My friends friends video - POLITICALLY CHARGED!

Thanks Jay, I loved how simple Prop 8 was explained, I am sending it to all CA friends, and hopefully they will forward it on and on.

Well done and in plain English.

Really good video. I think whether this prop goes through or not will have a big effect on us moving to CA in the future or not =) I have a BIG problem with that being taught in schools.

If we are going to talk a little politics on here, one thing I was curious is how many people in Oregon will be reading their Voter's pamphlets and deciding how to vote on their Measures?  This will be the FIRST time ever that I've voted in the Presidential election and have any clue on what the state measures are.

 

I am currently going through all 12 Oregon state measures and deciding how I will vote and I guess for all of you that don't bother reading your pamphlets and trust my judgement I will list the measures for you and what to vote on if you want.  I am guessing this would at least apply to my wife (who doesn't read) and Geoff, Scott maybe? Anyone else?

 

I know a lot of people I talk to never read or care about the measures so I figured I'd offer my suggestions.

Good job seany

Paperboy does this mean you no longer stand by your position of 'don't really care' that you stated in Mapleton?

That was a well done video.

Our Yes on Prop 8 sign was stolen this weekend.  I didn't think it was very tolerate.  :( 

We had to ask for replacements. 

hahaha Chris. yeah, i'm a bit worried about retaliation b/c of my sign. Sean, I still stand by the fact of what I said, that gay marriage is very LOW on my totem poll of issues I'm really concerned with when it comes to the presidential candidates. However, at this point, they've both said they are against gay marriage.

Ok, here's a funny website to follow up the original video:

 

http://palinaspresident.com/

 

Ya, that's pretty funny. 

Sean, I read the pamphlet every election, but I guess that surprises nobody :-) But here's a hint, if it's sponsored by Bill Sizemore you don't need to read anything for that measure, just vote No.

I also obviously read the pamphlet for every election, but I was going to suggest, Sean, that you post your answers, I'll compare them to mine, and if there's any we AGREE on, I'll let you know as that must mean you've misread something... Aimee brings up a good point, though, maybe even you won't vote for the Sizemore bills. Wow, do we agree on something?

Well, looks like we may differ :).  I have only read to measure 56 and Bill Sizemore opposes it and so do I.  This has been on the ballot several times and been voted down each time.  The Double Majority Law was designed to keep tax increases from being slipped by tax payers without anyone noticing.  People don't want to have to be sure and show up every single time a tax increase measure is on the ballot.  Passing this measure means we all must diligently show up to vote down tax increases or risk having them passed by only 10% voters.  I'm surprised anyone would vote yes on this to make tax increases very easy.

 

That's as far as I've read so far unfortunately.

Well, we don't necessarily differ yet. It's the measures that Bill actually sponsors/puts on the ballot (ie wants people to pass) that are generally no-brainer no votes. A measure that he opposes isn't necessarily one I'd vote yes on - slightly different animal.

I'm somewhat undecided on the double majority idea - haven't read it in detail yet. But really people should be showing up for elections every time, whether or not there's a tax measure increase on the ballot. It's not like elections are every week or anything - it's not that hard to read the ballot and vote. So I don't really feel bad for people crying that they didn't know what was on the ballot and someone tried to sneak something past them. I suppose I do some value in requiring some percentage vote to pass something, at least you know it has real support, but then again you're basically rewarding people for being lazy and not bothering to vote by giving them the power to kill a measure

Whew! We still differ, Sean!! I will be voting "yes" on Measure 56. If people are too lazy to vote, they should NOT get a say. The current double majority system in Oregon means that people who don't vote are automatically counted as a "no" vote. Voting is totally easy in Oregon. Vote by mail means you don't have to "show up" anywhere on any specific day. Your completed ballot can be dropped off free of charge in a number of places if you don't want to spring for the stamp. There's no excuse. If you want to have input, participate. Vote. It's that simple.

This is very interesting--I am now linked into the Oregon measures.  I am waiting for Sean's comeback.  For FHE the other night with our singles Brad went over every Proposition--both sides and explained the pros and cons.  He did an excellent job and was very helpful to everyone.  Also an attorney in our Stake sent out this email explaining how and why he would vote on the propositions.  He talked about every judge and all those college district candidates and the city councilmen, etc.  Really helpful.  Tonight the member of the Stake Pres told us that there are 9 countries where gay marriages are legal.  The per cent of gays that marry is only 2% and the illegitimate rate has risen to 46% as the institution of marriage was no longer important.  France--one of the most liberal countries--does not have gay marriage.  I have my sign on my lawn and this was an excellent video.  Maybe they could just call it "gay togethers" or something else besides marriage and let us keep the term marriage to mean what it originally meant. 

I am actually finding this interesting, I don't know whether we can keep up a civil "debate" without hurting anyone's feelings, but it is nice to hear additional perspectives on these measures.

I've now been motivated to read the measure 56 section early and I think I'll be voting yes with Charlotte. I do understand the argument that a change will motivate some taxing agencies to try over and over again to put something on the ballot until it passes. But even more I think it's unfair to basically count a no show as a no vote. One argument against that annoyed me: "How democratic is it to allow huge, multi-million dollar property tax increase to be passed by only 10 percent of the voters; saddling every homeowner with huge tax increase that 90 percent of the voters did not support?" If the special secret ballot were only mailed to 10% of voters, then yes, I agree that's not democratic. But that's not the case - 100% of the voters have the chance to vote, so if they don't it's their own fault.

Wow, though it doesn't surprise me I can't believe what I am hearing.  Living in Oregon I feel shackled in taxes.  I can't believe how much I am paying in property and income taxes not including all the miscellaneous gas taxes etc. etc.  If you want to vote Yes on 56 just to make a point that everyone should vote at the risk of having additional taxes then be my guest but I don't see the sanity behind it.  I guess if you want to look at not voting as lazy then so be it, however I look at it as not wanting to have to keep picking up these 155 page voters pamphlets and read all the size 8 font to make sure some politician isn't trying to take more money from my wallet.  I barely have time to finish a regular book, the one I am on currently I've been reading for a good 6 months.  A lot of people don't concern themselves daily with politics and would rather just be left alone and leave things the way they are.  Should people with other things on their mind be penalized?  That's how I look at it.  I don't want me or anybody else to feel forced to be involved with every little nutty tax increase someone wants to throw on the ballet.  That's why the Double Majority was put in place.  Why would ANYONE in their right mind want to make increasing taxes easier regardless of lazy voters or not.  Are we not paying enough?

 

Anyhow, when I get a chance to finish reading the rest of the 155 pages of fine print of the voters pamphlet between rebuilding a Ferrari, scooter and waverunner , 4 kids, scouts, church, yardwork, family activities, and working 70+ hours a week I will continue commenting on the other measures.

Let's be very clear here -- the measure is applied to elections exactly twice a year in May and November. If you can't be bothered to be informed and vote twice a year, I have no sympathy. If you have to say goodbye to the waverunner to be an informed citizen, so be it.

Reading all this I have a question--what would be the advantage of voting yes to 56?  Because in the future if you wanted a measure to pass it would work to your disadvantage to have the no-shows count as a no?  I agree voting might be easy but it is known that people are lax and it sounds like you are taking a real risk betting on the fact that the people will get out and vote--and what if they don't?  Are you stuck with more taxes?

Oh, I'm crystal  :)  If it was Leah's car and I was saving you $2000 by fixing it for you I think you might feel differently about that.  Tonight actually wasn't the waverunner but Scouts, the Presidential debate and a few short moments laughing at Travis figuring out how to open the child proof gate.  However, I think I rest my case on my Measure 56.  Hopefully I will have time to read more soon.

I can't wait until the elections are over!!!  I never vote on issues unless I know and understand what they are but it's hard to decide cause I think they all have hidden meanings on both sides.  So even if I do read it I don't always believe what I am reading.   I really need to find a love for reading so I understand more but I get so distracted and it's so boring for me.  Maybe one day I'll become a reader!!

Mom, I just saw your comment.  Measure 56 only effects local property tax measures to fund schools, police and local services.  So that being the case that is why I say no.  Schools in the US already get more money per capita than any other country and I say start being more efficient with it.   And if you've been to Oregon and see the loads of police around here I don't think they are hurting any either.  All new shiny cars with laser radar and laptops and all sorts of high tech equipment.  Plus a huge fleet of brand new undercover vehicles like Toyota 4 runners, Suburbans, Chargers etc. etc.  Loads of new BMW motorcycles as well.  Much nicer than the stuff the CHP is driving around.  I have been to several fire stations as well and all I see are huge multi million dollar shiny new trucks in very nice fire stations.  They are all paid very well to sit around and play XBox until the next emergency call.  The funny thing is they are all funded by the amount of calls they respond to so they respond to ALL of them whether or not it's necessary to have a hook and ladder truck at an emergency call for someone with indigestion.  The proponents of this measure are THOSE people, schools, firefighters and police. 

Oh, and after much thought and deliberation I can tell you I am voting Yes on 54 and 55.  :)

No, Valorie, you're not automatically stuck with more taxes. It will be determined by the people who vote, though, not the people who don't vote. If the measure passes, then in the future if more than 50% of the people vote "no" then the measure is defeated. Measure 56 would restore fairness to the Oregon election process, in that the future local tax measures that appear on the ballot in May and November will be decided by the people who vote, not the people who don't vote. Under the current "double majority" law, in order for a school bond or a library levy to pass, for example, not only do the majority of people who vote need to vote yes, but also a majority of voters (over 50%) need to actually vote in the election. I am totally tired of people who DON'T vote overruling my vote. If you want something to happen, or if you want to prevent something from happening, you need to vote. I think that's sort of a basic tenet our country was founded on.

http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42008/guide/meas/m56_bt.html

 

I don't think that people that don't vote should be a no vote.   Their vote shouldn't count if they don't vote.  So just because they are registered and choose not to vote their vote will count as a no?   When I don't vote I always think it's better cause I know nothing about it... I didn't know that by not voting I was actually voting no.  But at least 50% of the registered voters have to vote in order for the vote to pass.  So 50% of the voters vote and 26% of them vote yes then it will pass?  So that means that it could only take 26% of the voters in our state need to vote yes to get something passed?

Yeah this is a confusing one.  I thought I would counsel with another to see what he thought.

Valorie Gaston: just curious how you would vote on this one
Valorie Gaston: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42008/guide/meas/m56_bt.html
Jay: ideologically yes
Jay: practically no
Valorie Gaston: it is so confusing
Valorie Gaston: why
Valorie Gaston: would you vote no
Valorie Gaston: it says it has no direct effect
Jay: because i dont want higher taxes
Valorie Gaston: but it might mean lower
Jay: if you vote yes its easier to pass new measures to raise taxes
Valorie Gaston: if they make the majority win
Valorie Gaston: it seems like it is up to the people
Valorie Gaston: more if yo uvote yes
Jay: it is up to the people...but as it stands now, people that dont vote are a no
Valorie Gaston: yeah
Jay: so getting new things passed is a lot harder
Jay: which means raising taxes is a lot harder
Jay: but its not a good idea to assume peoples votes that dont vote
Jay: so ideologically its a good idea to vote yes on this
Jay: so that people that dont vote dont matter
Valorie Gaston: yeah but you are saying it will practically raise taxes
Jay: not directly...
Jay: but it will indirectly down the road

Paperboy, I agree 100%.  Yes we should all vote of course, but do we?  No.  And really should you vote just to vote or should only people who've read and understand the measures vote?  People who don't read the measures I think tend to just go down their ballot and check No on everything.  Yes, idealogically we'd like to have EVERYONE's vote on a measure. 

There was a special on 20/20 about things like MTV's rock the vote promoting voting.  When randomly asking the young people questions about their country some couldn't tell you there were 50 states etc.  Do we REALLY want these people voting?

Well since mom pasted in my thoughts on that, I'll just state that although I know there are many times where taxes are needed to build new libraries and do good things for a community, 99.999% of the time I vote no on new measures b/c I'd rather keep the money for myself, I'm greedy and feel that I can always spend my money more efficiently and more wisely than the govt can. So, thats why practically I would vote "no" on 56 b/c I know the end result is less taxes down the road, even though I think the "idea" behind 56 is correct. :)

I thought it was painful to watch Bush speak but after last night I can hardle be in the room when McCain speaks.  He is creepy!!  I haven't met one person that LOVES McCain never the less even like him.

I wonder if the democrats actually LOVE Obama or do they like him b/c they have no other options.  I don't like either one.  How did such a creepy guy beat Romney?  Did some of the democrats like Romney too?

ahahahahah
man, i just read thru all this.  And it sure makes me hate politics.  I guess I am the voice of the "lazy person" that just sits back and pays what i'm told to pay.   But i have worked for the government, and i can tell you right now, more taxes is the exact opposite of the answer.

The state offices are FULL of worthless employees.  They do puzzles and play cards during every single break that they are 'legally awarded'.   Never see that in private sector.

And secondly, the way government budgets works is if you don't spend it all, and try to be frugal, you lose that much next year.  So, why be frugal?  Not like in private sector, where the more frugal a manager is, the bigger his bonus is.

And body count - the more people a manager can shove underneath him, whether or not they have skills, the more buffer they have if they are EVER asked to cut some people (rarely ever happens).  So they have people that are worthless, and they just move them around.  Some managers/departments have piles of people that do absolutely nothing, but provide a larger budget and larger buffer.  Human meat shield, basically, against budgets.

Exactly why you see all the new stuff, like Sean mentioned.  If Police and Fire don't spend, they lose it next year.  It is the complete opposite of how to effectively run any business, anywhere.

