A Simple Request

Dear Bagel Factory Readers,

It is clear that the same-sex marriage issue is not going away anytime soon. Even after California citizens have voted twice, in a matter of eight years, to define marriage between one man and one woman, opposition to this vote is angry and adamant that their "right" to the word marriage be recognized and legalized.

You've all seen the numerous protests, marches, and rallies across our nation following the passing of Proposition 8 on Nov. 4th. You've all heard or read the biased media coverage of said gatherings. With anger flaring and violence, vandalism, graffiti, hate crimes, harassment, intimidation, destruction, defacement, and even domestic terrorism ruling the day, there is more need than ever for Prop 8 supporters and marriage protectors everywhere to take a respectfully vocal stand. In an effort to heed this call, I have continued writing my thoughts and reactions on my What Our Country Needs blog. And, herein lies my simple request. If you stand in support of traditional marriage, could you please add a "Protect Marriage" link list to your blog and include my Prop 8 blog and any others you come across who are blogging for marriage and/or Prop 8? I have a whole bunch on my WOCN blog that you can just copy and paste into your link list. And, if you have any desire to do more, you could even start writing your own thoughts and musings about and reactions to Prop 8/marriage stuff on your blogs. You could even start a protect marriage blog! Join the community of bloggers for protecting traditional marriage. The Internet, as we have been reminded by our religious leaders, is one of the best and most efficient news outlets of our day. While others "join the impact" we can make our own strong and quiet presence known in the cyber community and beyond. We can make a difference, no matter how fast this tidal wave appears to be moving toward us. If nothing else, let's make a decision that we'll not turn and run, but dig in our feet and stand strong against the threat of moral relativism and irreligion.

Many of you, my friends, are incredible writers with backgrounds in journalism and reporting. Many of you are incredible writers, period. But whether you feel you write well or not, you have a voice and you have the ability and resources to give that voice flight, right here on the Internet. While others march against a decision already made, we'll write to protect the decisions yet to come.

Now, you may think to yourself, "I don't live in California, so how can I possibly contribute? What will my voice matter in Pittsburgh or Chicago or Stillwater or Amity or Spanish Fork?" Well, if you take a look at that group of "protect marriage" blogs on my WOCN sidebar, you'll notice that they are people reporting from all over the country. They either keep tabs on marriage happenings in their neck of the woods, or they simply voice their thoughts on marriage in general and Prop 8 in specific. Whether you write about legislation, marches, scriptures, speeches, conference talks, etc. you can do the same! Be respectful, be kind, be loving...but be heard.

I love you all! You inspire me to greater heights. My life is a better one for having met every single one of you and I would love for the world to know you, too.

Here's to protecting traditional marriage - marriage between one man and one woman.

New Facebook Group

I have started a new Facebook group: "Get the Facts About the LDS Church and Proposition 8." Please click on the link and join this group and send invitations to your friends and encourage them to send invitations to their friends. I am so tired (as are many of you) of the untruths, half truths, and downright lies floating around about the LDS Church and would like to get the true facts out there so that people can be properly educated before they choose to pronounce judgements on their friends and neighbors, good upstanding citizens of our free country.

And Now I Am Crying

New Online Initiative Launched Against Prop 8 and Mormons

The Facts

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

*Thanks for these facts, M.
*And thanks for posting these pictures and accompanying text, Jenn.

I know I am so unoriginal by borrowing from your blogs, but I would like to perpetuate the truths that both of you have found. So, I hope you'll forgive me my theft. :)

"Unfair and Wrong"*

"Equality for all"*

*Common catchphrases employed by the 'No on 8' campaign. It would seem that while they vehemently champion these phrases, however, they don't actually live by them.

Much Appreciated

International Mormon Appreciation Day

It Will Never End

Persecution of Mormons in the wake of Prop 8

From My Dad

I got this letter from my dad in my e-mail inbox yesterday. I loved it and asked him if I could share it with all of you. I admire my dad so much. He is a spiritual giant and a man of great wisdom and learning. His testimony is so strong that there is nothing on this earth that would ruffle it or cause him to doubt the Lord. I thank my Father in Heaven every day for allowing me to be born of such "goodly parents." Their example has shaped who I am today and I hope to be as strong for my own children.

Yesterday’s edition of BYU’s “The Daily Universe” had an article entitled “Proposition 8 stirs controversy while church members wait for results.” The article quotes a University of Utah student who thinks the Church’s involvement in the issue is inappropriate: “I can’t believe they’re supporting Prop. 8. The church is supposed to be neutral. That’s changed now. They can’t support a candidate but they can support a proposition. They’ve warped their stance. I’ve had to separate myself from the church because of the way they’re handling the ‘problem’ of homosexuality. It’s so against what the church teaches. It’s unchristian.”

As soon as I read that I immediately thought of a statement from Elder Boyd K. Packer:

“In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it” (Address to Religious Educators at Brigham Young University, August 22, 1981).

