Join All the Candidates in Supporting Traditional Marriage!!
This is something the reporters have conveniently left out of their evaluations of the VP debate. Granted, they changed the order of Palin's remarks in this youtube, but it actually makes more sense this way. I hope that we can all admit how Americans truly value traditional marriage.
This entry is for NON-Californians!! That's right YOU, out there in Provo, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Longmont, Philadelphia, Ft Collins, Seattle, DC, Queens, and good 'ol Austin Minnesota--even you. We are desperate for your support on Prop 8 here in CA. If you missed my blog entry called Prop 8, A Different Kind of Missionary Work, please read it.
Here's the quick background: The proposition is to put in the CA consitution these words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." 61% of CA already voted yes to this in 2000, but some San Fran judges decided to overturn the righteous voice of the people. If we vote yes, then we are saying again that we agree with this statement. Jeremy and I are voting loud and clear with Obama's, McCain's, and most American's view on traditional marriage: YES on 8!! Unfortunately, the polls are saying that it's 50/50.
So, if you aren't a CA voter, don't think you are off the hook on this issue!!! You can vote on this issue on our blog poll just to the right of this post. Also,
Our precinct (92646) is asking for all family and friends from outside of CA to help donate to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Please consider the following reasons why you should go to ProtectMarriage.com and donate to the campaign:
This entry is for NON-Californians!! That's right YOU, out there in Provo, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Longmont, Philadelphia, Ft Collins, Seattle, DC, Queens, and good 'ol Austin Minnesota--even you. We are desperate for your support on Prop 8 here in CA. If you missed my blog entry called Prop 8, A Different Kind of Missionary Work, please read it.
Here's the quick background: The proposition is to put in the CA consitution these words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." 61% of CA already voted yes to this in 2000, but some San Fran judges decided to overturn the righteous voice of the people. If we vote yes, then we are saying again that we agree with this statement. Jeremy and I are voting loud and clear with Obama's, McCain's, and most American's view on traditional marriage: YES on 8!! Unfortunately, the polls are saying that it's 50/50.
So, if you aren't a CA voter, don't think you are off the hook on this issue!!! You can vote on this issue on our blog poll just to the right of this post. Also,
Our precinct (92646) is asking for all family and friends from outside of CA to help donate to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Please consider the following reasons why you should go to ProtectMarriage.com and donate to the campaign:
- You'll feel great knowing you are an active citizen and standing up for what's right.
- The prophet has asked all church members in CA to "support the proposition in every way possible," (Church broadcast Weds evening), which our local priesthood leaders said means donate $ to the cause. So since you're my friend or relative and most likely LDS, that practically makes you a CA citizen.
- Same sex domestic unions in CA already receive all the benefits that married people have. That goes for life insurance, hospital visitations, EVERYTHING.
- If people don't vote yes on this proposition, then your state may follow CA's lead in legalizing gay marriage. And if it isn't the state you live in now, it might be one you move to later.
- Even Obama and Biden support traditional marriage. So if you think you're better than them, you better get moving with supporting it.
- Massachusetts has already allowed gay marriage. As a result, all adoption agencies that don't allow placing children in gay marriage families are deemed unconstitutional. This means that LDS Services' right to perform adoptions in Mass is threatened. Catholic Charities has already had to withdraw their adoption agency from the state. This cannot happen in CA or any other state. Especially since Jeremy and I want to adopt (and may even have to) someday. Article Source
- Most states, including CA and Mass, teach according to their constitution. Mass already teaches in pre-school that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. This will be true for CA and your state if prop 8 does't pass. VIDEO Source Article Source
- Help defend my rights and your rights to freedom of religion. I want to attend a church that believes in traditional marriage without it being charged unconstitutional. Churches and organizations in CA and other states have already been to court because they were pressured to marry and/or medicate same-sex couples despite their religious beliefs on gay marriage.
- When you watch thisYes on 8 commercial or this Yes on 8 commercial, you can tell your family that you helped pay for it.