So until government has a complete overhaul, which will most likely never happen, it will continue to beg for more and more funds, and run more and more inefficient.  That is fact.

The Democrats beat Romney because of our messed up voting system.  The whole electoral college system is a joke.  Allowing voters to jump party lines etc.

 

I can tell you, life was much simpler before I got into politics.

So Geoff are you going to be a good little voter this year?

i'll listen to my wife.  she does a decent job at reviewing the issues.  i don't have time.  i'm busy freelancing in my spare time, so i can afford the extra taxes i get nailed on by freelancing.

But why did they all jump party lines?

To secure McCain as the Republican candidate since he's not a hard right winger.  It really didn't matter to them Obama, Clinton, or McCain.  Just as long as it wasn't Romney.

Wow, this has had a bunch of comments today, interesting to read! The one property tax measure I will always vote yes on is schools - maybe they will waste money, but some of it will give my kids a better education, and that's important to me. And it also indirectly helps my bottom line in that a district with well-funded schools will generally have good schools, and homes in good school districts are generally valued higher. Well, I guess I will also always vote yes on libraries, but I get my money's worth out of the library.

I understand Jay's argument about ideology vs. reality, but I still don't think it's right to effectively make non-votes into no votes. Many of them are probably like Robie - don't know or necessarily care what the right answer is so don't vote - that shouldn't automatically be no. And while it can take time to be well-informed, they do a good job of putting in the ballot book details of how a measure can effect taxes - if you just skim through and vote no for any tax increase, that's definitely your right and shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.

I think that theory of more money=better schools is flawed.  Some of the schools receiving the most money in the US are the worst academically.  Private schools somehow manage to do the job better with much less money.

Mom, back to your thought on that gay's should call it something else other than marriage is something I wrote in a paper back in April for my Family and the Law class. The teacher ended up using my paper to discuss that issue. I said simply don't call it marriage then, if marriage is a man and a woman, then have gays have a ceremony and call it something else! I'm fine with that! But marriage is clearly defined already.

Would love to read it, Alesha.  Utah has some of the best school facilities and CA the worst--but CA spends way more money on schools than Utah. 

What a headache to read.

Lets not go bashing CA schools!  My kids schools are fabulous!  And way better than the Utah counter parts.  We have had some families that move to Utah out of our school and HATE Utah schools.  They say that Utah is 1 to 1 1/2 years behind where they are here. 

Sean, public schools provide services to ALL children, regardless of their abilities and/or limitations whereas private schools are not required to provide any special services and most serve homogeneous populations, which is clearly less costly. It takes more money to provide an accessible education for all children, but families such as mine are grateful that in our country all children are entitled by law to a free and appropriate education. Granted, Alex's years of speech therapy, classroom aids and specialized instruction were costly, and this falls under the heading of "Education" and your taxes paid for it, but what would be the cost to society if he was not entitled to specialized instruction and was therefore never able to be a self-supporting adult? Multiply this by the number of special needs kids in public schools and you may have a greater appreciation of where your tax dollars are going.

 

I live in a community that has proven over and over again that money = better schools. Since 2000, Lake Oswego has supported a local tax option that provides 12% of my district's operating budget. These funds go directly to reducing class sizes, increasing academic electives and providing additional Advanced Placement options. In addition, since 1986, we have had a charitable foundation in place -- The Lake Oswego School Foundation -- which raises funds for our schools. Last year, $2.1 million dollars was raised within our community. ALL proceeds from the foundation go to hiring additional teachers for our schools, thus reducing class sizes. The result? All 13 LO schools are rated "Exceptional", we have the highest test scores in the state, 94% of our graduates go to college, 95% of our students meet or exceed state reading and math standards, and all schools in our district meet the federal "No Child Left Behind" yearly standards. I will put my schools up against any private school.

 

Although the statistics are nice, most important to me is that I believe my children have received the finest education I could provide for them. Leah needs both hands and both feet to count the number of teachers she had who are her "favorites" -- people who had a significant, positive, amazing impact on her. Talk to her sometime about how she feels about her school experiences.

 

Property values in Lake Oswego are among the highest (probably the highest?) in the state, and our exceptional schools are a huge contributing factor to that. Most people, just like me, moved to LO specifically for the schools. We moved here when Leah was 4, because I knew she was the most brilliant child ever born and thus needed the finest school experience I could provide for her. Of course, at the time, Alex was unborn and I had no idea how absolutely critical that decision would prove to be for him. I truly believe that giving your children the best education you can is a critical component of parenting.

 

Sean, with 4 children coming down the pike, if you believe private schools are better than your public school, I would strongly urge you to sell your gun collection and provide a better education for them. But my guess would be that if you spent some time volunteering at Kasey's school, you might be surprised at what they do with their money. I know, I know, you have no time. When Leah was little, Brent and I both worked full time and I travelled extensively. We had no free time. So we both arranged to take vacation time on alternating Friday afternoons, so that we could share a Friday afternoon volunteer position at Leah's elementary school. I've seen all your summer vacation photos, so I know you have plenty of vacation days to enable you to do this.

I am always impressed with all the special classes and teachers that the schools provide to help the kids that have extra needs.  My brothers daughter goes to a public elementary school to help catch her up on her speech and other things that she is behind in.  They dont' have the money to send her to speech therapy so had the state not offered this she would be so behind in kindergarten and probably wouldn't have ever caught up.    A mom in our ward was telling me that her daughters 1st grade class has kids that speak 17 different languages and each of those kids get time in a special class each week to help them learn english.   I think if we had a kid in school that need special classes you would be upset if the school wasn't providing them the extra attention they might need.  I love the no child left behind program b/c it's hard enough for the kids that aren't behind to be in school never the less the kids that are struggling with different things.   I don't agree always with all the free lunches, breakfast, etc...    Sometimes I think those are abused just like the welfare program.  I do think the schools do need money but they shouldn't get it by raising taxes but instead by doing what Geoff said.  I wonder what teachers make... does anyone know?

I think many things play into a successful school and money can be one of them but it cannot by itself make all the difference.  Most people cannot afford to live in a Utopia like Lake Oswego and will live in areas where many people don't put a high importance on education or don't even speak English.  They look at schools as daycare for their kids and when their kids get home they are on their own to do homework.  I see LO as an exception but not the rule. 

I think we've beaten this horse enough and I'm sure neither side will change their opinion no matter what facts are presented.

I'm reading on measure 57 now which goes hand in hand with measure 61 and looks at more prison time for offenses and building more prisons.  Borrowing money and spending it left and right.  I think I am a no on these two. 

I saw a special on 20/20 about these two schools that were only a couple hours away and one was the nicest in the state with advance classes, swimming pools and super nice and the other one had security gates you had to walk thru, the swimming pool was empty, no advance classes etc.  I couldn't believe the difference.  It was really sad.  I wish the schools could provide PE and music more often , have smaller class size, more field trips, provide better food and look nicer inside and out.  Kasey goes to a good school but the landscape outside is horrible and the inside is so old.  I am impressed with how much the parents are involved and esp in the PTA.   It's hard for me to go into the class but I take projects home to help the teacher and I am in charge of room parties.  It would be fun to volunteer every week.  I take Kasey to school every morning and it's fun getting to know her teacher and the kids in her class and it gets the other kids familiar with the school.

i'm lucky - Jodie is super involved, in fact famous, at our girls school.   Everybody knows her.  Good job, babe.

Robie, the average teacher salary in Oregon was $50,938 for the 2006/2007 school year. It would be hard to volunteer with 3 kids at home, but after I quit working, Grandpa Floyd used to come over once a week and baby sit Alex while I volunteered at Leah's school. If you can find someone to take care of your kids, it is so worth it. It's really fun, you learn so much about what happens at school and how things operate, and Kasey would undoubtedly be like Leah and LOVE LOVE LOVE having you there. Good grief, Sean and I now apparently agree on 4 measures -- "yes" on Measure 54 & 55, and "no" on 57 and 61. How did this happen? I was really wondering how you would vote on 57, Sean. I couldn't decide if you would be compelled to vote for it for the increased sentences, and have that override your no more taxes stance. I'm a definite no. No funding attached, where's the money coming from?

Actually I take back measure 61 and think I may vote yes on it.  So far:

54 Yes

55 Yes

56 No

57 No

58 Yes

59 Double Yes

60 Yes

61 No - edited.

62 No

63 Yes

I dunno on 64 and 65 yet.

I just read your comment Chaco after I posted above.  Ya, I'm kinda torn on 61.  There is definitely a huge problem with meth and identity theft in Oregon, however that's a lotta cash to spend on the problem.  But would it offset the costs of dealing with meth addicts and identity thieves?  I dunno.  Tough to say.  I may be up in the air on 61.

54 and 55 are no brainer votes and would be difficult for us NOT to agree on.  :)

Wow! 61 is projected to cost a ton of dough, that's why they threw 57 on there as it's less costly. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're voting yes on all of Sizemore's measures -- I guess it's people like you that keep him going, even though his measures are so poorly thought out, and the very few that pass get overruled out as unconstitutional. I guess you just want to keep encouraging him to put out thicker and thicker voters manuals so you'll have something to read, huh? http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/122394751683430.xml&coll=7

I know we aren't suppose to discuss politics on TF but it does help people get more invovled and educated!!

I know, this is such a dangerous game!! Every morning for the past week, I've gotten up and said "I am not posting anything political on TF today!!" and then for some reason, I just can't help myself... It's like I'm an addict. I swear, no more political postings!

ahahah - oh its fun, but yah, dangerous i guess.   I enjoy reading everyone's point of view.  We all live in a much better environment that a majority of the world.  I am grateful for that.

We can talk about potty training!!  I'm potty training Sammy this week and she kept having accidents, so I did what Brandt and Aubyn do and took all of her clothes off and she hasn't had an accident yet!!!  Thanks for the great idea!!

I think I was swayed by my Boss's opinion on 61 but after rereading the financials I think I will pass on 61.  That is an awful lot of cash I would more sooner agree to spend that on schools than prisons. 

 

I think if you tread lightly on your posts that it can be discussed calmly and rationally.  Charlotte, you know you can't turn a good debate away.  You'll be back soon.  :)

 

I admit I'd rather be doing other things than politics but every time I wait in line for someone to pump my gas or look at my pay stubs I can't help but get forced into it.  I did absolutely nothing in California as Gray Davis banned rifles and now look at what's happened.  Big mistake.

Noah is doing well with his training. Last night, when I was at their house, he kept saying he wanted to go poopy and read the catalog on the chair! His exact words! We laughed so hard, we couldn't stop. A new adventure for him-multi-tasking.

I think teacher deserve more than $50k a year.   Kasey's teacher really seems to enjoy her job and the kids.. it's too bad she doesn't make more.  It would be a hard job!!

Too many things to keep up on, but I am enjoying the discussion.

On gay marriage, my opinion is that marriage or civil unions or whatever they are named is actually a bad idea, because it is legitimizing the idea that a same-sex couple make a true family. Which I know is an opinion that can hurt people's feelings, and I know that individual cases can lead to a lot of angst, but I do believe that keeping our definition of marriage and family intact is important.

On schools and money, obviously money doesn't guarantee quality but it also doesn't hurt. And a community that supports its schools monetarily often does so with time as well, so it can be a positive cycle. To some extent those that care about education move to a community with a reputation for good education, although obviously that's a generality.

On school volunteering, we volunteer in our kids' schools although now with 3 in elementary school it's hard to help out in every class. Robie, I wish you lived closer to us. What we need is someone willing to do kid swaps - we'd watch your kids while you go volunteer, and then you'd watch ours. That'd be ideal but I haven't found anyone that lives near enough that we've been able to set something like that up.

On the other measures, I need to read up and develop an opinion, I'm interested to see how I compare with Sean and Charlotte.

And on potty training, we have been telling Nathan that 3-year-olds wear big boy pants but we'll see whether we follow through. Potty training is not my favorite part of parenting, it is just a hassle :-)

I love reading through posts like this because I always want to know what everyone thinks on a certain issue, but I am too afraid to ask.  Being out here in the midst of it all is stressful at times because everyone is so invested in their cause and they are constantly trying to convince you it's the best.  I avoid getting in those kinds of situations because I am usually so stubborn in my beliefs that I can't carry on a civil conversation.  I haven't gotten my voters pamphlet yet (Mom, have you mailed it?) but I am glad I already have an overview of the issues.

See, I think Seversons are so hush hush about this kind of stuff when actually it's informative and entertaining.  :)  

I have been motivated to read the ballot now, usually I am doing it right before the election. Charlotte, are you interested in posting your votes? There are some I'm not sure about.

54 & 55 - These are no-brainer yes votes

56 - This is the double majority one I see both sides of but am still leaning towards yes

58, 59, 60, 63, 64 - These are the Bill Sizemore ones; I'm voting no on all of them

57 & 61 - These are the two crime/sentencing ones. I'm not really sure here. I think I would vote for 57 over 61, it costs less and I like the idea of requiring addiction treatment (although unsure how much treatment actually helps). But it is a lot of money, so maybe I should vote no on both.

62 - Lottery fund allocations. I think I am a no here - safety is important, but so are education and other things funded by lottery dollars, so I don't see the need to enforce the way money is allocated.

65 - This one I find interesting but haven't heard much about. On the surface it seems like I'd vote yes - lets people vote for any candidate instead of just their own party in a Primary, and apparently the state of Washington has something similar. But maybe I'm missing something.

Here's my votes:

 

54 & 55 yes to the no-brainers

 

56 Yes.  Elections should be decided by people who vote -- not by the number of people who DON'T vote. 

 

Sizemore 58, 59, 60, 63, 64 -- NO!! Even if he ever had a good idea (and he doesn't), we need to eradicate this pest, so I would never vote yes on one of his measures.