And Elder Dallin H. Oaks just explained why the Church is involved with the current issue in an interview with the Church’s Public Affairs staff:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue – ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.”

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.

Prophetic Counsel from 1978

This is a talk that I found to be very inspired considering this fight for marriage and life that has gripped our country (Yes, Proposition 8 has passed). As for my thoughts on the subject? Follow the prophets my friends, for therein lies the path to exaltation. We will not be counted among the stalwart and valiant of the Lord's disciples if we believe we can pick and choose which of His commandments are enough in accordance with our own views to follow. We must follow them all. We must follow the prophet, even in (especially in) the face of adversity. We must fear not man, but trust in the Lord and obey Him. If we do the little things each day (scriptures, prayer, etc.) to strengthen our testimonies and those of our children, then no amount of persecution, religious or otherwise, will cause us to turn away from the Lord. Even better, we will still be able to find joy in a life fraught with trial and tribulation.

I love you all, dear readers, and, as you can probably tell, I am in a very contemplative mood. Thank you for indulging me. Click on the title below to view the complete text of Elder Maxwell's talk or just follow along with my copied and pasted excerpts below. Peace.

A More Determined Discipleship
by Neal A. Maxwell 1978

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.) emphasis added

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life" (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ! emphasis added

...

M. J. Sobran wrote recently:

"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. …

"What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs." (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities—when faced with clear alternatives—will make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide. emphasis added

...

Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, "A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it" (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).

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. emphasis added

...

If we let come into being a secular church which is shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hour of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education aided in school systems which are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon and rely upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it? emphasis added

...

Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. emphasis added

There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, "summer is nigh" (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat!

Have I come today, however, only to add one more to the already long list of special challenges faced by you and me? Not really. I have also come to say to you that God, who foresaw all challenges, has given to us a precious doctrine which can encourage us in meeting this and all other challenges.

...

The disciple will be puzzled at times, too. But he persists. Later he rejoices and exclaims over how wonderfully things fit together, realizing, only then, that with God—things never were apart!

...

When, in situations of stress, we wonder if there is any more in us to give, we can be comforted to know that God, who knows our capacities perfectly, placed us here to succeed. No one was foreordained to fail or to be wicked.

When we have been weighed and found wanting, let us remember that we were measured before and were found equal to our tasks; and therefore, let us continue but with a more determined discipleship.

When we feel overwhelmed, let us recall the assurance that God will not overprogram us; he will not press upon us more than we can bear (see D&C 50:40).

The doctrine of foreordination is, therefore, not a doctrine of repose; it is a doctrine for the second-milers; it can draw out of us the last full measure of devotion. emphasis added

It is a doctrine of perspiration—not aspiration. Moreover, it discourages aspiring, lest we covet, like two early disciples, that which has already been given to another (see Matt. 20:20–23).

It is a doctrine for the deep believer and will only bring scorn from the skeptic. emphasis added

Speak Out Against Blatant Attack on Mormons and Religion

Go here to let CNN know how wrong it is to give any air time to outright religious bigotry and slander.

Write to the following e-mail addresses to let MSNBC know the same:

letters@msnbc.com

multimedia@msnbc.com

Thanks for letting your light shine instead of hiding it under that old, cobwebby bushel on your front porch! :)

Liz

Smear the Mormons to Win the Race!

Well, I've officially been smeared...along with millions of other Mormons across the country and globe. The No on Prop 8 campaign has released today a brand new commercial spot depicting two faux LDS missionaries invading the home of two lesbian women, finding their marriage license, and ripping it up. After the lesbian women's indignant cries - "Wait! We have rights, too" - the missionaries leave saying, "Well that was easy, what should we ban next?"

Now, if this doesn't show the true colors of the No on Prop 8 campaign and community, I don't know what will. This is repulsive. I sincerely hope that people of faith and good people everywhere recognize these dirt-slinging tactics and singling out of one religion (when in reality there are many supporting Prop 8) as true religious bigotry. The No on 8 campaign is running scared because of how close this race is. They have claimed that all our arguments for Proposition 8 are based on fear yet now we see who is truly afraid and how this fear has resulted in these people acting like a bunch of spoiled teenagers - if persuasion won't work, how about threatening or defaming, smearing? Yeah, good one guys. I'm sure the good people of this nation will see right through this and recognize it as a pathetic attempt to twist and vilify someone's right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

*Note to the No on Prop 8 campaign:

Smearing and vilifying will not silence the voice of righteous members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our right to express our opinions will hopefully always be protected in this country. We are no strangers to persecution.

P.S. "The Mormon Church" has not given over $20 million in support of Prop 8. Members of the Mormon church have. So what this ad would purport then, is that because of our religion, we are "not allowed" to have opinions or support causes - if we do, we're supposedly trying to take over the world (or control the government in this case). This is not only preposterous, but very anti-American and anti-Constitutional. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot "No on 8."