- Elder Ballard said to Jeremy's Dad and all of the other Bishops in Sacramento this truth three weeks ago: “The issue of whether this is winnable or not doesn’t matter. We stand with the Lord Jesus Christ, and if we do what he wants us to do, he will smile upon on our efforts. The only acceptable marriage union in His plan is between a man and a woman.
So, whatever happens at the end, whether Proposition 8 passes or fails – We stand for the Lord."
Comments
Where did this happen? Do you have a source backing this up? I've read a lot on this issue and this is the first I've heard of this.
I imagine the "doctors" you refer to are the Southern California practice where the doctor refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. The realities of that case are more complex than most bloggers make them out to be. The doctor initially said he would not perform the IVF procedure if that was required, but that another doctor in the practice would if it came to that. But when it came to that, the other doctor also refused. This forced the woman to go to a different practice and pay higher "out of network" costs for health care.
As far as the New Jersey Methodist group goes, they did indeed lose their property tax exemption on ONE building. That building is a beachfront pavilion where weddings were held, but also where civil war reenactments were held, where rock concerts and craft fairs were held. People rested from the shade there, and kids skateboarded through it. It wasn't a church. It was more of a public facility that the church happened to own.
When two lesbians wanted to have their civil union ceremony there, they were denied. Rather than allow the ceremony, the church chose to lose their property tax exemption -- which cost them an extra $200. They retain the exemption on all the rest of their buildings.
Let's see, Boy Scouts. There are two cases that I can think of where the Boy Scouts were asked to pay higher rents on public properties because they refuse to comply with anti-discrimination law. That is their right as a private organization. But if a private organization chooses to discriminate, they can't expect accommodation in terms of public taxation.
By "Orthodox Jews," I suppose you mean the Yeshiva University case regarding married student housing. This has nothing to do with marriage law (same thing with adoption agencies), but with anti-discrimination laws which are already in place. Passing or defeating Prop 8 will have no affect on cases such as these.
I appreciate your wanting to stand up for what you believe in, but remember that "because God says so" isn't an argument that holds any weight in civil life. That's simply because anyone can say what they feel God wants and there is no way to verify what God's true intentions are. Different holy books disagree with each other. Heck, even the SAME holy books often disagree with themselves! So you have to discover, logical, rational reasons why CIVIL marriage equality ought to be denied to a group of people.
No one has been able to do that yet. So why your side may have the money to get Prop 8 passed, it's unlikely it will survive a constitutional challenge.
I'm glad you brought up the issue of God making His will known to us today. You might have wondered sometime in your life why God spoke to prophets like Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, but not to people after Christ came to the earth. It seems with all the challenges we face in the world today, that we would need God's direct guidance on tough issues like marriage.
Well, Joseph Smith wondered the same thing. While offering a sincere prayer about which church to join, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Over the course of a few years, God restored modern revelation on the earth through Joseph. A pretty amazing story that some find hard to believe, but is true.
What great news!! There IS a prophet on the earth today and God DOES speak to him, just like in old times. His name is Thomas S Monson. So God HAS made it very clear in every dispensation to every prophet on earth since Adam that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. This truth is central to His plan and our existence. Without it, we would not be able to live on earth or return to our Heavenly Father.
So yeah, I will vote yes on Prop 8 because God did say so. He specifically counseled the prophet to tell us to not just pray about it and make a choice, but to vote yes.
This makes all other persuasions for voting yes on 8 simply extra facts to back up truth. I've added links to my points in the post to help show how redefining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman has its profound consequences on society.
I hope Proposition 8 passes. My husband was on a special assignment yesterday until 2:30 in the morning, to get a website up to help organize supporters and volunteers to call people and ask them to vote for it.
but do you understand the difference (considering non members limited understanding of how we communicate to the masses) that to quote the prophet as saying to donate money to the cause is not the same thing as what was actually said, which was for each person/family to donate of their time and means?? Legally the church leaders canNOT ask for monetary donations or tell people where to spend their monies. Esp since your focus here seems to be "missionary work", I think it's best you not lead opinions astray on that specific point! Just a suggestion!