 

57 & 61 No. We just don't have the money to build more prisons

 

65 Yes -- Although I am a Democrat, and most of you will probably find this hard to believe, I don't always vote along party lines. I try to vote for whoever I believe is the best candidate, so I am in favor of this measure.

 

62 - Undecided! Just haven't decided this one yet...

Funny, because I wasn't looking at who sponsered any of the Sizemore measures and I am voting yes on all of them.  I guess I must like the guy's ideas.  I am already glad for the property tax cuts and double majority vote so maybe I'm a fan?  Jim Hill is not a fan of Sizemore either which sort of surprised me.  My boss at work however is a huge Sizemore fan. 

I like measure 63 because I think the building permit process is out of hand.  I believe in permits but not everything down to changing a light bulb in your house.  We spend a fortune at work permitting all the construction we do and some of the stuff they require is nuts.  I understand making stuff safe but then they had us planting certain types of trees and grass back behind the building where nobody even sees or goes.  It just gets over the top sometimes. 

Well -- I fear I should not even begin to comment here - but I will tell you that the 50,000 quote as the average teacher salary is a bold-faced lie ----

however, given that I can't understand the difference between mode, median, and average on my daughter's math, I will say, there is probably some teacher out there making 65,000 that may be skewing this somehow, but you can look at the salary range for the TTSD - it's public record - the only way you can ever make that amount of money is to go back on your own dime and get 40 semester hours past your master's degree and then work for at least 16 years -- it's a d....mn miracle we have any decent teachers because teaching school is almost like volunteer work.

I'm not too proud to admit that I work a .6 contract I have over 10 years of accredited teaching experience and 24 hours past my Bachelor's degree and still bring home less than 1500.00 per month.  I consider it a small stipend for my parental duty to volunteer and the only reason I get the stipend is because I spent thousands of dollars getting an education so that I can be picked to death by parents saying there are no qualified teachers in our school system.  I hate to also mention, that if I did move to a private school I would be paid even less - because the only reason I manage to hang on there is because I get medical coverage and a tiny bit put into PERS each month.  But many Oregonians think that the PERS system is unfair also....well, good luck with your voting everyone....shelley

 

I agree with Shelley... teachers should get paid more.  But how much does the $50 a year figure out to an hour.   Teachers don't get paid for summer break, spring break, winter break etc...  right?  And who is this Sizemore guy?

Oh, Shelley, I hope you don't think I'm a bold faced liar! I just googled Oregon teachers salaries, and that's the result according the Oregon School Board website: http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/index.htm But no matter, I definitely believe teachers are underpaid, underappreciated and undervalued. I ALWAYS support schools in elections, and as I stated earlier, Leah has benefited from a huge number of fabulous teachers, including her former (incredibly patient) piano teacher :-)

I don't know if it's just the law of supply and demand keeping teachers salaries low.  I know there seems to be a lot of people wanting to teach out there. 

I never understood why the PTO did so much for the teachers but now I do.  If they make that little they deserve extra support from the parents. 

Yeah, I think pretty much all jobs work that way. Its usually a matter of how many people out there can or want to do a certain job. Unfortunately there are tons of jobs that people are underpaid for for what their job actually entails. And lots of people that are way overpaid for what their job entails. But its always a matter of how many people can/want to do that job.

Not having really read the prop 56 - only what's above - I'd probably vote no.  I rely pretty heavily on my Econ training when I vote and there is very good theory and evidence that governments are more efficient and effective when they have a "super-majority" requirement on spending.   For example, in order to pass a spending project you would need 2/3 or even 3/4 to approve making it a "super-majority".  The idea is that it is much easier to pass something with a simple majority (obviously) but that if something is only supported by about 50% of the people or congress or whatever it is usually either not truly needed or not the best way to accomplish it.  Quality projects are then the ones that are passed by an overwhelming number because everyone identifies with that need.  Also, once something is approved or a special tax is levied it is rarely ever taken away later as there is much more incentive identify a new need than to review and repeal things which have, over time, lost their effectiveness or raison d'etre.  

This law is essentially about super-majorities without calling it that by counting "no-shows" as "no's".  I don't see it at all to an affront to "democracy" or "fairness" at all but a really a backwards way to get to a solid concept (supermajorities).  

Those are my California thoughts on the Oregon matter.

Charlotte, we are in pretty close agreement, then. I'm still not sure about 57 - good point that it may be too expensive. And your yes on 65 makes me feel better about taking that route.

Sean, and I think Robie asked, too, Bill Sizemore is basically a guy who is making a living by working the Oregon ballot initiative issue. People pay him to get measures onto the ballot, and that's all he does. The ideas are actually not really his own, just whatever others want on the ballot and they can get enough people to sign a petition for. The problem is that the ideas are maybe not completely terrible, but they aren't specific and well-thought out enough to be a good idea.

The permit one, for example. I agree that the permit process is flawed (just ask me sometime about our remodel permits). And a lot of people agree. So Sizemore is taking advantage of the fact that people will see the measure and say yes, the current way we do permits isn't good, so let's change it. But the proposed "solution" is worse than the problem. It would let any homewoner make any changes valued at less than $35,000. If it were Sean, sure. But most people don't have a clue what they're doing, and they're going to do something dangerous. I sure wouldn't be happy if my neighbor's bad electrical work started a fire that spread to my house! Anyway, yes I believe the permit process should change, but unfortunately this proposed measure isn't the way to do it.

Same thing with the others - they sound good on the surface - I do think that we should encourage students to speak and learn in English, I do think there may be better ways of evaluating teacher performance and pay, etc. But the measures on the ballot are not the right way to do those things.

Nice post Chris and a very interesting way at determining your view on that measure.  I think that is a great point that the more people actually wanting a change or tax increase the more it must actually be needed or be effective. 

Aimee after what you mentioned about Bill Sizemore I may have to contact him directly and discuss a few things with him like PUMPING MY OWN GAS maybe?  I would have to quit my job in order to get a measure on the ballot by they time I work my way through the beauracracy and get thousands of signatures. 

 

Also, if you read on in Measure 63 it DOES specify that:

 

"Changes to the electrical wiring of a structure or new wiring added to an existing structure may only be made under this section if the work is performed by a licensed electrical contractor or if the completed work has been inspected and approved by a licensed electrical contractor, who shall be responsible for the work as if the contractor had provided the materials and performed the work"

So they aren't making this a free for all.  It still has to be supervised or approved.  And if the person choses not to do this who's to say they would have ever gotten a permit under the current system.  I had my electrical box replaced in my house by my bro-in-law, a licensed electrician, all done to code.  Legally I should have had it permitted and it would have cost me more in permits than to do the actual work. 

I do think that this measure has had some thought put into it.

Reading up more on measure 58, the limiting of teaching in other languages for more than 2 years.  The current system really does seem a bit flawed.  Schools receive 50% more funding for each student enrolled in an ESL program and costing taxpayers much more money.  So the incentive would be more ESL students = more money for schools which goes in the districts general fund and can be used for virtually anything.  If it takes a student 5 years instead of 2 years to learn that just means more money in the schools budget.  Of course this also means that English proficient children are stuck in biligual classes for longer.  I know this is a problem in Hillsboro where everything is taught in English and Spanish concurrently.  I mean 2 years to learn a language seems sufficient.  Missionaries going on missions get 2 months.  Arizona has done a similar 'immersion' plan.  I agree, we need to focus intensively on English for up 2 two years and get the job done rather than drag it out for years paying 50% more for each student. 

Actually the only flaw to that logic Sean, is that the money that comes for the ESL kids don't get to go into a general fund.  They are separately earmarked and accounted for.  It would be really nice if you could, say collect the extra ESL money and direct it towards the TAG kids (which used to be a 1.5 funding, but that went away years ago).  Sorry, don't get me started on that, too many years on the State TAG commission.  The federal money that comes for the Title I program or the ESL program has to stay with that program and really can't be spread throughout the student body, so even though it would seem that the school would appreciate having the higher level of ESL students it's exactly the opposite because they are also the biggest impediment to AYP (meeting adequate yearly progress) and after 3 years of that you become sanctioned by the Dept of Education.....it's really a big mess....

Not to stir the pot, but how come we have never moved to a voucher system? Always made sense to me, it seems to work great in other countries that I've been to (Germany specifically). Rather than my tax money going to the govt and then forcing my kid to go to a school that I may or may not like, I get to direct the X amount of money for my child to a particular school that has proven to do well. Seems to apply a private sector idea onto the school system where the better a school does, the more kids they get, the more money they get, etc. I've always liked that thought at least, but maybe I dont understand the downsides to it.

This is a very interesting and long list of post comments.  Too bad I am such a late comer, too many tangents to comment on.  Being relatively new to the Oregon Voting scene it is interesting to learn what all you "old timers" think about all the issues.  What I love about voting in Oregon is doing it by mail.  SO much easier than dragging little kids to a voter booth to wait in line and read it all in a little booth, trying to make sure that no one escapes while you do.  I have been pretty heavily involved in West Linn's politics over the last couple of years, and found how frustrated I am with all of those non-voters out there.  We were trying to pass a measure for raising property taxes (only equated to about an extra 6 dollars a year) to help with the rise in inflation and the fact the police hadn't had a raise in years and didn't have all the money they needed to grow the force or keep the ones they had.  We did a lot of canvassing and phone calls and the feel was overwhelmingly positive.  When the voting happened the yes votes were 85% to 15%no, BUT it still didn't pass because not enough registered voters came out to vote, or should I say... took two seconds to mail their vote.  It was SO frustrating!!  We tried again a couple of months later, still to no success, it was almost enough votes... but not where it should be.  Now, we have to shuffle money around from other areas, shutting down more time at the libraries, cutting out maintenance and certain roads and parks, etc. There is no way  you can just not pay your police officers. I am sure it will pass next time, when people actually feel the pinch their non-voting caused, but in the meantime what a pain!!  And this happened in a VERY politically active community!!

As far as the school comments go!  I agree with Charlotte, get involved in school!!  It is hard, whether or not you work, or stay home with kids.... both are EQUALLY hard to juggle (considering they don't allow little kids to come with you) .   I find it impossible to do some types of volunteering with little kids, but there are many other types out there that will get you equally involved in your kids school.  I really like working closely with their teachers because then you get to know them really well, know how they teach, etc.  This year I am Calder's class room parent and also chaperone on field trips, and in Levi's class I have volunteered to do specials in Art for their class, actually I think I just got wrangled in to doing that for Calder's class too. I also volunteer on a number of after school activities.  All these things I can bring Kaelan with me, which makes it SO much easier to help out!  I think, that if you have great public schools, support them!  (Who wants to shell out extra dough for private schools?! Not me!!)  I LOVE our School!   West Linn, is like Lake Oswego, they are heavily funded for schools and it is the biggest draw  for people to live here, in West Linn, they have some of the highest ranking schools in Oregon.  To Me, the more focused on education, a community is, the more successful the community will be.

I don't think I can buy any sob story told by law enforcement about raises etc.  If they have enough time to pull Emily and I over for running yellow lights then they must not have enough to do.  Also, driving home the other day there is an intersection downtown that is really a mess and it's hard sometimes NOT to get stuck in the intersection when the light turns red.  I watched a guy get caught in the intersection and then a cop car turns in behind him and stops him right there in the middle of the traffic mess making everyone drive around them.  Unbelievable. Bottom line is there seems to be an abundance of cops in the Portland area all with the latest high tech gear and cars and undercover cars.  Everything they need to write lame tickets.  I don't want to give another dime to their cause.  Sorry.

California cops are the worst when it comes to political influence. They control city councils by walking precincts to support their candidates who will vote to inflate their pensions and raises. In Downey, where I used to live, they even walked in uniform door to door to scare residents into voting for their candidates. Most do not live in the cities they patrol, yet they exercise the most influence on who gets elected. It got to be so bad that a law was passed to make it illegal for them to walk neighborhoods in uniform when they are off duty.

I have a Council friend who voted against an inflated raise for the cops in Fountain Valley-so they went to his personal residence and picketed.. He called the City Manager to have them removed (how's that for a reversal, calling in to tell cops to go away; not to come to your residence!!). He got reelected anyhow. Our City not only balances its budget every year, they do multi year forecasts and also set apart reserves. All because they do not bow under to expensive entitlement requests,and spend money they do not have just to keep public servants happy. They also staff positions with part time volunteers and outsource whenever it makes fiscal sense to do so. Thats my take on the issue---I'm with you, Sean.

 

I have a question... my brother in-law is an electrician and works for a big company.  He is going to work at a fire station for the next couple months and because it a government job he get's paid $14 more an hour.  Why?  Why does the government feel like they need to pay people more an hour with our tax money.  That seems like it would be a HUGE saving to pay contractors what they are already making instead of giving them a $14 raise.

Thanks Brad, I was starting to feel lonely in here.

I read up on your particular example Cami.  West Linn still got their money for this by adding surcharges to your utility bills.  Wasn't that nice of them.  Vote no or don't vote at all and they still got what they wanted. 

 

However if you look at the results it would it help the argument FOR the double majority law.  It was killed fair and square the first time, however when they tried to pass it again with surprise special elections it was defeated by Double Majority.

 

 

3-236 CITY OF WEST LINN: 5-YEAR LEVY FOR POLICE SERVICES

Double majority not in effect.