**Pray for the missionaries. They're the real victims in all this. They go about their business, testifying of Christ, not getting the least bit involved in politics, and this is what they get slammed with. Lovely.

PQ Prop 8 Rally Coverage

So, this last Saturday, supporters of Prop 8 had a huge sign waving rally in Poway that spanned the length of a busy road through a good portion of the city. Hundreds and hundreds of people came out to support marriage and Prop 8. However...not one single news station picked it up. The local news did manage, though, to air a clip of six - that's right, six - "No on Prop 8" sign wavers.

Tonight, we had a huge PQ sign waving rally that also spanned along the length of a well-traveled road. The rally included our entire stake as well as friends, neighbors, and other members of the Prop 8 coalition. Our ward was assigned a certain corner and, much to my delight, I was absolutely awed at the turn out. We had 135 people at our intersection alone! This included families, children, and the elderly all waving protectmarriage.com Prop 8 signs and homemade Prop 8 signs. Pretty surprisingly, we were able to attract the attention of the media. We had a great time entertaining the camera man with our happy screams, smiling faces, and darling Prop 8 children. Turns out they also covered a group of "No on 8" people who were up the street (and out of sight) from us. They were sharing an intersection with another ward.

Well, I checked out the News 8 website tonight and found the video clip at the top of the video list. And...surprise, surprise...check out the title - "Police called as Prop 8 emotions spill over." WHAT?! No emotions were "spilling over!" They said the police were called in to "break things up," but did you catch the shot of the cops standing around looking completely bored? We have been well conditioned to back down in the face of anger, but apparently the media isn't into accurate reporting. Oh well, this really shouldn't come as a surprise considering the media's biased coverage of the presidential candidates.

So, click on the link below, then click on the title as stated above. You can see me behind Vicky when they interview her (short blonde lady). I'm helping to hold a huge banner in the background and I'm looking to the side. Woo hoo! I'm famous! :)

Laura, me, and Micki

Yes on 8!

Soren found dirt. He's in heaven.

And, in other amusing Prop 8 news, my front yard sign was finally stolen. I had been expecting it forever and then, of course, when my guard is lowered and I'm starting to feel like I've been spared, WAM BAM, and there goes my freedom of speech. It was stolen last night. One measly little "Yes on 8" yard sign. So, here's my response to my stolen yard sign:

You take away one, I'll put up another five...

...and set strategically placed guards to secure the perimeter! :)

The Story of Prop 8

Ahhh...the truth is revealed and opponents of Prop 8 shown for the cruel people they have been throughout this debate. We have been called intolerant bigots, yet it is they who have vandalized, stolen, defaced, abused, cursed, and threatened. I hope many people see this video. A very many.

To the Angry Woman Who Visited Our Sign Waving This Morning:

I had some things I would have liked to respectfully discuss with you about Proposition 8, but you couldn't even hear me over your heated rantings and pointed accusations. Thus, my first impression of you was a confirmation of my suspicion that the intolerance I have been repeatedly accused of is actually more pervasive among my opposition. Since you denied me my voice this morning, I will respond to you here.

The first item you took issue with was our sign that says, "Prop 8 = Religious Freedom." You were quite decisive (and loud) in your opinion that marriage has nothing to do with religion. To that I ask, "Who was the first ever recorded marriage?" Oh yes, it was Adam and Eve, married by God. Hmm...nope, definitely not religious. You're right.

The second item out of your mouth was an attempt to "lord" (pun intended) your supposed authority over us by stating your educational record - as if you being a philosophy major and religion minor gives you authority over everyone else in opposition to your views. What? I am ignorant and you are enlightened simply because my degree was in Marriage, Family, and Human Development and not philosophy or religion? I am not allowed to peacefully promote a cause because I don't agree with you? That sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me...yet I'm the one who has been labeled the bigot...over and over and over again.

The third item that offended you was our "supposed" hate speech. Here are the signs we were holding. You tell me if any of them says anything about hate:

Prop 8 = Religious Freedom
Honk if you like Prop 8
Prop 8 = Free Speech
Honk for Prop 8 ... one man and one woman
Prop 8 Protects the Innocence of Children
Prop 8 = Less Government
Prop 8 = Parental Rights
Yes on Prop 8 = one man and on woman

Well, I certainly see no hate in there. Neither are we condemning gay people. WE ARE SIMPLY FIGHTING FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Sadly, in California, "hate speech" laws are becoming more and more subjective. If I say I do not agree with homosexuality, and you decide your feelings are hurt, I could be slapped with a fine for "hate speech." What happened to respectfully disagreeing, Ma'am?!

