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.

Gay Marriage vs. the First Amendment?

From National Public Radio, no less:

As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm. Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.

The linked article includes summaries of court cases where activists have sued over adoption, housing, religious schooling, in-vitro fertilization, wedding services and facilities, and access of religious groups to public facilities. It's an indication that we need to do some serious thinking about the implications of gay marriage laws.

Update: Just wanted to share some thoughts from one more article on the same subject:

This illustrates exactly why when courts redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, it is no simple matter of letting private individuals do what they wish...

Now we see what happens when this newly redefined right to have strangers regard one’s relationship as particular and intimate crashes into the reality that most of the world’s religions regard such intimacy between two women or two men as wrong in one way or another – as “fundamentally disordered,” as the Catholics put it.

What happens is that judges sweep the religious views aside.

Not that courts are outlawing the mere belief that gay sex is a sin, at least not yet. But as Marc D. Stern of the American Jewish Congress writes in Tuesday's L.A. Times, allowing mere belief or not actually forcing clergy to perform gay “marriages” is an awfully narrow view of religious liberty.

The practical effect is that religions are increasingly stopped from behaving as if they believed that homosexual relationships were wrong. Believers can believe; they just can’t let that belief govern their actions if it in any way impairs what is a new right to have one’s homosexual relationship affirmed by the implicit social approval that comes with marriage. Under this new calculus, so much as merely declining to shoot pictures for pay amounts to an unacceptable “hatred.”

California Court overstepped boundaries with redefinition of marriage

The decision by the California Supreme Court last Thursday was another example of judicial tyranny. As the Dissenting Opinion states, the question of whether marriage should be redefined should not be within the bounds of the court’s jurisdiction. This matter was already decided by the citizens of California back in 2000 when they passed Proposition 22 which codified into law that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The will of the people was therefore usurped by judicial fiat.

Most likely, the decision will be stayed pending the ballot initiative this November, which aims to amend the State Constitution by explicitly stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. If passed, this amendment will protect the will of the people regarding the definition of marriage from further attacks from the state's judicial branch.

Could The Golden State Go Red in 2008?

Christianexaminer.com reports that “Christian leaders in California were given ‘a real jolt and a wake-up call’ Oct. 12 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stunned conservatives by signing into law several bills—similar to those he vetoed last year—that expand homosexual teaching in public schools.” Pastors across California are responding by organizing a major petition drive aimed at getting a marriage protection amendment on the November 2008 ballot. If the churches in the Golden State (see article) respond like churches in Ohio did in 2004, is it possible that the state could go red?

Court Rules No Same-Sex Benefits in Michigan

-- Citizenlink.org