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,085 47.09%

No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,713 52.91%

http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/elections/archives/march2007.htm

VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 41.38%

3-259 CITY OF WEST LINN

5-YEAR OPERATING LOCAL OPTION LEVY FOR POLICE SERVICES

Double majority in effect

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,802 72.17

No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,852 27.83

http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/elections/archives/may2007.htm

3-267 CITY OF WEST LINN

FIVE-YEAR OPERATING LOCAL OPTION LEVY FOR POLICE SERVICE

Double majority in effect

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,793 78.21

No. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,335 21.79

The first time it was killed, by no votes.  Then it was on the ballot again and again, each time getting fewer Yes votes and voters just decided NOT to show up and keep voting no and let the Double Majority law do it's job for them.

 

Also you can see on the above example that the first was in the November General Election, the next two are 'special' elections that were held in March and May.  This was on top of the 'two times a year' mentioned above by Charlotte.

 

So with Double Majority around I can still work on waverunners and not be reading 155 page voters ballots and showing up to surprise elections all year.

In California, after the passage of Propostion 13 (which has NEVER been of any benefit to me, but I like it anyhow); cities  still found ways to impose taxes  through utility fees and creating special assessment districts. They did it with the Cemetery District in Downey--it needed money, so they created a special lighting and landscaping district and posted a hearing. If no more than 50% of voters showed up at the hearing or submitted a written protest, the tax passed. One  older guy did go to this hearing, and he yelled out-"A lighting tax for a cemetery---the dead don't need no lights."  I busted up when I heard that, and so did the brave "souls" who were there at City Hall.   

Sean, Look at the percentages. Of the people voting, a larger percentage voted yes in the 3rd election you cited, and the absolute number of No votes went down by a larger percentage than the yes votes. You cannot surmise that the people who didn't bother to vote did it on purpose to register a no vote. That is not a logically sound argument, but I'm sure you realize that. Kind of a Sizemore tactic. We will never persuade you, but in a democracy, the people who vote should decide an issue -- not the people who don't vote. If you want to get a super majority rule based, put it on the ballot and get it passed. (Don't worry Sizemore already has one in the works for next election).

Good,  I am glad that they still got their money.  Now that you mention it, I remember talking to a friend involved, later, and she said something about the Utilities being used to support it. I am glad that they didn't have to shut down services or fire anyone.  I was involved in the March and May one, not the November one.  I didn't remember all of the details,  (I was in my third trimester of pregnancy with Kaelan) I am glad you looked it up.  On whether or not the police should get more money, Sean, just because you can't obey the laws, and thus get tickets,  doesn't make the officer who gave you one, the bad guy.  If you are willing to break the laws, you should be willing to live with the consequences.  I know, I know.... you didn't deserve it right?  Well, I am sure that there were plenty of times that you did deserve one, and there was no cop around to see. ;) Law of averages, my friend.    I, personally, really like West Linn's police force.  That is why I helped work with them on this measure.  But that is what voting is about, sticking up for what you believe, doing your part.  Which was my point, in the first place.  VOTE.  And those who vote should have their votes mean something, not be cast aside by those who didn't take the time to vote.

I think you CAN surmise that the people who didn't bother to vote realized they didn't need to vote to get the same results.  Based on the first vote in the general election and it failed, I don't think in a few months people are going to change their minds.  I think we can also surmise that in a special election all the people that stand to benefit financially from this vote are going to show and everyone else who didn't were doing other things with their time. 

By the way Charlotte, I'm glad to see your back with us still. 

Cami,

 

I'm not saying cops are bad people.  My point is really if they focused on things that aren't so petty that maybe we wouldn't need so many of them around.  So far my observation here is Portland Police=petty tickets.  Petty tickets=need for more police.  More police=more taxes.  When I call 911 of course I want one to respond immediately, but he just might be busy writing Emily a ticket for running that yellow light.  And who isn't guilty of breaking traffic laws.  Remember, If you're one MPH over you're breaking the law.  I think I've already debated speed limit laws somewhere on TF before but a quick summary is they are there for your safety, however they don't take each persons ability into consideration unfortunately.  I've driven over 20 years with zero accidents, and probably driven nearly every mile of it over the speed limit and sometimes double the speed limit.  I have another idea that I should hit up Sizemore for.  How about individuals with no accidents for a given period are awarded a special coded license plate that allows them to drive over the speed limit.  Any accident would immediately revoke this priveledge.  Now that's Sizemore Simple.  Haha.(page 46 of the voters ballot, love it)  I want a t-shirt that says that. 

Definite yes on 57 and 61.  Lock em up and throw away the key.  It may mean cutting money out of something else but in the long run it will be worth it.  Less meth-heads crashing into me on the road, fewer crooks stealing my stuff, overall fewer deductibles to be paid, weed out some lawyers here and there.... society would be more blissful each day.  If it were up to me, I'd use 99% of the budget to lock em up for good.  You can't put a price on a victim's hardship, especially for brutal crimes.  Once criminals realize they are destined to serve some real time, it will either deter them or send them away.

Tude, you're crazy.  You see how much money those cost?  Do you think it's going to stop meth-heads.  Addicts are addicts regardless of sentencing or jail time. 

 

Oh and by the way Cotty if 57 passes it cancels out 61.

Haha, Sean!  You are great. I knew I would pull you out with that one!  I agree that there are many police officers who are, um, taking advantage of their position and authority.  Many bad apples out there, unfortunately.  I also hate when they make ticket giving an incentive, to the police officers, because that drives more of them to cross the line into questionable actions.  Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand?  Great book, really delves into, among many things, why government sets up these kind of expectations, how corrupt people use government/press to go about gaining their own ends.... etc.  Very fascinating book.  She is very pro-capitalism, free market.  She is also an atheist.  Very interesting view points.

Brad, I know what you are saying, but that is also a sweeping generalization.  I don't believe that all cops live beyond their means, and I think that, unlike teachers, cops are risking their lives on a daily basis. They deserve good benefits and pay.  It is just too bad that some of them abuse the trust they are given.  Not that I am saying that teachers are worth less, rather, that instead of limiting Police pay to match teachers, why not raise teacher pay to match police?  Because, I think that we can all agree that teachers get a VERY raw deal when it comes to pay.  It irks me to no end.

I kinda agree with Scott.  I think people should get longer sentences and some people should never get released.  I think it would cost more upfront but end up saving money in the long run.  I might vote yes on the one that needs less money.  Or maybe it's no to get it passed... I haven't read the book.  I will read it when I go to vote... which will be tonight!!

Is there anyone out there, besides Joe and I, that hasn't received their ballots yet?  We have received the voter's pamphlets, but not the ballots.

We received our ballots on Saturday.

Our ballots just came today.

Another question, what are people's thoughts on the PCC bond measure? On the one hand, it is education, which I support. But it's not a local school district, improve my local livability, property value, benefit my kids, etc. So is it worth supporting?

Well, I voted no on that one of course Aimee, I'm sure noone is surprised. 

 

I also went back and forth on Measure 61 and finally decided a YES on that.  So Scotty, vote Yes on 61 and no on 57 if you're going to vote yes on either of those.

Ya, I hadn't counted on all the county and city measures on this ballot as well as a million other things.  I had even MORE documentation to read last night.  If you're going to vote smart it's a LOT of reading.

 

Oh, good news, I finally finished my book I've been reading for the last 6-8 months.  You'll all be excited to know it was called Shooter, about a marine sniper in Iraq.

Another reason for more jails.  Plus it's only going to get worse (criminal activity) as our economy declines.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_102108_news_dui_quadruple_crash.134837e07.html

Meth heads can be meth heads in their home, but once they break the law, which they will, it's time for strict jail sentencing.

That book was pretty sweet. Glad its made the rounds and gotten its money's worth.

Man, that guy should skip jail entirely and go straight to the electric chair and fry for that. 

Yea, it said the victims were driving home from a church dance. 

DONE!! Signed, sealed, delivered, I've voted! I love Oregon. BTW, Aimee, I'm not in the PCC district, so I haven't read up on this one, so no opinion. Mostly enjoyed all these discussions, and totally happy that we managed to make it through with no blood spilled. Sean, I'm sorry your birthday has already passed, otherwise I would for sure get you a "Sizemore Simpleton" t-shirt. Of course, if you wore it in public, we'd have to take a vote to see if we could keep you in the family. I'd probably vote yes, as you are the oldest grandchild and all. But all the family members who didn't bother to vote would be counted as "no's" so I'm afraid you'd be out. Lucky thing your birthday is over :-)

Classic comment.

Wow. I, a very poorly paid teacher, took a few moments away from grading (at home for 4 hours of my own time... I will keep track of these hours to turn in my timecard for Sean to see that I am working in the summer and winter breaks - I just do it in the evenings instead of getting to spend time with my husband or online with my family arguing about politics as that is the only way to give timely feedback to the 160 students I teach) to see how ya'll were doing, and got sucked down this vicious rabbit hole. I want to resist the urge to comment, but I just can't... because despite having devoted my life to educating the youth of America, I only make $39,000 ($1,000 less than I spent just getting my required Master's degree) and will always take the time to read my voter's pamphlet and make my voice heard. 1. That Prop 8 video was NOT unbiased in any way. It was made by a anti- gay marriage organization for pity's sake!! In fact, I feel fairly certain it was made by a guy named Tom who is married to a woman named Jan (who "likes" to cook) and is grateful for the convenience of two gay neighbors to watch his dog, but does not believe that their emotions are as valid as his and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to title their committed relationship the same thing as his. If any of us lovely heterosexual couples were told that we couldn't marry despite our devotion and desire to spend the rest of our lives together as companions, we WOULD be offended and outraged...rightfully! We can be "domestic partners" or "significant others", but we can't be spouses... because we're straight??? We would rally for the right to utilize society's most obvious sign of commitment between two human beings as well. My feeling is that if you want your children to think something is right or wrong, teach it to them yourself at home. The public school system should not promote ANYONE'S family values, it should be teaching necessary info. for people to become critically thinking citizens who participate in their governmental processes and have skills enough to "pursue happiness." Considering the fact that I teach children whose parents are married, shacked up, divorced and remarried or shacking up, gay, straight, religious, agnostic, white, black, brown and everything in between, what should I tell them is "right"? I tell them it's right to think and to listen before you form an opinion. I tell them it's right to utilize the opportunities abounding around them, and to keep in mind all those who don't have them. I tell them it's right to believe what is right for you and to do your best to respect the fact that we don't all believe the same things, but have the right to believe what we do. I teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think. 2. As for the ballot measures: 54-57 = yes I heartily agree with Charlotte that 54-55 are no-brainers and that 56 would bring into effect what should already be happening: those who vote determine what happens. If you don't vote, you don't get a say. It's your own fault if you don't like what happens. I prefer 57 over 61 as it leaves more in the hand of judges who are, you know, those people who went to a lot of school to be able to, you know, judge situations. I am in general NOT a fan of mandatory sentencing as it frequently does not take into account many of the circumstances and ties the judge's hands. Kevin Mannix is a menace, second only to Sizemore in his ability to craft crappy measures. 58-65 = no 58 - This does not take into account any of the circumstances of the child. How can they "learn English" in two years if they have never had ANY schooling whatsoever? Even in their home language? I have freshmen in high school who have been in the country less than 5 years, have their home language spoken at home and have had between them 8 years of schooling prior to this. Two years is an incredibly unrealistic amount of time to address the needs of a vastly diverse population of students. And Sean, I'm fairly sure that even the really gifted missionaries who became very fluent in 2 months would not have been able to pass benchmark tests in that second language with only that amount of training. That is how all teachers and schools get judged, not on a student's ability to speak or use the language for specific purposes. 59-64 = Sizemore and Mannix are menaces. I already lambasted mandatory sentencing above, and quite frankly until Sizemore actually gets some training in education, fire science, nursing, building codes, and a half dozen other things he pretends to be knowledgeable about, I have no use for him and his egregious ballot measures. It's too bad that he doesn't utilize his time and money to actually try to improve those areas through fund raising or volunteering. Instead he is too busy being involved in racketeering cases to do any real good for society. 65 = poorly written. This could result in only 2 candidates for an office, versus the 4+ we often see now. How is this opening up the election process to more candidates? 3. Addiction is an illness, not a crime. We can't treat addicts like criminals and criminals like addicts and expect them to change or be rehabilitated. 4. I am grateful to live in a country created by people willing to endanger themselves so that they could engage in a democratic process in order to create a democratic process "for the people, by the people." I am grateful to be able to exercise my freedom of speech here with all of you in this meeting of minds. 5. Vote. If any one of you who posted on this blog doesn't vote, I will fully expect you to remove yourself from any and all conversations and postings about politics in the future. Your vote is your voice!

I would like to add two things: 1. sorry that was so long. 2. I have also already voted. I'd love to hear confirmation from everyone here when they have voted too.

voted

To Jamie's point about what is taught in school - I think it would be great to only teach how and not what to think.  I think one of the concerns that many people have regarding the definition of marriage is what will happen in the schools and with their kids.  The "pro-gay", "pro-equality" side is very much active in promoting same-gender marriage as equivalent choices.  However, I think this is education that should be taught at home by parents.  Two relevant, recent examples.  In SF last month, a first grade class was brought to the courthouse on a school field trip to be present for the gay marriage of their teacher under the premise that it was a "teachable moment".  Massachusetts has same gender marriage and a lawsuit was filed by parents after their 2nd grade children were read a book "King and King" regarding gay marriage.  The parents argued under their 1st Amendment rights that they should receive notification and "opt-out" prior to their child's exposure to stories that portray same-same marriage.  The result was a US 1st Circuit Court decision that parents do not have this right of notification or opt-out in Massachusetts.  In the legal briefs the "pro-gay" side argued, among other things:

"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." [p 5]

"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." [p 3]

While I'm sure there are many gay couples that are "offended and outraged" that they "couldn't marry despite [their] devotion and desire to spend the rest of our lives together as companions", there is definitely a gay agenda and it includes early childhood education.  I understand that many are offended by the Prop 8 campaign to define marriage but the alternative is to roll over and accept other peoples thinking and ideas.  I feel like if you don't make a stand on something you can't be upset when the consequences roll around and I feel there will be consequences for my children and society by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. 