The last item that I am the one taking issue with, is your very fierce accusation that by having our children at our sign waving this morning, we were effecting child abuse. Yes, my jaw actually dropped when I heard that one. Child abuse? Could you please go and aim some of your "energy" in the direction of real child abusers - I'm sure DCFS could use a "strong" person like you on their team. Then again, they might actually fire you once their cases build up based on false accusations like yours today. I tried to tell you that we are not abusing our children by teaching them to responsibly and respectfully stand up for something they believe in, but you would not listen. Of course not. You talked right over me in your fit of anger and outrage.

You walked away from us this morning, yelling over your shoulder, "What are you so afraid of?!" To that I say, "People like you." I am afraid of people who will not tolerate an opinion other than their own - who steamroll over any opposition to their views. I am afraid of people who act and speak out of anger rather than conviction - whose arguments are presented with accusation and disdain rather than respect. I am afraid of people like the woman who said to me, on another corner at another time, "Who cares what your children are taught in school?" I care. Very much. When parental rights are denied with respect to education, a child's education suddenly becomes a matter of the state rather than the home. What else will that open the door for "the state" to lawfully teach my child in the name of a "well-rounded" education? I am afraid of people who think that I hate homosexuals just because I do not want them to have the word marriage. The implications of that concession are frightening and far-reaching indeed. I am afraid of a society in which whoever yells the loudest gets their way. Suddenly "We, the people of the United States," have become like a crowd of angry, intolerant teenagers, one that the government needs to make allowances for and appease in order to avoid scrutiny and mutiny. I wonder what happened to the democracy that allows for a difference in opinion? I want to know when our government began to rule based on what's fair instead of what is right? When did it become more important that you be elected for another term than that you accurately represent the people who voted you into office? I am afraid for my children and what they will be facing in school and community by the time they are teenagers. And it is that fear, coupled with my religious convictions, that keeps me actively (and peacefully) supporting Proposition 8 day in and day out. In a society plagued by a skewed sense of entitlement, perhaps it will be difficult for you to understand this more accurate representation, my indignant friend - I am entitled to my opinion; I am entitled to share it with others without being called names; and I am entitled to teach my children what is right as I am sure you do with yours. I maintain that I am neither a bigot nor intolerant. I do not hate. I fight fair for what I believe in and I would ask that you do the same.

The Very Definition of Dependable

Talk about multi-tasking, people.... Let's see, she's got gold fish crackers and a Prop 8 sign in one hand, kid in a front pack carrier on her chest, and bottle in her other hand. Meet my friend, Amanda. She's awesome! Amanda comes to sign wave almost every single morning and evening and is one of my stalwart regulars that I've come to depend on. She even came this morning, sporting a brand new...sore throat. :( Not only is she dedicated, but she also happens to be great company! Time flies when I get to chat about this or that with Amanda. Thanks for being so awesome, my friend!

This is Awesome

I know a little better now, how Samuel the Lamanite felt. Only I'm not a prophet and instead of arrows I've got profanities and obscene gestures being aimed at me. Doesn't matter - sticks and stones.... I'll obey no matter what.



For those of you who may not know who Samuel the Lamanite is or what is so fantastic about this version of this painting, here's the scoop. Samuel the Lamanite was a prophet of the Lord in the Americas. He preached repentance and prophesied of Christ's birth across the ocean. In Helaman chapter 16, verses 1-8, it reads:

1 And now, it came to pass that there were many who heard the words of Samuel, the Lamanite, which he spake upon the walls of the city. And as many as believed on his word went forth and sought for Nephi [another prophet]; and when they had come forth and found him they confessed unto him their sins and denied not, desiring that they might be baptized unto the Lord.

2 But as many as there were who did not believe in the words of Samuel were angry with him; and they cast stones at him upon the wall, and also many shot arrows at him as he stood upon the wall; but the Spirit of the Lord was with him, insomuch that they could not hit him with their stones neither with their arrows.

3 Now when they saw that they could not hit him, there were many more who did believe on his words, insomuch that they went away unto Nephi to be baptized.

4 For behold, Nephi was baptizing, and prophesying, and preaching, crying repentance unto the people showing signs and wonders, working miracles among the people, that they might know that the Christ must shortly come -

5 Telling them of things which must shortly come, that they might know and remember at the time of their coming that they had been made known unto them beforehand to the intent that they might believe; therefore as many as believed on the words of Samuel went forth unto him to be baptized, for they came repenting and confessing their sins.

6 But the more part of them did not believe in the words of Samuel; therefore when they saw that they could not hit him with their stones and their arrows, they cried unto their captains, saying: Take this fellow and bind him, for behold he hath a devil; and because of the power of the devil which is in him we cannot hit him with our stones and our arrows; therefore take him and bind him, and away with him.

7 And as they went forth to lay their hands on him, behold, he did cast himself down from the wall, and did flee out of their lands, yea, even unto his own country, and began to preach and to prophesy among his own people.

