couples who love each other to be together” they say. Here’s a great example of how this issue affects more people than just the gay couples who want to get married:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

To summarize, if you don’t want to read the whole story, a class of first graders in San Fransisco took a school sanctioned field trip to their lesbian teacher’s wedding. It was decided that this was an appropriate use of school funds – which come from who now? Oh right, that’s the parents, like myself.

Parents were notified and given the option to keep their child out of the trip, and two parents did. But even if those children didn’t go on the trip, they are still being exposed to the idea of homosexual marriage at a very impressionable young age. And you can bet the kids who did go on the field trip will be talking about it to their two classmates who stayed home for days. Most children adore their elementary school teachers at that age, and those kids want their teacher to be happy. What makes her happy? Same-sex marriage. If Prop 8 passes, that teacher will be upset, and so will her students. By the children participating in this same-sex marriage, they have had a firsthand lesson that gay marriage is okay.

I don’t want my children taught about gay marriage in schools. I don’t want my sister-in-law, who is a schoolteacher, to have to teach her pupils that same-sex marriage is an acceptable practice, when it is something she firmly believes is wrong. Gay marriage, whether we like it or not, has influences far beyond being simply a private affair. To believe that it doesn’t affect other families in California is unrealistic.

Published in: on October 13, 2008 at 9:07 am  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , ,

Opening a discussion

After seeing the huge response that I got to my post on California’s Proposition 8 on my regular blog, I decided to move the discussion to a better location – most of the readers who come to my main blog are looking for updates on my family, not my views on politics. Feel free to join in the discussion, whichever side you believe is right. Just keep your comments clean, and no personal attacks please. We can have a discussion as adults and respectfully disagree without namecalling and hurtful remarks.

Published in: on October 13, 2008 at 2:53 am  Comments Off on Opening a discussion  
Tags: , , ,

More on Prop 8

As I find other discussions out there, I’m going to add them to this list for your reading enjoyment.

http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/its-not-just-about-love/

http://www.iprotectmarriage.com/

http://www.preservingmarriage.org/

http://www.protectmarriage.com/

Check ’em out.

Published in: on October 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm  Comments Off on More on Prop 8  
Tags: , , ,

On second thought

I didn’t realize that blogging about Prop 8 would lead to a migraine. So I am going to take a break from answering your comments for a day or two. Feel free to continue the discussion amongst yourselves.

I do sincerely appreciate that we have kept our discussion just that – a discussion, and not an argument. I know this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people, and I am glad that we have been able to discuss it without resorting to negativity. In the end, those of us who have made up our minds one way or the other are highly unlikely to sway others who are already committed, but I appreciate hearing both sides of the issue.

Published in: on October 2, 2008 at 1:15 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,