Finally!  I just got my ballots in the mail today, I was starting to get nervous that they wouldn't come!
Voted!!

Excellent comment by Chris and I agree 100% so I don't think I need to add anything to that debate.

 

My ballot is filled out and ready to go.  Good luck everybody.

to me, it is an issue of simple right and wrong.  I firmly believe it is wrong, and I am not afraid to have that belief.  I can't imagine growing up in a household with 2 moms, or 2 dads.  Each gender of parent has God-given abilities, whether we want to believe it or not.  And a child has the ultimate chance for happiness, growth, confidence, skill-building, well-roundedness, and overall character building by having a male and a female in their life. 

There are exceptions to every rule.  There are terrible marriages, there are terrible dads and terrible moms.  But again, those are exceptions that do not disprove the model that has proven to work for generations and generations.  I know that allowing same-sex marriage is opening a door for issues we have never seen before, and cannot begin to plan for.


I'm glad we have this forum where we can freely speak our beliefs and not be offended.  I'm not offended by any of your beliefs, and I'm glad nobody is offended by what I just said.

I always vote, haven't missed an election since 1972, but I am dropping out of this debate. Frances is right, you can't mix family and politics and I am following her wise counsel!!

I, of course, agree with all of Jamie’s comments. I watched the Prop 8 video when this blog was first posted, and viewed many other related videos as well. But I studiously avoided any comment about gay marriage, because it is apparent to me that for most TF posters, this is a religious issue.

Politics is a dangerous enough topic, but religion?? So although I thought long and hard about this issue, I believed it was best to keep my mouth shut. But after reading Jamie’s comments, and Chris and Geoff’s rebuttals, I am compelled to lend my support to Jamie, so here I go, skating out onto the thinnest of ice…

First, I strongly believe that being gay is NOT a choice – I believe it is biological. The stance that the video takes – i.e. “I respect gay people, but they should not have the same rights I have” – is tantamount to the old “separate but equal” doctrine that justified segregation.

Basically, the video presented two arguments as to why gay marriage should be banned: 1) that school children might be forced to learn about gay marriage and 2) that Catholic Charities Adoption Services might pull out of California, as they did in Massachusetts.

As to the first argument, I completely support school children learning about diversity and how people live differently. And I agree with the state of Massachusetts that diversity is best learned at a young age. So to me, this is no argument at all. When a child learns in school that a Muslim woman wears a head covering, do you become alarmed that your daughter will want to run out and buy a hijab? Why would anyone be concerned that if your son learns that some men love or marry other men, that he might run out and become gay? Do you really believe that’s how it happens?

On Leah’s stepmom’s side of the family, Leah has a gay uncle who has been with his partner since long before Leah’s dad and stepmom got married. In Leah’s memory, she has had an Uncle Chuck and an Uncle Darrell who live together and have loved each other her whole life. Here’s a big surprise – Leah has never expressed interest in being gay! She still plans some day to marry a man and have children. But she loves, respects and appreciates her Uncle Chuck and Uncle Darrell and they have treated her like the princess that she is. I talked to Leah about this a couple of days ago, and she was quite frankly shocked that anyone would care or try to legislate whether Chuck and Darrell should be allowed to marry. Leah’s question was “What does this take away from anyone? How will this damage their family or diminish their marriage?” For Leah, it has only provided more people in her life who love and care for her, and from my point of view, that is the definition of a family. Leah has two moms, two dads and untold aunts, uncles and grandparents. That has been nothing but a benefit and a support to her.

I think ANY family that provides support, love, care and concern, regardless of its gender breakdown, strengthens our society. The people who are unloved, isolated and unsupported are often the people who inflict the most damage to a society.

As for the adoption issue, this past summer I watched an episode of a show called “30 Days”. Over the past 3 years, the show has taken a variety of controversial issues (gun control, illegal immigration, fur, etc.) and examined the topic by having a person on one side of the issue live with people on the other side of the issue for 30 days. I find this program to be extremely thought provoking, and very well balanced in presenting both sides of an issue. Of the episodes I have watched over the 3 years it’s been on the air, I have felt that the people on both sides of the issues have come away with a better understanding of and compassion for the opposite viewpoint – in all episodes save one. For example, in the gun control episode (and Sean you will never know how much it pains me to admit this!) a woman who was a strong supporter of tougher gun laws after the random shooting death of her good friend went to live with a gun happy guy and his son. At the end of the episode, she concurred that her hosts had the right to bear arms, and felt like they were responsible (albeit fully loaded) citizens.

However, in the episode where the LDS woman was sent to live with the gay couple and their 4 adopted children, I was deeply struck by the woman, Kati’s, complete inability to develop any compassion or understanding for this family. The full episode (as well as the gun control episode!) can be viewed on the FX website for “30 Days” -- episode #4, 2008. But I will summarize my view of the episode by saying these were two non-flaming gay guys who were thoughtful, committed, intelligent, educated, loving, and supportive. All 4 boys were what most people would call “unadoptables” – one of the children was adopted at the age of 4 or 5, and did not speak at all when he came to live with them. All the children had been shuttled around in various group homes prior to their adoption, with no family, and no other prospects for a home. Still, by the end of the episode, when one of the dads asked Kati if she truly believed the boys were better off in their never-ending series of group homes then having a family with two dads, Kati still said yes. She could not give an inch in spite of all evidence (in my opinion) to the contrary.  Her only stance was that "it's just wrong".  That is not supportable to me.

Geoff, I would truly take it as a personal favor if you watched that episode sometime. If after watching, you still feel these boys should not be in this home, I would love to discuss it with you, peacefully and openly, because I truly do not understand the position. The adorable infants that Catholic Charities finds homes for will be always be in deep demand, and they will easily find homes for these babies whether Catholic Charities operates in California or Massachusetts or not. On the other hand, we have over 100,000 kids in foster care AVAILABLE and waiting for adoption in the U.S. (This figure does not include the other 450,000 kids in foster care waiting to be reunited with their dysfunctional, but probably heterosexual, families).  Most of the 100,000 kids will never find a home, and studies show that 50% will age out of the system and join the homeless population. I deeply, deeply believe that a family should be defined as people who love and care about each other, and if that family can provide a home to a needy child, then great!  It doesn’t matter one whit to me what they may do in their bedroom.

As for Chris’ assertion that in California, the gay community seems to have an “agenda”, I don’t doubt that for a minute. That is how change is effected – by people who believe something is not right and become incredibly vocal to try to get opinions changed. I’m sure if we lived in the early 20th century, you would feel that the suffragettes had an “agenda”, and that giving women the right to vote would seriously change and diminish the very fabric of our lives. Similarly, the civil rights movement was viewed by the conservative right as likely to destroy our family values.

I do agree with Chris that there will be consequences to society in redefining marriage to include same sex couples, but I happen to think they will be positive consequences, just as the civil rights and women’s rights movements provided positive consequences.

As I stated earlier, I believe for most of you, this is essentially a religious issue where you are following the teachings and guidance of your church leaders. I watched many videos when this was first posted – usually with no idea when I started a video what position the person would take, or which side of the agenda he or she was on. Here is one I found thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmaAyE9v5co

 

 

Fortunately, this post is so long, I’m sure most of you won’t read it, but I’ll be curious to see who’s still speaking to me at the dinner on Sunday.

Of course we'll still speak to you, and I read all of it, too. I think it's really very difficult that there are so many shades of gray in so many areas, including these, and it makes it hard to have a good conversation without hurting feelings. I think it takes a lot of maturity to understand that two people, equally nice and good and all the other positive adjectives you can come up with, will take in the same set of questions and come up with completely different answers.

As Charlotte said, this is a religious issue for many and it can be tricky to mix religion and politics. Hopefully those of you who are not basing your opinions on religious factors can be understanding that for those of us that do, although we do have logical thoughts and reasons and use the brains that we Seversons are so proud of :-), also at some point we have to admit that nobody can really know where redifinition of marriage will lead, and my faith-based conclusions are just as valid as someone else's predictions.

One argument I don't really understand is the one that being gay is not a choice. It may or may not be, but even if it is not an individual choice and you have same-sex attraction that you cannot stop, is that in and of itself reason to sanction gay marriage? People who have no control over their sociopathic murdering tendencies, or kleptomania, or pedophilia, are told that they can't act on those desires. Note that in no way am I comparing being gay to any of those things, but I'm just wondering why being gay is considered differently than those things. In many areas where we have a defined legal and cultural norm, and someone is outside that norm, we tell them that they can't act on their desires. So how is it different to tell a gay person that their attraction to someone of the same sex may very well be something they didn't choose, but they can't act on it because it's outside of the law?

I think the difference in many people's minds is that things like murder or theft or child abuse have an obvious victim, whereas a gay relationship does not (assuming 2 consenting adults, obviously). And I think there is no conclusive argument on whether legalizing gay marriage does have a victim or not - I believe that it does, that our culture and society will be hurt by it, and obviously others disagree. But I just don't see why the basic statement "they did not choose to be gay" should affect the discussion.

Sorry, one other thought and then I will go do some work. I disagree that anyone is telling gay people that they don't have the same rights as everyone else. They do have the same right to marry anyone of the opposite gender as anyone else does. That may not be anyone they want to marry, but it is not true that their rights are different. The gay goal is to extend/expand/change that right so they can marry someone they currently can't legally marry, and it is their right to try to do so, but I don't think it's fair to say that they are being discriminated against in the same way that, say, black people were.

Well, I hope we are all speaking to each other at dinner.  Haha.  I don't have any beefs with anyone.  It's going to go round and round, liberals side with liberals, conservatives side with conservatives.  Nothing is going to change there.  And really, this last topic is basically a religious issue and nothing else in my opinion.  I think this is really the first time that the LDS church has encouraged people to get involved with something to this level.  This originates from the prophet who we of course believe it as revelation.  Since the man upstairs is all knowing I'm sure only he can tell what will become of the redefinition of marriage.  And since it looks like he's encouraging us to oppose it I'd guess the results aren't good.  That's about all I will say on this topic.  However, I still find all this fascinating.  The way the Severson family differs from my wife's family is unbelievable. 

A funny thing too is that video is almost exactly my situation.  I have 2 gay men living down the street who's names are Dan and Mark, not Dan and Michael (close).  I talked to both of them for quite a long time at our neighborhood picnic and like both of them.  Both of these guys are huge, biceps as big around as my thighs.  Robie and I had a great time with them and they are hilarious. 

Sorry, I have to say one more thing. I hope that nobody thinks that I am trying to hurt you or make you feel belittled or anything of that sort. I am trying to explain my thoughts and position to hopefully enable you to understand them better, and I appreciate your doing the same. I do actually understand, I think, where gay marriage supporters are coming from - two people love each other and want to show that love publically and be accepted by society in the same manner as straight couples are, and if they aren't hurting anyone else, shouldn't they be allowed to do that? And I think this is really where it comes down to a religious issue, and unfortunately I think that's an area where you really can't convince anyone logically one way or another, so we will have to agree to disagree.

It is my belief that gay marriage as a part of our mainstream culture is not a good thing. I have some facts and logic that back that conclusion, but fundamentally it's because of faith on my part that the LDS prophet is telling us what God wants us to know, and really there's no way to "prove" that. If you don't share that belief with me, then obviously a large part of my thoughts and conclusions may not make sense to you or resonate with you. And that's fine - I can only share where I'm coming from and hope you don't judge me too harshly for it. In the same way, I really do appreciate Jamie and Charlotte especially for their thoughts and opinions, and hopefully even though we disagree we can still love each other, and even speak to each other at family dinner :-)

Oh, and I just read Aimee's post and I think it is a very good and interesting comparison.  Who is the victim in this situation?  I think she is right.

 

OK, really, I'm done on this topic.  See you guys at dinner.

good, now i can disagree with aimee and sean.  I honestly don't feel that same-sex marriage is a religious issue.   It could be considered a cultural issue.  I mean, who then has the right to ban polygamy?  Or if someone believes they love their cat, do they have the right to marry it?   The very act of moving the line in one direction, means that there is someone "next" in line.  I am curious what the thoughts are on that.  Where does the legal line ever stop, and why?

I try to live my daily life in accordance to what I think is logical, not necessarily a religious robot.  To me, avoiding alcohol and drugs is just plain logical.   Probably fair to say that it started out as a religious "training", but now, to me, has little to do with religion.  Same goes for this topic.  I think there is centuries of evidence of strong civilizations that held to structure, that prospered.

I sure won't be Charlotte! Well, then again, I wont be there Sunday. :) I enjoyed your post. Thought filled without any bridge-burning rhetoric. My only question to people that are very pro gay marriage is how come I've never heard any one of them ever standing up and fighting for the rights of polygamists all around this country? It seems that gay marriage is supported more by people on the "left", but people on the "left" detest polygamy (because of their perception that women are being mistreated and being forced into it, etc etc). If gay marriage is truly all about being treated equally, how come "gays" are the only ones that are being supported and other alternative lifestyles (namely polygamy) are being left behind? (Disclaimer: This by no means actually means that I want polygamy to be legal.)

Those of us with jobs won't have any soon if we keep this up on company time.

I think the downturn and the economic global crisis can all be attributed to people at work spending billions of hours on myspace, bebo, friendster, facebook, and yes...Turtlefox!