8 And behold, he was never heard of more among the Nephites; and thus were the affairs of the people.

In My Dreams

At this moment in my life, I eat, sleep, drink, think, feel, and dream Prop 8. Every day starts out with Prop 8 and the sun goes down in the evening shining on Prop 8 signs. It is my life. Everything else has been put on hold until after November 4th. I think about activities I'd like to do, books I'd like to read, movies I'd like to watch, places I'd like to go and then gently remind myself that they'll have to be done/read/watched/visited after the elections. I know I sound like a crazy activist/extremist, but really I'm just very doggedly passionate about defending traditional marriage and safeguarding my children's future education, religious liberties, and freedom of speech. Check out my latest post here, to understand why I so adamantly oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in California. It's pretty awful.

Prop 8 aside, we did manage to make it to Buddha's favorite pumpkin patch that he's been talking about since we went last year. We were barely able to squeeze in our trip at the close of our Saturday, crossing our fingers that, because of all the fun distractions available, the boys would not notice the hour. It worked. They had a great time. It was leaving that was the problem. Trying to take a tired toddler away from something he wants badly is like trying to pry an Octopus off its prey. Needless to say, we got an earful...all the way home. Oh well, at least I got some cute pictures before the waterworks started. Enjoy!

Buddha and Prop 8

Buddha never naps. Never. But, thanks to Prop 8 sign waving, he fell asleep on the rocking chair yesterday afternoon while I was typing e-mails to my fellow Prop 8 volunteers. I was so surprised that I just had to get some pictures. I guess waking the boys up at 6:30am every morning has its perks. However, I also know I'm going to pay for this after the elections are over and they are still waking up at 6:30 in the mornings. Oh well, it's worth it.

Bravo!

This is from a friend of a friend. I hope she doesn't mind that I've copied and pasted it onto my blog. I've added her blog link to my Prop 8 link list so you can check out her newest posts. This is a fantastic essay! I wish I could write and express myself like this.

WHY I'M VOTING "YES" ON PROP 8, OR A NOTE BY A NEONATE LAWYER

by Carolyn Deverich

I have gay friends. I have straight friends. I love them both and respect their views. And I believe—sincerely—that we live in a country where all views are sacred and deserve to be respected and protected under the law.

That is why I support Proposition 8.

First, let me premise this post by stating that I’m not a raging, elephant-riding Republican or an unschooled, bible-bashing automaton (if you are either of these, I apologize if I offend). I've been around the proverbial block on the issue of free exercise. During my undergraduate studies, I chaired a regional committee on Constitutional autonomy in education. In 2003 and 2006 I wrote and published articles on the clash of First Amendment liberties and secular doctrine.[1] I worked under the leading counsel on First Amendment rights at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. I'm not saying my views are more legitimate than anyone else's, I just want to clarify that I’m not spouting blindly on the subject.[2]

Now let’s all get one thing straight: religion will be affected by a redefinition of marriage. Both liberal and conservative scholars admit that the outcome of Proposition 8—whether passed or rejected—will dramatically shape the First Amendment landscape.[3] The basic premise of the debate pits First Amendment rights of free exercise against Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal protection. And legal scholars betting on the outcome predict universally that free exercise will lose the fight.[4]

I am not arguing that if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, churches will be silenced at the pulpit or forced to change their religious creed. But when free exercise and equal protection collide—and they will—free exercise will get the short end of the stick. Marc Stern, a contributing editor of “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts,” explains: “[N]o one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage w[ill], however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.”[5]

Take education, for instance.[6] In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court—not a vote of the people—redefined marriage just as occurred in California. In 2007, a Massachusetts elementary school began teaching kindergarten and first grade children about same-sex marriage using a book which told the story of a prince who “lived happily ever after” with another prince. (*I’m not commenting on the quality of the story here, just the legal outcome*). Some parents requested that their children be allowed to opt-out of such instruction until the seventh grade. They did not challenge the use of the book as part of the school’s curriculum. When the school district refused to let the children opt-out, the parents sued in federal court.

They lost. In a 47-page opinion, the First Circuit held that the parents’ right to choose traditional marriage education for their child was not protected by the First Amendment because same sex marriage was permitted by Massachusetts law.[7] Free exercise could not justify legal exemption where due process and equal protection rights were in play.[8]

A similar outcome is not only possible in California, but likely. California’s Supreme Court has already mandated same sex marriage under the law, and unless voters amend this law in November, the court decision stands. California schools would be authorized to teach the same sex tenets of California policy.[9] And it is not difficult to imagine a same sex curriculum under the Education Code which requires schools to teach children about marriage from kindergarten forward.[10]

When First Amendment rights are pitted against Fourteenth Amendment due process, somebody will get hurt. This is not a Chicken Little prophesy. It is a legally-recognized fact.[11] (For a brief note on the sham security blanket of the “In re Marriage opinion, see footnote 12).[12]

A collision of First Amendment and equal protection rights is not the only consequence of redefining marriage. If the California court’s “In re Marriage” decision stands, the American system will have failed. Our three-branch institution is governed by the “separation of powers” principle. Each governmental branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—has a distinct and constitutionally-limited role which “checks and balances” the others. The legislators make the laws. The executive enforces the laws. The judiciary makes sure the laws square with the Constitution. For the system to survive, the branches must play by these rules.

