Go Home!

Michelle Malkin is keeping track of the anti-Proposition 8 protests this weekend.

Of course, boycotts are no big deal. Even the fact that they are protesting is not controversial per se. Human kind has been protesting, for better or worse, ever since we could say “ug!”

But this just goes way, way overboard.

I’m not going to go as far as some people and call it “terrorism,” but it’s just flat out extreme. I really, really, really hope the public at large is paying attention and that they see this collective temper-tantrum for what it is.
I’m not holding my breath, though. We are far too easily bullied and placated with empty rhetoric.

but its a religious argument!!

I was at a teacher training the other day, and I overheard some teachers talking about the Mormon church supporting Prop 8. They were howling about the Mormon's support and saying that they should have their tax exempt status revoked.
"It's separation of church and state," they said.

I didn't enter into the conversation. I stayed waaaay clear. Frankly, I was kinda tired about talking about it and hearing about it. Or maybe it was just cowardice on my part.

At any rate, afterwards I was thinking about a few questions.

What's the big deal with religious people or a religious group supporting a certain policy? Why think that's a violation of the "separation of church and state?" I want to ask these folks: "what, do you think the Mormons (or any other religious group) shouldn't have a vote, or should they not have a voice?"

And, really, what's "separation of church and state" supposed to mean anyway? Where is that in the constitution (hint: nowhere.)?

What's the First Amendment say? "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I stress the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part.

Anyway, why think that "separation of church and state" is what the Founders had in mind when they penned the First Amendment?

What religion does Proposition 8 establish? Jews, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and the members of many other religions agree with the Proposition. While many of the motivations to support it might be religious, the arguments themselves are such that people of many faiths (or no faiths) can agree with them. If the arguments don't establish a specific religion, then they don't violate the establishment clause.

Also, consider that many people *oppose* Proposition 8 due to religious motivations.

This is the case with almost *any* policy position in which people try to marginalize a certain viewpoint for being religious: the death penalty (Mother Theresa opposed it because "Jesus would forgive."), an Obama presidency (many evangelicals, like Donald Miller supported him), and many of Obama's economic policies. If my conservative viewpoint is out of bounds for being "religious," then so are the opposing points of view.

Bottom line: This screaming about "religion in politics" is a bunch of bunk. Its all just to marginalize a viewpoint they don't hold. Don't fall for it.

There's a Cost

The Mormon church, after a firestorm of protests at its gate, face a boycott.

Restaraunts and businesses face financial repercussions.

Some have lost their jobs. There is even an 'anti-gay 'blacklist'' floating around out there.

Death threats? Yep.

Some of my friends now have strained relationships due to their support of Proposition 8.

Should we now play the victim and develop a martyr complex? No. We aren't victims, and any cost we face pales in comparison to the cost demanded of true martyrs. We've chosen our path; no one forced us to vote that way, afterall.

SSM proponents, of course, have every right to boycott. That's the way this country works, and it can be a good way to let your voice be heard.

But hey folks, guess what: your convictions might actually cost you something now.

And you know what? That's allright. Seriously. Anything that wakes us up out of our comfort-induced stupor ain't all that bad.

This is something my generation is not used to. We are used to believing whatever we wish, virtually cost-free. Not so much this time around.

So what should be our reaction?

Three things.

First, should you just back down? Should you apologize? No. 'Love' does not mean that you must acquiesce to a destructive lifestyle. If you voted yes on Proposition 8, have the backbone to stand by your convictions, come hell or high water. The times demand men and women who will count the cost and refuse to be bullied.

Like I quoted a few blogs ago: 'screw your courage to the sticking place.'

I don't know what I'd do if I were in that place. I hope that, should I face such a cost, I would follow my own advice.

Second, in addition to some guts, what we will need in the coming months and years is a large number of people who not only stand for conservative, pro-life, traditional marriage, and biblical principles, but folks who can defend and articulate them well. On this issue of traditional marriage, if you are not in that place, you can start educating yourself here.

Third, Christians especially need to continue to reach out in love and care to those who identify as GLBT. My church's outreach to the Padua House in Long Beach is an excellent example.