I don't know Geoff, I think there is a fairly easily drawn legal line if you want to go there - you could define marriage as a contract between legally competent people - so a cat can't get married, an underage child can't, etc. But gay people could, and I do think that if that is made law you probably can't reasonably keep polygamy illegal, either. Not saying that is what I think should happen, but I do think you could expand the definition of marriage with a pretty definite line.

As to whether it is a religious issue, for some people it is, for others it isn't. I think the main "problem" with it being a religious issue is that you can't really persuade someone logically that their religion is wrong. Thus the large amount of disagreement. For me, it is both a religious and cultural issue - I believe that there is cultural evidence that the definition of marriage should remain unchanged, but if that were my only reason I could envision someone coming up with evidence that might change my mind. Since my cultural opinion is supported by my religious one, I'm pretty confident that I won't change my mind.

I think for many people (probably most of those that support gay marriage?) it is not at all a religious issue, and those of us for whom it is probably frustrate them a great deal.

I am glad that the issue is being taken to a vote in California, though. I don't think it's right for an issue with such high emotions and such a big impact to be decided by the judiciary. I think we live in a democracy and the voice of the people should rule. If a majority of the people (that bother to vote :-) think that gay marriage should be legal in a state or country, then we should let them make that choice. I hope the majority don't think so, but I suppose we will find out.

Oh, and I haven't voted yet but I definitely will. I always wait until a day or so before the election, although I don't really know why. I think I'm afraid I might see something or read something that would change my mind so I don't want to actually vote until the last minute so I'm sure I want to vote that way. I'm still undecided on the 57/61 prison/crime measures. But I promise I will submit my ballot in time.

Thanks for sticking with me, Aimee! Regarding your question/comment that perhaps gays should have to suppress their natural tendencies, I think in the other examples you give (murderer, kleptomaniac or pedophile) there is a very easily identifiable victim. In the case of two consenting gay people, there is no victim. And so, to Geoff, that is exactly where the line should be drawn -- when there is a victim, it should be illegal. And to Jay, yep that's why polygamy should be illegal because in so many cases women and young girls have very clearly been the victims. I have yet to see the book published with the title "Loving My Polygamist Lifestyle!", yet just check out the titles on polygamy written by women who have escaped -- "Shattered Dreams", "His Favorite Wife Trapped in Polygamy", "Escape", "Stolen Innocence" "Polygamy's Rape of Rachel Strong -- Protected Environment for Predators". I do believe young girls and women are forced into these situations and essentially raped. They may acquiesce, but their church has also told them they must accept and live in this construct, and most have no means to escape.

Leah just called me. She said for one of her classes she needs to find and print out someone's position on an issue she disagrees with. She remembered me telling her a few weeks ago that some people on TF supported Sarah Palin, and she wondered if she could use my TF logon and print that out. I told her I couldn't remember what blog the Sarah Palin comments were posted on, but I had ANOTHER blog that she could for sure disagree with!! Ha! Ha! So, here you go, Leah. Happy reading, and feel free to post a hello to everyone using my logon!

Sorry, just one more comment. I truly want to thank everyone for posting such mature, thought provoking comments. I'm not offended by any of these comments, and hope the reverse is true as well. I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about how you all feel about the issues, and I'm very proud that our family can actually discuss this stuff.

ditto charlotte.  i think it is cool that there are some good brains at work on this page.  Mostly mine, but some of you guys are good too.  HAAHA.  Just kidding.

We can all finish this discussion at dinner on Sunday.   JK!!  I LOVE reading all of this.  It is very interesting to hear everyones opinions.   I don't even need to say how I feel b/c I think everyone probably already knows.   I'm just curious if anyone else is reading this and choosing not to comment but dying to say something.   I do think they could make polygamy legal with rules.  I saw a special on Oprah about it and there was a totally normal family that was on there, they didn't wear the dresses etc, and they loved that life style and were fighting to get it legalized.  They didn't think it was fair that their husband could go to jail for saying that he is married to all these women yet it's not illegal for a man to live and be intimate with 10 women.

I'm reading it all and not commenting. :-) 

Charlotte, I do see where you're coming from on the victim thing. But as I think I said somewhere above, I think there is a victim, the good of society, but it's not an obvious victim. And I think this is really what makes this issue so difficult - if there is an obvious victim, generally rational people agree it should be prevented. If there is no obvious victim, then rational people disagree.

I'm not sure that it's really worth discussing polygamy, but I do think that, if someone wants to fight that battle, and gay marriage is legal, then polygamy should be legalized, too. Because there may very well be situations where someone does want to enter a polygamous marriage, like the Oprah special Robie mentions.

This thought leads me to a possible downside of gay marriage - would legalizing it create more opportunities for victims? As you said above, Charlotte, many gay couples exist, we know them, it doesn't mean that you or I or Leah is gay. But isn't it possible that undue pressure could be exerted by gay parents or gay communities on their children to enter into gay marriages? Then those children become victims. I'm not saying it's that way today, but as it becomes more prevalent and more people enter into it, you're going to get the bad along with the good and it could happen.

I think what I'm saying is that really you need to separate support for a certain type of marriage from the people who want to practice it today. If you support the right for any individuals to marry each other, then you really should support polygamy and gay marriage, shouldn't you? That doesn't mean you condone some people who may be victimizing others today, but just because some people are doing it wrong doesn't make the whole thing wrong, does it?

I just have one question?  Why does it have to be called marriage?  For me it is just an issue of misidentification.  I don't care that they have whatever rights they want to have, whether it be inheritance rights, medical ones or another.  We all live in a free country and have a right to choose for ourselves, the course of our lives.  I understand that some people make this into a religious argument, but to me it is just a matter of definition.  Why change the definition of the word marriage?  Doesn't that just make it more confusing for all involved?   Right now, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, it has been for a millennia.  That is very different from  a man and a man or a woman and a woman. What these latter couples bring into a union is completely different than what a man and a woman bring into one.  Don't they want their own word for what they have, since it is so unique and different from marriage?  I understand that they want the same rights,  so give it to them, but don't try to call red, green.  For, it seems to me that this is what is happening.  It feels like, for example, someone somewhere decided that it wasn't fair that green is the only one called green.  Red wants to be called green too,  because green gets more of this or more of that.  So, in order for red to get the same things green gets, it has decided that it too wants to be called green.  But, wouldn't that be confusing going around trying to decide which "green" we were really talking about?  Why can't we make it clear and understandable?  The true issue that bugs me, is that it feels like deception.  If it were me, and I were a lesbian, and this were my true decision and happiness, I would want my own , separate, word to define what I had with my partner.  I would not want it to be defined the same way as every heterosexual out there.  My love and commitment would be completely different, and expressed differently and I would want to emphasize that.  I can understand that they want it to be and mean the same thing as heterosexual love, but how do they know what that is?  Society plays a role in many things, it is complex and ever changing, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad.  We have many laws, some are for our protection, some are for order, some are for clarification.  I feel that this situation is one of the latter.  A homosexual couple brings different things into a society than a heterosexual couple.  For an example, on their own, from no outside help, a heterosexual couple can create a child all their own and bring that new being into society as a benefit to the whole.  A homosexual couple can not do this, it is inherent in our biology that things work this way.  Does this make them less?  I think that this makes them different.  DIFFERENT!  So what they bring, what they have, needs a wholly different name.

As far as what children are taught in school, I have always believed that parents should have say when it comes to personal values.  Everyone has a code of values they live by,  yours may be different than mine.  I want to be in control of how my child is taught this.  I have no problem with teaching children about homosexual couples, as long as I get to do this.  It is my right as their parent. I want to teach my children about sex in a way that lines up with my values.  I have already taught my older boys, Levi and Calder about both of these subjects.  They understand that there are differences out there, that we need to be aware and respectful of others choices.  I DO NOT want this inherent right of a parent to be taken away from me, or be manipulated to meet another's end.  A persons virtues can be as different as black and white, but we are in a free country and have a right to this.  So, when you say to me, that it is only fair to those with different values than mine, that I see their way and agree with them, and teach my children their philosophy of life, at my own personal sacrifice of my own virtue, then how is this fair?  One should never be asked to sacrifice their own virtue or values  for another.  I understand that it is important for a society to be understanding and accepting for it to be a successful one.  But, one can agree to disagree and still get along.  I think that we all have practice in this area.  This subject is more volatile than most, and thus should be treated with more respect, because it involves two very different sets of values/virtues.  But I think that these things have no place in the school, but in the privacy of the home.  I claim the RIGHT to parent my child and I have the responsibility to rear these sweet boys of mine to be able to handle and deal with all things they will see in their lives.  It is MY responsibility to raise these boys to grow up to be responsible contributors to society, to seek their own set of values and to stay true to their virtues.  I want them to see the value in work and in others.  I want them to really see all people and have compassion.  I want them be true to themselves always and foremost.  All of these things are MY responsibility, mine first and foremost.  Schools are an important part of a child's life, but they are NOT the substitute for parenting.  

These are my thoughts on the matter

Wow, some really great posts in there. :) 

I know, I wonder how many silent eavesdroppers there are on this blog.  I heard Grandma is watching this one.  HI Grandma?  Care to comment?

...this is dad (Clark) and I'm staying completely out of this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Aimee -- I believe the impetus to get an issue legalized comes from the group that wants it. In the case of gay marriage, the thrust to get it legalized came from gay people, as opposed to people like me, who just happens to support it when it comes to my attention. But I would never START that legislation or work tirelessly to get it passed. I think that has to come from the people with the "agenda". Up until, well just about now, I didn't think there was any group that wanted to legalize polygamy. It's funny because whenever people find out I am from a Mormon background, they always want to start quizzing me. I try never to get into the conversations because I have no agenda, can't answer most of their questions, and just don't want to get involved. But one question I'm regularly asked is if Mormons still believe in polygamy. I have always scoffed at this and said "No, of course not". But I'm kind of scratching my head and wondering now. Based on the number of people here on TF today who have semi-defended polygamy and the various (quite possibly erroneous) claims on the internet that Mormons do still hold this as a basic belief and are just waiting for the time when it will be socially acceptable to reinstate it, maybe there is a group that wants to legalize polygamy. If so, then I think it's up to that group to get the ball rolling and get it passed. As for me, before I would vote for it, I would have to hear from a TON of women that they legitimately wanted and supported polygamy, and were not being coerced or victimized. But if they could convince me of that, then I would probably support them.

I'VE GOT IT!! I agree with Cami, red should not be green and green should not be red....sooooo...drum roll please...the four terms are now:

 

Marriage: Union between a man and a woman

Garriage: Union between a man and a man

Lerriage: Union between a woman and a woman

Polyriage: Union between a man and many wives

PERFECT! Problem solved. I'll vote for that.

I have no opinion on whether it should or shouldn't be called marriage. I just don't care about that. What does the word marriage define anyway? Some people have a great marriage, others have a lousy marriage, some haven't lived with their spouse in years so they're really not "married" -- it's just a term to me that doesn't fully describe anyone's circumstances, so I'm fine with gay couples being married or whatever they want to call it. I think gay people should get to decide, though, because I don't know why straight people should get to claim ownership of the word marriage. Who owns a word? And the term marriage has been used to define polygamous relationships, so I don't really get the whole "one man, one woman" argument. As for what the schools should or shouldn't teach, basically, I think the schools should teach that something exists -- Muslims exist, Mormons exist, gay people exist, axe murderers exist. It's a fact. But I agree it's totally up to the parents to teach a child how they FEEL about these things, and what their family's particular values are regarding any of the many things a child will learn about in school. My personal feeling is that it's a pretty insecure parent who is afraid to have gay marriage mentioned in school, for fear it will taint their child's/families views on it. I think parents have a much stronger influence than that.

Charlotte, I agree that for polygamy to become legal someone would have to champion it, and your attitude of okay with it in general but having to see women wanting it makes perfect sense. You are right it is funny all of us Mormons bringing it up :-) I think it is an easy example to use because it's something we've all heard of and obviously it relates to marriage, too. But I haven't heard any whisperings of wanting to legalize it, either.

On what you call it, I'm guessing that most gay people don't really care, either. But marriage is such a well-understood term that it's a lot easier for them to ask to be married then to define a new term which is just like marriage in terms of the rights/privileges but not quite the same. I actually think I remember the LDS church stating that they are opposed to it no matter what it's named, though, whether marriage or civil union, or something else. It's not so much the term itself as the legitimizing of a relationship other than marriage as the building block of society. But I could be wrong there.

Was curious so looked on the lds.org web site. I didn't find anything about civil unions per se, so that question is unanswered, but did find an article about the Church's position on marriage and proposition 8 in California:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

A few quotes I thought were interesting:
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.

A movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples... Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression... In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship.

While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations.

Me again, sorry to bore you, just found the article interesting and thought I'd include a few quotes that summarized some of the article.