The “In re Marriage” decision was a check-and-balance mess. The California court stepped into distinctly legislative territory when it redefined marriage as between “any two people” in direct contravention of California voters. This definition was not an interpretation of existing law, it was the invention of a statutory right. Whether you’re liberal or conservative, gay or straight, the system isn’t working right.

Some same sex marriage supporters compare the current conflict to the civil rights movement. A poorer comparison does not exist. (I lie. Comparing Prop 8 to the Potato Famine of 1845 would be pretty bad.) This is not a civil rights issue. Wait. Let me say that again. *This is not a civil rights issue.* Civil rights are implicated when a “fundamental right” protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is restricted. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage.[13]

An important distinction must be made here. Common usage of the term “rights” conflates two distinct legal meanings: those rights that are specially provided for under the Constitution (e.g., free speech), and those rights that exist simply because no law has been passed restricting them (e.g., the right to use a cell phone while driving). The latter type of right is not protected under the law and is subject to potential regulation. The former type is protected and cannot be withheld; however it must be constitutionally-derived.[14] To expand “fundamental rights” outside this boundary would unravel the fabric of American law.[15] Now to get technical. The Supreme Court has recognized a right to the marriage institution as defined by law.[16] And, as acknowledged by every court adjudicating the issue, both gay and straight citizens have equal access to this right.[17] Straight or gay, a citizen is allowed to “marry” as defined by law—i.e. to couple with a person of the opposite gender.[18] What same-sex marriage supporters are arguing for is the “fundamental right” to couple with any person. This is not a recognized “fundamental right.” In fact, the California Supreme Court’s entire premise for the “fundamental right” of same sex marriage rests on a misinterpretation of the “right to privacy,” a uniquely Californian entitlement concocted by a legislative staffer in the 1970s.[19] It is on this “privacy right” that California’s court-fabricated “right” to same-sex marriage derives.[20] (For a brief word on equal protection, see footnote 21 below.)[21]

Many of you reading this are Mormon, and I make a final note to you here. There are some of you who are up in arms—nay, outraged—that the church would dare enter the secular arena and preach politics from the pulpit. It offends your very soul that General Authorities are discussing the weighty affairs of government. To you, this entire situation just feels plain wrong. Your feelings are not misplaced. This situation is so wrong, it violates the founding principles of our nation. But the error is not on the church’s part, it is on the state’s. By authorizing the reconstruction of a markedly religious rite, the judiciary has violated Establishment Clause principles which prohibit government interference with religious faith. In effect, the state has shoved the church into the middle of the civic street, and we are trying to drag ourselves back onto the sidewalk again.

I support the right to believe. I support equal rights. And I endorse apportionment of the rights and liberties provided by our Constitution to every citizen—gay, straight, religious, or agnostic.[22] That is why I support Proposition 8.[23] It's not because I don't love my gay friends. It's not because I think people who believe differently than I do are bad. It's just that as a rights-respecting American citizen, I am not willing to override basic principles of Constitutional liberty.

...And now I'm stepping off my soap box. Respond at will.


[ENDNOTES]

[1] If you’re really that curious (please don’t be): Carolyn A. Deverich, "Establishment Clause Jurisprudence and the Free Exercise Dilemma: A Structural Unitary-Accommodationist Argument for the Constitutionality of God in the Public Square," 2006 BYU L. Rev. 211 (2006); Carolyn A. Deverich "Saving Grace: Deterrents to the Secularization of American Law," 17 PreLaw Review 71 (2003).

[2] I also don't mean to sound like an arrogant, elitist snob. For the record, I still can't tie my shoelaces without singing the bunny song.

[3] Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the leading First Amendment law firm in the country noted that “[t]he impact of [the same sex marriage debate] will be severe and pervasive. This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations. …[T]he church is surrounded on all sides by the state [and] church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.” quoted in Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, Vol. 11, Issue 33 (May 15, 2006), available at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp; Mark Hemingway, “Gay Abandon,” National Review, July 14, 2008, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_/ai_n27925966.

[4] As law professor and gay marriage scholar Robin Wilson puts it, “If the courts treat [same sex marriage] as a ban on racial discrimination, then there’s not much likelihood that any religious claims will survive.” Nationally-recognized gay civil rights advocate and Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum agrees, noting that the clash between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty is real, and when the two conflict, “[one] ha[s] a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Both Felblum and Wilson are contributing editors of the recently published book, “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2008).

[5] “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2008).