Whether or not the church leaders can or can't, or should or shouldn't ask us for monetary donations is not something I'm an expert on. But I do know that they DID. So if they were wrong in so doing, then I guess that will be made clear tonight at the broadcast. Even if they were wrong to specifically ask us for money and to walk, that doesn't take away the fact that we should be doing it in order to make sure that we do all we can to make it pass, to show, as Elder Ballard said, that we are on the Lord's side.
The only reason I made Missionary Work part of my title in a previous post is to say that what we did felt a lot like being on a mission. I think I made that clear at the very beginning of the post. (knocking, waiting, introducing selves, stating our purpose in being there).
From, the smartest person you know,
Matt.
First: The First Presidency of the Church HAVE been very clear that practicing homosexuality is a sin and only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. See our link to the Family Proclamation.
Second: The prophet wrote letters to all bishops in CA that were read over the pulpit about Prop 8- that we vote yes and donate. Tonight, there is a broadcast from the First Pres to set members straight on Prop8. If a member has issues with this, I'm not the one to take it up with.
FYI- Gordon B. Hinckley received revelation to write the Family Proclamation in 1996. He obviously saw our day. Sadly, Hinckley said, "I will be known as the prophet that no one listened to." I didn't think he meant members until now.
Third: Some say that since Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God showed that sin is necessary for salvation, thus somehow making homosexuality okay. This is not true. Church Doctrine states that eating of the fruit was not a sin, it was a transgression. Sin is not necessary for salvation nor His Plan, it's merely a consequence of The Fall. Children that die before the age of accountability are innocent and return to Heavenly Father. Christ made it to heaven by being sinless, too. The Fall and the Atonement, not sin, are necessary to the Plan of Salvation.
Fourth: Some think Prop 8 conflicts with Christianity and covenants we make in the temple. These people are forgetting the covenant we make to do all we can to defend the gospel and build the Kingdom of God on earth. This involves defending marriage. Book of Mormon teaches that God inspired the founding of America so that we can vote to preserve righteousness. We read the consequences when the Nephites did not do this.
Fifth: Yes, agency is essential. Each person has the right to choose what they do and we cannot judge them. But Prop 8 is not about taking people's agency away or judging other's choices. It's about defending what marriage is.
So Sharon, we should help our friends avoid mixing gospel doctrine w/ philosophies of men. We should also bear testimony and challenge all who doubt to pray about the issue with sincere faith.
This might be a little too political for your blog, but Joe Biden -- again -- misstated Obama's stand on Prop. 8. It was a letter he sent to an SF gay group in July, and it was reported by the national media, including the Sacramento Bee. In essence, he has said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but that he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry. Of course, he's trying to appeal to all groups.
I have a friend who's an Obama supporter and a supporter of Prop. 8. He has a "Yes on 8" sign next to his "Obama/Biden" sign. I hope many others will do the same, so they can send a message to the state that it's OK to vote for a Democrat and vote yes on Prop. 8.
The scary thing about Obama's decision is that he says he would oppose any bill that would change the U.S. Constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage.
Here's the Bee story:
Obama rejects proposed California gay marriage ban
By Aurelio Rojas - arojas@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A3
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.
In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."
"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.
Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
A spokesman for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who last week endorsed Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 California ballot, accused Obama of continuing a pattern of changing his position on issues.
"It just depends on where you catch him and what time of day … whether it's public financing, town hall debates and now gay marriage," said Rick Gorka, a spokesman for the Arizona senator.
Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, declined to comment on the McCain campaign's allegations. But LaBolt noted that the Illinois senator opposed a proposed federal ban on gay marriage. Campaigning in Pennsylvania in April, Obama said he would oppose a similar constitutional ban under consideration by the Legislature there.
"Senator Obama opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments such as the one in California," LaBolt said.
McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona initiative defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, which was defeated. But he voted against a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families – which backs the California ballot measure – called Obama a hypocrite.
"He says he believes marriage is for a man and woman, yet he's promising he would undo federal marriage protection and oppose California marriage," Thomasson said.
Thomasson predicted Obama "will lose votes in California due to his pandering to San Francisco extremists."
~dw
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27117467
Post a Comment