WWWWWWHEWW!  I made it through and LOVED every minute of it.  I still like the part of everyone voting if Sean is to stay in the family.  I am really proud of all my nieces and nephews and children how they have blogged such well written comments expressing their views.  I REALLY agree with Cami as I previously stated earlier--why do they have to call it marriage?  I agree parents should not have to have their children taught things in the schools that they would prefer to teach within the walls of their home.  I will never forget when we lived in Lebanon and there was a made for TV movie about a teen that committed suicide.  They were going to show it to the students in middle school.  I had seen the movie and felt that it glorified suicide and made it look like it was the only option for this poor girl.  I wrote a note to the school and said I did not want Geoff to watch the movie at school.  I would watch it at home with him and we would talk about it according to my beliefs--not the teacher's.  Geoff was embarrassed that his mom made a spectacle of him but to this day I am glad I made that decision--see Geoff never committed sucide.  ha ha  Whether or not anyone agrees with what I did--it was still my decision as his mom and it should be my right.    I agree with Aimee that there are going to be victims anywhere--there are victims in heterosexual relationships so if you legalize one it opens up the door for the others.   I agree with Geoff that it is not just a religious issue but a culturally defined issue as well that will have consequences.  Above I stated that 9 countries have legalized gay marriage and the illegitimate rate has risen to 46% as the sanctity of marriage is null and void.  You can't tell me that that doesn't affect the crime, drug and poverty rate as these children grow up without the committment of a mom and a dad.  Taking Biological Psychology classes I learned that the jury is still out as to whether or not being gay is nature or nurtured as studies have shown there are cases where it can be either--for some it is learned, for some it is biological.  I have a cousin that I love dearly that is gay that was raised in an LDS family, went to BYU, traveled with the Ambassadors, went on a mission but is now living with his partner in Denver.  He made a choice that he could not live the "straight" lifestyle anymore and I am sure he feels a great weight lifted to come out of the closet.  But he did make a choice and he forfeited many things dictated by his religion and culture that a gay person could not have as a part of his life.  I feel a lot of his was nature and not nurture--but like Aimee said many people have "goliaths" in their lives and they make a choice to act or not to act upon them and reap the consequences of their choices.  Again, I loved hearing everyone's opinions and I am voting on election day.

Okay, I found it, if anyone still cares to keep reading. Another article on lds.org:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

I am going to respond, Charlotte, but don't feel like I am out to get you, it is just the debater in me coming out.  Just to clarify, I never said "one man and one woman"  I said a man and a woman.  And it does matter what marriage defines because laws are defined by words, words are what make up our language, our identity, our relationships and our views.  It is very very important to clarify what words mean.  It isn't a matter of ownership its a matter of definition.  We as a society need crucial things, such as these, to be identified and clearly defined.    As far as schooling goes, I am sorry but there are definitely preferences in what I want my children to spend their time learning in school. This is  NOT top priority.  I want my children to get the most out of their education at school.  I will still stick by my argument that this isn't a subject for school, this is a subject for parents to teach.  I resent the statement that somehow I am an insecure parent because this is not something that I want them spending their time on in school.  I think that this is being very overgeneralized when one says that somehow because I don't want this taught in school it must be because I think that my child will all of a sudden become a homosexual.  That it is out of some unsubstantiated fear I have.  This is simply not the case.  If they simply said "homosexuals exist" then that would be fine.  But they don't.  They present ideologies on the subject.  This is different.  VERY different.  I am not afraid that my children will become confused or something of that nature, I am the mother.  It is the principal of the thing, that they are saying to me "we don't trust  you, as a parent, to do this the right way.  So we are going to do it for you.  It is mandatory, and you have no say"  This is what bugs me.  It is overreaching and out of place. 

Oh, on the subject of Polygamy.  IT is NOT in any way a part of the teachings of the LDS church.  Not even in sympathy for them.  Those guys are excommunicated faster than you can say "scat".  I don't know why there is all of this polygamy talk, probably just because it is the only other "off beat" marriage out their.  I do NOT sympathize with the current Polygamist culture, because, I believe for the most part, that it truly victimizes women.  So, rest assured, that when you say the LDS don't practice it, or sympathize with it, that is the absolute truth!

i'd just like to state for the record, that even tho i threw out polygamy as an example, and i love you jodie, but i in no way want anything to do with multiple wives.  i mean seriously.  you guys are a handful.  Hah.

I think the reaction to the "polygamy" discussion on here is noble, but pretty numb, compared to what the reality would be if polygamy were suddenly proposed on a ballot.  Or something in the same, currently far-out realm as polygamy.  I predict that something of that nature would meet with huge resistance, and i would be willing to bet the resistance would include many of those that are currently supporting same-sex marriage.  Which, then they would be caught in a double-standard.

I was just trying to illustrate that this has the potential to uncover so many issues that the world has never seen or known.  It is the logic in me that theorizes that, but it is supported by my religious understandings, that marriage should be defended and kept with structure and standards.  And not altered.

Amen, Geoff and Cami.

Wow ! Great insightful readings -- I will really enjoy seeing all these eloquent, insightful and intelligent individuals at the dinner on Sunday - but be warned, I heard that Grandma is going to have a sign posted on the door that says "enter for dinner but leave the political stuff outside."

Good for Grandma - no need for political or religious discussions at dinner. In some ways email (online communication in general) is more difficult because you can't read nuances, tone, etc. But in other ways it's easier - I think this is one example - since you can share ideas and beliefs and even if your initial reaction is to be hurt or offended or upset, you can take time to reread and to think before you respond, and it helps, IMHO, to enable a better discussion and sharing of ideas without involving emotions so much.

Anyway, I have really enjoyed this - it helps me to understand better what others are thinking, and also helps me to think about and process my own beliefs better, too.

Oh, and one more thought on polygamy, as part of the reading I was doing earlier on lds.org I also found a statement that, even in countries where polygamy is legal, the LDS church does not accept it and will excommunicate those practicing it.

Wow, seems like I've suddenly taken a back seat in a discussion that I helped start.  I can't even keep up with you guys anymore.  I'm sure I will be too busy fighting kids and trying to follow my wife's multiple orders in order to have any political discussion at dinner. 

 

I enjoyed all the thoughts above.

I most enjoyed Charlotte's comment above, "I do agree with Chris that there will be consequences to society in redefining marriage to include same sex couples, but I happen to think they will be positive consequences, just as the civil rights and women’s rights movements provided positive consequences."

I accept that my view of the world is colored by my faith and religion.  I can appreciate differing views to mine that recognize cause and effect - especially in the long term.  The argument that I can't accept is, "Same-sex marriage should be legal because that's what's fair."  I, honestly, don't think fair has anything to do with it because life is very unfair in most every respect.  Is it unfair that some same sex people are attracted to and love each other and can't marry?  - sure.  I think a question is, then, should we always try to make life fair for everyone?  I think, the answer is no, not always.  Along the lines of the law of unintended consequences, I think as you try to make something more fair for someone, you will likely make something else less fair for someone else.  So, back to why I liked Charlotte's comment, if you believe that efforts to make something fair will yield net positive benefits to society (and I'm not really sure that should be the standard but I'll go with it) than it is something worth doing.  The reason to do it then is not "fairness" but benefits for society.  When you expect life to be fair for you, you're on a path of disappointment and sadness. 

An easy example.  Many 12 year old's feel, and are correct, that it is unfair they can't drive, or drink alcohol, or any number of things.  I think most would agree that, while unfair, this is the way society should be and we shouldn't try to make life more fair for 12 year olds.  This even holds for "victimless" acts like binging on alcohol at a friends house. 

So, if someone - Charlotte in this example :) -  can look down the road and see a better world in 20 or 50 or 100 years because of same-sex marriage, I accept the thinking while disagreeing with the outcome.  But, I think when people take positions willy-nilly based on whatever seems "fair" at the time, without actual thought as to the results of those positions, the law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head and people are left shaking their heads wondering why life isn't so cheery any more. 

So does anyone think OJ is innocent?

Dude, he just got convicted of kidnapping and robbery.  He's going down.

Scott, you're hilarious! Of course OJ is not innocent. That guy was probably guilty of a crime committed in previous life since it seems he was born guilty of some wrong doing or another! I have already used all the time I can posting long comments here as I am seriously time crunched with a grading period ending next week...and these are the WORST papers I've ever had the privilege of grading! But I did want to say just a couple things. First, thanks to everyone who provided the links and quotes from outside sources. That really helped me to rethink other positions and angles. I especially enjoyed the youtube link that Charlotte posted, as I found Randy to be an eloquent and thoughtful person expressing his beliefs in a manner I understood. He is certainly taking a risk speaking about the church that way, but I really admire his courage in presenting his beliefs. Second, I am grateful for everyone here who spoke up for what they thought and believed. This kind of critical thinking is the stuff we teachers dream of inspiring and fostering in our students. I would rather disagree with all of you people in a mature, thought-provoking way and have real, meaningful conversations like this than to act as though we exist in some Switzerland-like neutral zone. I respect and value all of your beliefs and opinions, and feel like I got to know a number of you as people more in 4 days of a blog than in 30 years of being related to you! Thank you for that. It takes bravery and courage to speak up for what we believe in, to risk disagreeing and causing discord. I am proud to be a part of this family, no matter our differences in politics and religion. We are family, and something that we all seem to agree on is the value and importance of family. Thank you all for being mine. Not only will I be speaking to everyone on Sunday, I may be giving random, joyful hugs.

I agree with Jamie!  I really enjoy hearing peoples beliefs and being able to express my own.  I don't feel upset or offended when they disagree with mine, rather I feel envigorated and provoked to deeper thought.  I love being able to present an argument and defend it,  I hope I haven't offended anyone with mine.  It really has been enjoyable to participate is this discussion.  It wouldn't have been as fun, or as interesting, if everyone discussing it had the same feelings or ideas.  I appreciate Jamie's and Charlotte's courage and viewpoints, and I enjoyed being able to express mine.  I was telling my mom, the other day, about how awesome the Severson Family is.  You all grew up in it, so maybe you don't realize your own greatness, but this discussion is one great example.  This family has so many divergent beliefs, and yet you are all, still, so very close.  I think that most families out there, that have so many differences wouldn't be speaking to one another.  I think the greatest gift this family has is one of love and acceptance.  I really believe that this comes from Floyd and Frances.  They really have instilled this in all of you.  I have never met a more loving and accepting couple as the one that heads this family.  I see this in every action they perform.  They see great value in each person in this family, and they celebrate each person's strengths and are proud of all of us.    I think that if someday I could be able to emmulate them, in this, I will have definitely succeeded in, at least, one very important way.  Thanks for letting me be a part of this wonderful family!!

I am so glad that Jamie and Chris and Cami are so well written that  they could express my sentiments exactly--the most fun I have had for 2 days.  I also love and admire Frances and Floyd and their whole family including the NSBS's and loved the stimulating comments. 

I ditto what everyone else said.  It really enjoyed reading everyones comments.  I will only talk to Charolette on sunday if she makes her fruit salad!!  You make the best fruit salads!!    Jamie I would have LOVED to have you for a teacher when I was in school.  I can tell you are a great teacher and definetly deserve more $$.  Chris I think you are a great writer.  There were a couple times I wanted to write stuff but didn't want to offend anyone and wasn't sure how to say certain things but I think you did a great job and I agree 100% with everything you said.  Like Cami said.. this family is awsome!!!    I also agree with her that Grandma and Grandpa are the most loving and accepting couple.  I can't wait to see everyone on Sunday.. I always look forward to the monthly Severson dinner. 

Does everyone want to start a new debate?  Do you really think I ask too much of Sean?   JK you don't have to answer... unless you really want!!

I feel the love.  Pay it forward.

Wow, no comments on this blog for a whole day! I just wanted to update everyone to let you know that I did vote (since Shelley was stealing my voters' guides). I think this is probably the earliest I've ever voted, in Octboer!

My ballot is filled out, signed and mailed!

Is all OR voting by mail?

Um, Sean & Robie -- regarding that signature... Here's a quote from an article on the front page of the Oregonian today. (The quote is from Phil Keisling, former secretary of state) "No system is failsafe. I prosecuted a county commissioner in Curry County who forged his wife's signature on a ballot involving his own recall election. He handily won the recall attempt, but he lost his office because he was convicted of a felony". The article continues "The voter's signature on the back of the return envelope is a key component in ensuring the system's integrity. Voters' signatures (from their registration cards) are scanned into a computer database and then examined by elections workers who have been trained by an Oregon state Police handwriting expert." So unless Sean did a very good job replicating Robie's signature, I might think twice about mailing that ballot in as it is a felony and they do prosecute. For those of you not at Geoff's last night, I should explain that this is Sean's first time voting and he apparently didn't understand the rules that he could only vote once. So he not only filled out his own ballot, he also filled out and signed Robie's. To Chris -- yes, Oregon was the first state to enact all vote-by-mail. We have had a vote-by-mail system for 10 years, and for most of us it's awesome. Apparently, though, we need to do a better job educating some of the Californians who move up.

The reason why he did it was because at one time I said yes just fill mine out because we agreed on everything but one which he later changed his mind and voted like I would have.  So later I changed my mind and told him but he didn't hear so he filled it out and sent it off.  I was surprised when he did it cause I thought he had heard me when I said that.  Anyways my signature is literally a scribble so I'm sure they won't think anything of it.  As surprised as I was than he filled mine out he was equally surprised to know that I wanted to do it myself.    It was fun "talking" about politics last night but I will be so glad when the election is over!!

I knew you'd love that one Charlotte but geesh, I didn't know you'd go home and start doing research on it.

Actually, I didn't -- as I said it just happened to be a front page article in the Oregonian today, and I read the Sunday Oregonian pretty much cover to cover (except sports...)

Well, I am admitting no guilt on TF.  I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mum's the word.

Hey, maybe Bill Sizemore and I can be cell mates in prison.

Awesome posts Jamie & Cami! Just FYI, Ellie and I lived together when Jamie was born, and we used to have a running joke that I was Jamie’s dad. Jamie lived in a two female household, and you’re right, Geoff, she didn’t turn out okay – she turned out WAY BETTER than okay. I am so proud that we have teachers in our family like Jamie.