[6] I use education as a counterargument to Morris A. Thurston’s contention that Prop 8 supporters are lying when they cite school curriculum as a target for the same sex marriage fallout. (Thurston’s article is available at http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/secondversionresponsestosixconsequencesifprop8fails1.pdf). Thurston uses education as his first example and so I use it as mine.

[7] Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008), available at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/07-1528-01A.pdf.

[8] For my legally-minded friends who prefer an in-depth breakdown: The Parker court analyzed the parents’ First Amendment claims under U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Wisconsin v. Yoder, which views due process and free exercise rights “interdependently.” 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Under the Yoder approach, the First Circuit looked to whether the school’s curriculum imposed a “constitutional burden on the[] [parents’] rights, or on those of their children.” Finding no parallel between the Yoder plaintiffs’ “unique and demanding religious way of life that is fundamentally incompatible with any schooling system” and the Parker parents’ religious objection to mainstream law, the court held that the parents had “no constitutional right to ‘direct how [the] public school teaches their child.’” In short, there was “no federal case under the Due Process Clause which has permitted parents to demand an exemption for their children from exposure to certain books used in public schools.”

[9] Thurston’s uninspired argument suggests that it won’t be MANDATORY to teach same sex education in the schools. Well sure, Thurston. I agree. But once a school DOES start teaching same sex marriage, parents can’t do much about it.

[10] Cal. Educ. C., § 51890(a)(1), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=75854627166+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve.

[11] I have a comment to those of you whipping out your copy of Morris A. Thurston’s “Mormon Myth” commentary (available at http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/secondversionresponsestosixconsequencesifprop8fails1.pdf): Aside from Thurston’s education argument which I already addressed, the entire premise of his “no-effect-from-gay-marriage” argument is that there are no on-point cases deriving an anti-traditional marriage stance from the adoption of same sex marriage. Seeing that only four states have legitimately addressed the same sex marriage issue—and only in the past five years—this is not particularly surprising . Legal scholars recognize that the redefinition of marriage “[is]not like a bone sticking out of a limb or blood spurting out of a wound. …It will be at least a full generation before all the consequences [of redefining marriage] are known. Like smoking, it will take years and decades to see the result.” Carrie A. Moore, “Gay Marriage Criticized,” Deseret News, August 23, 2008 (quoting Professor Lynn Wardle). Thurston’s “but it hasn’t happened!” argument is the equivalent of me saying I shouldn’t bother wearing a seatbelt because I haven’t gotten into an accident yet. Have you SEEN me on the freeway?

[12] Some same sex marriage supporters point to the language of the “In re Marriage” court as proof that traditional marriage citizens will not be impacted by a redefinition of marriage. Specifically, they quote the tail end of the argument which states, “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” “In re Marriage Cases,” 43 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2008). While I like that the court gives a shout-out to the traditional camp, this statement is mere “dicta”—the equivalent of a legal belch. It is not part of the court's actual holding, has nothing to do with the adjudicated issue, and is not enforceable in a court of law. It's just judges passing gas. So as for the argument that religion won’t be affected…it’s just a lot of wind.

[13]Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, (October 10, 2008) (slip op.) (Zarella, J., dissenting), available at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152G.pdf.

[14] Of course, this raises the option of amending the Constitution to provide for a certain right. This is what a majority of the amendments to the Constitution do.

[15] Courts are clear that a restriction of “fundamental rights” is necessary to preserve our legal system. In short order, the courts have denied a “fundamental right” to smoke in public (Fagan v. Axelrod, 550 N.Y.S. 2d 552, 560 (1990)), to groom one’s hair (City of North Miami v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1995), to adopt (Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)), or to receive public health care. The list continues, my space does not.

[16] See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); see also Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

[17] See e.g., Andersen v. King County, 158 Wash. 2d 1, 65 (2006) (law limiting marriage to marriage between one man and one woman ‘‘does not distinguish between persons of heterosexual orientation and homosexual orientation’’); Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting) (‘‘[t]he classification is not drawn between men and women or between heterosexuals and homosexuals, any of whom can obtain a license to marry a member of the opposite sex; rather, it is drawn between samesex couples and opposite-sex couples’’); cf. Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 359 (2006).

[18] Comparisons to the 1948 Perez v. Sharp case which compelled interracial marriage are not analogous for this reason. There, black citizens were not protected equally under the law because, unlike white men, they were not allowed to marry white women. Here, gay and straight citizens are treated identically under the law.

[19] That right, a two-word amendment to the California constitution, was designed to impose privacy restrictions on the disclosure of public records. See Bob Egelko, “‘... And Privacy’: How a Two-Word Amendment to the State Constitution in 1972 Led to the Legal Basis for Same-Sex Marriage in California,” California Lawyer (August 2008), available at http://californialawyermagazine.com/story.cfm?eid=895415&evid=1.

[20] In validation, Justice Ronald M. George explained that “the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section I.” “In re Marriage Cases,” 43 Cal. 4th 757, 818 (2008).