All three are necessary if we desire to make a difference. We cannot risk being out of balance. The stakes are too high.

See also: Michelle Malkin's post.

Why I'm Voting Yes on Proposition 8

I realize that the post on Prop 8 might leave some of you wondering: so, Rich, why are you for Prop 8?

(For all you non-Californians, earlier this year the Sup. Court of CA overturned an earlier vote of the people to define marriage between a man and a woman. Prop 8 seeks to overturn the court's ruling and set the traditional definition in law.)

Briefly:

The primary reason is that modern Western culture is the first tore-define marriage. Of course, this doesn't mean we stay with the 'status quo,' but it does tell us who has to do the arguing. Since its been defined as between a man and a woman since pretty much the beginning (even the ancient Romans, though they were tolerant of the practice of homosexuality, viewed marriage as between a man and a woman), the burden of proof lies with the ones who want to change the definition. The arguments advanced for homosexual marriage aren't even close to convincing.

Here's one of the principal reasons I hear being used: marriage is about love, so you should be able to marry anyone you love. We shouldn't be denied the freedom to love who we want.

Aside from the obvious rejoinder that no one is preventing anyone from loving (sexual love included) anyone else (in other words, you can already love who you want w.o restriction), if I love my sister like that, should I be able to marry her? What about a 15 year old? If not, why not?

If two men should be able to get married, why not three? What's so scary about that number?

The bottom line with the questions is that few want to go that far, yet any reasons used to 'deny rights (this phrase is a bit of a misnomer)'to those partnerships turns out to be discriminatory according to the definition of those who use the 'love' argument.

Love is a great thing, but its neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for a definition of marriage.

Secondly, the 'no' campaign puts this in terms of rights. The 'yes' campaign is supposedly 'denying rights' to homosexuals. This argument is specious. For the details, go here.

Really, this debate is about two things: the definition of marriage,and approval. Making gay marriage legal would be tantamount to saying that the term 'marriage' is a social construction and can be changed if society says so. In addition to this opening a pandora's box of slippery slopes (polygamy, anyone?), I see no reason to agree to this view.

Even though the outer rim of marriage has changed through history(interracial marriage, etc) doesn't mean the core has changed: marriage has always been between a man and woman, and it has always been about raising children. The article I linked to above gets more into this.

Proponents of gay marriage are seeking approval of their relationships,and making gay marriage legal will essentially grant that approval. The government (and, by extension, taxpayers) would be giving a tacit nod towards those relationships. I see no reason whatsoever to think that such approval is a right. A desire, maybe. Right? No.

Saying something is a 'right' means that the person/group possessing the right has a just claim to something. Does it make sense to say that homosexuals have a just claim to society's approval of their relationships?

Even if you think homosexuality is ok, this is a bit of a stretch.

The Koukl article in the link fills in the needed philosophical details...go read it.

California Teachers Say "no" on 8?

Evidently, since I'm a teacher, this ad says I'm against Proposition 8:



Well, no one consulted me! No one consulted countless other CA teachers too.

Here is a letter to the editor that I wrote in to the LA Times and OC Register on the "no on Proposition 8" campaign:

As a high school teacher, I don't appreciate that the "No on 8" campaign uses my name to advance their cause. In radio and television ads, they state, "teachers say 'no' on proposition 8." Who determined that this supposedly monolithic group is against proposition 8? A great many teachers are for it. CTA and the "no" campaign didn't consult me before lending my name to their cause!

I am also incensed that CTA is using my money to support highly controversial political campaigns. Rather than focusing on the many school funding issues on the ballot, they have contributed over 1 million dollars to the "no on 8" campaign. Can't my hard earned money be used more wisely?

In addition to all this, CTA and "no on 8" are not being wholly honest. Certain groups claim that teaching about gay marriage won't be mandated in CA public schools. When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, these same groups fought to make it mandated there. For instance, in an amicus curiae brief in Parker v. Hurley, The Anti-Defamation League stated: "Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." And later: "In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.”

Both I and many other public school teachers don't appreciate our money and name being used in this way. We will vote yes on Proposition 8.

**I'll tackle this ad in greater depth in the next few days.