[21] A note on equal protection and discrimination (for Nate, particularly). Some posit the theory that side-by-side marriage and civil union laws violate the equal protection clause because they “single out” the gay class. However, “the constitution does not, of course, prevent the legislature from dealing differently with different classes of people. It means only that classifications must be based on natural and substantial differences, germane to the subject and purpose of the legislation, between those within the class included and those whom it leaves untouched.” Eielson v. Parker, 179 Conn. 552, 566, 427 A.2d 814 (1980) (see Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal. 3d 855, 861 (1973) (equal protection provisions permit legislation that singles out a class for distinctive treatment “if such classification bears a rational relation to the purposes of the legislation.”). A marriage statute purposed on the legal union of a man and a woman passes muster here. (See Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, (October 10, 2008) (slip op.) (Zarella, J., dissenting), available at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152G.pdf). On a non-legal plane, discrimination exists on both sides of the argument. Ironically, the same-sex marriage camp advocates a position that would result in the discrimination of those who oppose them. As Maggie Gallagher describes, under the proposed same-sex marriage arrangement “[p]eople who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don’t arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities.” Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, Volume 11, Issue 33 (May 15, 2006).

[22] I am MORE than supportive of ensuring that same sex couples receive identical status as heterosexual couples under the law. But reclassifying "marriage" wholesale --an act that will legally do NOTHING to the current rights of gay couples under California law—is not reflective of the rights authorized by our laws. Rights that are authorized are available to all citizens. See the California Code which provides that “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provision or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Cal. Fam. C. § 297.5.

[23] On the most fundamental level, these beliefs derive from my religious conviction in the words of our prophet, Thomas S. Monson. But that is fodder for another day.

Hmmm...

I got this message, from a friend, in my e-mail inbox tonight....

"What a crazy day! Someone stole the Prop 8 signs in __________ last night!!! You know, I think it may have backfired on those opposing Prop 8. People were more insistent on getting a sign back, and even some who didn’t want a sign before, wanted one after learning what happened! Now, those who may have been casually for Prop 8 are REALLY for it."

This is obviously not your average campaign/movement/issue

Get Involved. Be Heard.

So, today I realized that while I've talked a lot about how I feel about Prop. 8, I've done little to encourage others to join their voices with mine in support of this amendment. I've received a few messages now via e-mail and phone about people outside the state of California getting involved in this issue. My aunt in Idaho is joining others, armed with calling cards and loads of information, to make phone calls to California residences and urge support of Proposition 8. I've heard the same from people in Colorado. I think citizens throughout the U.S. are recognizing that the outcomes of the three propositions regarding same-sex marriage in California, Arizona, and Florida, will have national repercussions. Sad things are already happening in Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been legalized: religious liberties are being challenged and overrun and parental rights have been disregarded, denied, and steam-rolled in a most outrageous manner.

I remember well all the buzz about California Proposition 22 back in 2000, when this very same issue (with the very same 14 words as on Prop 8) was being avidly promoted as well as vehemently opposed. I also remember thinking at the time, "Boy, I'm glad I don't have to fight to protect marriage here in Utah. I hope those Californians really get out there and take the time, make the sacrifice, offer their services and money in order to pass Proposition 22 and preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman." I didn't realize that my voice, even while in Utah, could make a difference. And so can yours...wherever you are. The truth is, we tech savvy young'uns are the future of tomorrow and we have been blessed with an incredible tool for spreading the word and uniting together in a common cause. If you have a blog, add a widget that says you support Prop. 8 - and Prop 102 (AZ) and Marriage Amendment 2 (FL) - and include some informative links in your sidebar, and post your thoughts and feelings about this issue. If you "Facebook," join the Prop 8, and 102, and 2 support groups and invite your friends to do the same (I haven't figured out how to invite people yet, so if you know, please share). If you Twitter, write down your thoughts about these protect-marriage propositions. As we were admonished by leaders of the LDS Church a couple of nights ago, just do whatever you can. Find your strength and use it to help protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Whether you squeak or roar, let yourself be heard. If you have $10 you can spare, send it over to the people at protectmarriage.com and know that you made a t-shirt or a sign or a pin/sticker in defense of marriage. If you spend a lot of time at home, ask about making phone calls to California, Arizona, and Florida residents to impart information and encourage a "yes" vote. Put a sticker on your car, stroller, window, golf bag, backpack, etc. Cast aside your usual accessories and instead sport a "Protect Marriage" or "Yes on Prop 8" button with your cute outfits until November 4th. There are so, so many ways to contribute to this. It's not just about walking door to door distributing information and fliers. It's about saying, "This is what I believe, this is where I stand, and this is what I support." I know who and what has lit the fire under me, and I've got plenty to go around, so think of me as your personal fire and get hopping! I'll see you on the other side of November 4th and pray that the outcome of all our combined effort is a positive one.