Some of you were probably relieved that I have not been posting for the last 3 days.  You probably thought I had finally given up and gone away. The truth is a former neighbor asked me to put together a video for her mom’s funeral. I’m happy to say that the video was finished in the nick of time, I feel good about helping out, and I am more invigorated than ever to continue these discussions. The woman who passed away suffered from severe Alzheimer’s the last several years of her life. I think exercising the brain with the critical thinking skills necessary in a Severson Debate might help stave off Alzheimer’s, and like Cami, I have found these debates energizing and stimulating, so on with the show! Be prepared, though, I now have three days of rebuttals. In order of ease:

Robie, of course you do not expect too much from Sean. And Sean is not unhelpful – he is just misguided. Changing poopy diaper – helpful. Completing your ballot – unhelpful.

Shelley, okay, I will honor Mom’s request, but only because she still believes that I’m not too big to put over her knee and spank. I don’t want her breaking her hand on my rock hard bum. Ha, Ha!!

Cami, regarding the definition of “marriage” – words morph and change in our language all the time -- “gay” being a perfect example. I’m sure Sue’s parent’s didn’t mean to label their daughter lesbian when they named Sue’s sister “Gay”. As the word marriage has been used to describe polygamous arrangements, it’s not that much of a stretch to use it to define homosexual relationships. And I can’t support the argument that because gay couples are unable to biologically produce offspring it shouldn’t be considered “marriage”. If we followed that logic, would infertile hetero couples need to change to some other word besides married?

I do agree that it would be best if facts, not ideologies were taught in school, and I truly believe that is what has happened in my children’s schools. However, there will always be blurry lines. As for Chris’ example about the SF 1st grade class who attended their teacher’s gay wedding -- reading up on the facts, this was a parent- initiated field trip, arranged by parents, and any parents who didn’t want their children to attend opted out. The children surprised their teacher at the wedding – the teacher knew nothing about it.  It may have been misguided, in that the wedding was on a school day so the children missed a day of instruction, but it was the parents who made the choice.

Valorie, your statistics regarding the rise of illegitimacy in countries that have legalized gay marriage might be compelling except for one fact. The U.S. has not legalized gay marriage, and we have had very similar increases in illegitimacy. Therefore, you cannot logically make a causal connection that legalizing gay marriage caused higher illegitimacy rates. And while anecdotally I might agree with you that illegitimacy is a bad thing, there is no solid proof that is the case. Who’s better off? The illegitimate children of Goldie Hawn and Kurt Hudson who’s parents have never married but have stayed together, or the child of Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger, who was “legitimate” but has been used as a public pawn by her parent’s in their divorce? (Just using famous people as an example because we all probably know of them.)

Aimee, thanks for all the links. I read all of them, and it completely reinforced my belief that this is at heart a religious issue, Geoff’s opinion notwithstanding. I have thought a lot about the tolerance parts – “love the sinner, but hate the sin”, and I think that is where it becomes religious and the initial point where we part ways. From a religious standpoint, homosexuality is a sin; from a non-religious standpoint, it is not a sin. I can totally respect your point of view, without agreeing with it, because if you truly believe it is a sin, then of course you don’t want to legalize it.

Following Aimee’s research, if you’re against Prop 8 because of your church leaders’ direction, you should understand that the LDS church leaders are apparently against civil unions regardless of what it’s called – so the “marriage” vs. “civil union” debate becomes moot – quoting again from Aimee’s links: Elder Wickman -- “If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

In my mind, discriminating and denying civil rights to a group of individuals based on genetic differences is what is not appropriate. Because I believe that homosexuality is just a genetic difference and not a sin, for me it is not unlike deafness. While most of you are probably thinking "Oh, that's a stretch!" let me point out that until very recently, deaf people were also denied civil rights -- something I think most of you would now (hopefully?) find shocking.

Prior to the advent of hearing aids and cochlear implants, profoundly deaf people were unable to learn to speak. They were referred to as deaf/mutes or more colloquially “dummies”. Aristotle decided in 384 B.C. that only people who could speak could think, and so by law classified deaf people as “non-persons”. Deaf people were not allowed to marry or own property until the 17th century. The statement that gay people can’t procreate so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry feels eerily similar to me. In the 1860’s Congress continued to restrict the rights of deaf children by enacting legislation that severely limited the use of sign language in public schools, meaning most deaf children had no ability to receive a public education. It wasn’t until 1975 that someone finally said “This isn’t fair!” and initiated legislation requiring schools to provide deaf children (and other handicapped children) with a free and appropriate education. 

I think Sean’s statement is clear and correctly presents his viewpoint: “And really, this last topic is basically a religious issue and nothing else in my opinion. I think this is really the first time that the LDS church has encouraged people to get involved with something to this level. This originates from the prophet who we of course believe it as revelation.”

I have no argument with that and can accept Sean’s position. I am not so blessed with faith, though, and as a teenager growing up in the early 70’s, one of the paths on which the church and I parted ways was the denial of the priesthood to black members. The reasons given were the same – it originated from the prophet. I simply could not accept that as right or appropriate, and I am pleased that the church has since changed their position. I believe that, over time, the church will change its’ position on gay marriage as well, and I think it will be people like “Randy” in the above linked video who will help facilitate that change.

Please understand, though, that it is not my desire to try to make people question their faith. I accept that for most of you, that is the central foundation of your lives, and I respect your beliefs.

There is a big part of me that thinks this is a tempest in a teapot. According to a 2000 census, there are 105.5 million households in the U.S. and only 595,000 are same sex – that’s less than 1%. Is accommodating less than 1% of the population going to change the landscape of family values in the U.S.? I think the women’s rights and civil rights movements were much more far-reaching, and had a far greater impact on family values than gay marriage will have, not matter how it is ultimately decided.

 

In the meantime, I agree with Aimee. It is great that it is being decided on a state-by-state basis, and I will be interested to see the outcome on election day.

Well, the church will accept gay marriage the same day they allow women to hold the priesthood.  And that will be the same day I get a 10% raise and Sundays off.  I'm not going to get into the african american/priesthood issue as I'm sure over the years many people have discussed this with you.  There are however tens of millions of LDS church members including some wonderful african american members who understand the reasons behind that issue.  The bottom line for me is that marriage is only between a man and a woman and will always be that way and has been since the beginning of time.  500,000 people today can't overrule the billions who have lived, are living, and will live with this concept.  No amount of reasoning will ever change this fact, period.

Charlotte, it's nice to hear from you again - I wondered where you'd gotten to. Hopefully Sean and Robie's ballots will both be accepted and legal. I generally vote for my husband, in that we generally agree on politics (insofar as we think about them), so he tells me to go ahead and color the bubbles for him. But he does sign his own ballot.

I disagree with Randy and others that the church will eventually accept gay marriage, but I'm not omniscient, so of course I could be wrong. I can see Charlotte's point about discrimination based on genetics - your thinking makes a lot of sense, really. I just see it (obviously biased by my faith-based assumptions) a little differently. I truly don't think that gay people's rights are being violated. I know that they would like to marry a same-gender person, but based on thousands of years of society, that's never been a right - they want to do something different. Yes, it has similarities to marriage, but it is also fundamentally different.

Oh, one other response on Sean's note that the Church is pushing this. They also very actively campaigned against the Equal Rights Amendment, although that was before most of us were old enough to really be aware of that sort of thing. So this isn't the first time, but it is generally rare (and also apparently gender identity/differences are especially important?)

Charlotte's thought that this is a tempest in a teapot may be correct. I actually think the general state of morals in the country is a big deal, too - the strength of marriage is also being weakened by the large number of people who don't bother to get married. Yes, some individual relationships of unmarried people may be strong and committed, but in general I think society would benefit if marriage was given greater emphasis. So the gay marriage question, who knows, it may be a blip, it may be just one more of the many things harming traditional marriage, or it may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I guess we can't know right now.

179 comments....

Excellent post, Aimee. I'd like to give you an award based on this blog for "Most Able To See Things From Another Point Of View While Still Staying True To Your Own Values". I truly think all of your posts have been reasonable, informative and well thought out. Thank you.

Can we go back to swapping recipes and the like?.......

I'd just like the elections to be over. Now that I've voted, I have no use for all these political commercials - not that I had any before, but now I really don't.

I think I'm retired on this blog.  So is there really an election party at the Green household?  Is it bipartisan?

You know, it started as a joke tonight, but I'm totally up for it if people want to do it! And of course it would be bipartisan!

I think this is a great link.  There are some classic lines here that Pam and I have been repeating back and forth.  As you'll see, the perspective is obviously from a religious, homosexuality is a choice, side of things. 

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1352578267?bctid=1784553601

 

Hi Jay - Great video!  :-)

If anyone in Oregon hasn't voted yet, we got a pamphlet in the mail today that I actually agreed with. I generally just toss them but this one had an anti-Bill Sizemore message at the front, so I looked at it. Anyway, they had a reasonable (I thought) summary of each measure and their recommendation, although with reasoning for it. Plus I of course liked it because I think they agreed with me exactly. Anyone curious can see their pamphlet online:
http://www.ouroregon.org/documents/VoterGuide.pdf

Sizemore Simple!!  Go Sizemore!!  :)

Just to add one more link to the same sex marriage controversy;

 

"Great video. I would like to share another talking point that I personally discovered by watching this video. As you know, Jerry Brown not only reworked the wording on the ballot to favor same sex marriage, but he also indicated the loss of revenue. The ballot states, "Fiscal impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments." This video points out that in short time, school curriculum will need to be adjusted to support same sex marriage. The question is, who pays for the reprinting and publication of the materials. That's right, us, the tax payers. So add to your conversations that there will indeed be a fiscal impact to tax payers IN THE LONG RUN. I would venture to say that the cost of this will surpass the loss of wedding sales taxes!!"

 

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815820715/bctid1822459319

This is the link that specifies exactly what the courts and the school districts did to the father.   I personally know a family that had to move. 

 

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html

 

 

Well, I was actually getting tired of this debate but I have to say that story and video got me pretty heated.  If that's what we have to look forward to in Ca. if proposition 8 fails then I guess it's ONE good reason I live in Oregon.  Of course if it passes in CA. then how long until OR and everywhere else.  That video really has me pretty PO'd.  I think you would have no choice but to home school your kids or move.  I don't think people understand the damage this really will cause.  Unbelievable.

Yeah, I'm still done too. But if anyone would like a far less slanted version of the story, check out the wikipedia posting on "David Parker Controversy". This guy just wanted to start an issue.

Darn it, Sean! I wouldn't have gotten involved in any of this if it hadn't been for your response. And even though I've already posted, now I can't quit thinking about it. Look at the facts. The book wasn't read at school. The child, when you read less biased sources, SELECTED it to bring home to READ WITH HIS PARENTS. There was exactly one page and one photo that was "offensive". The line was "Clifford and his partner", and the offensive photo was a drawing of two men and a child in a kitchen. So the parents had several choices -- they could have NOT read the book at all with their child (it was NOT required reading, for Pete's sake!), or they could have read the book however they wanted as most kindergartner's (note I did not say most Severson kindergartners!) do not know how to read. How about subbing in "Clifford and his brother". Then the father did absolutely everything in his power to get arrested. He was clearly TRYING to make an issue here. This is "Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling" kind of stuff. I resent the hell out of this guy wasting tax dollars for the school to fight this kind of stuff. It's ridiculous.

Well, to be fair and see it from both sides I read the wikipedia article.  But I think we're just splitting hairs and to me it doesn't change anything.  I don't want that crap in my kids schools.  If people want to live an alternative lifestyle, fine, go for it.  But don't teach my kid about it or hand out books for them to read.  I think it's that simple.  Sizemore Simple.

Well, Sean, just be sure you never let your kids go to the library. They might find a book you don't agree with.

I guess, to make a general statement, is that this issue just appears to be shifting power from the GROUP to the INDIVIDUAL.   Successful societies have always let the GROUP decide what is best for the GROUP.  Not letting INDIVIDUALS decide what is good for the GROUP.

We have the death penalty because it is good for the group to have that individual no longer in the group.

In the topic of same sex marriage, we are risking what is good for the group, just to satisfy some individuals.

And you'd have to think that if we become a society where every individual can just decide what is legal and what is not, then we approach a state of complete anarchy.

One of the big arguments that gays are using is that it is not fair / a violation of their rights that they can't marry. I disagree with this argument - my view is that they may want to very badly, and they have the right to want that, but just because they can't doesn't mean they're being discriminated against.

So here's my analogy - John grew up in Denver and loves the Colorado Rockies. It's been his dream his whole life to play for the Rockies someday. And he is a good baseball player, but he can only hit - he just isn't good at fielding. So the only position he can play is designated hitter. But the Rockies are a National League team - they have no designated hitter. So, the league tells him that he can't play designated hitter for the Rockies. John's crushed, that's the only thing he wants to do, but the league won't let him. Is this a violation of his rights? He could play designated hitter for the Yankees, but he doesn't want to play for the Yankees. Or he could do something else (pinch hit) for the Rockies, but he feels that isn't good enough, he wants to be a designated hitter.

Obviously this is a somewhat silly and not totally analogous situation, but it's the best thing I've come up with to illustrate my view of the "equal rights" argument. John isn't being discriminated against, that's just the way the league works. He can choose to play for another team, or he can choose to do something similar to but not the same as designated hitter. He could also do something more radical - convince the Rockies to move to the American League, or convince baseball to change the rules so the National League does have a designated hitter. And that's legitimate - I'm not saying gay people should not have the right to attempt to convince others to change laws. But calling those against gay marriage intolerant or discriminatory or denying of equal rights, I don't think is legitimate.

Anyway, sorry if that was way too weird. It was just on my mind, so I figured I'd post it. Chalk it up to baseball withdrawal :-)

The same argument could have been used to argue why black children couldn't go to school with white children.

I think in this example it's simply a question of why in the world are they giving books like that to kindergarden children.  My idea of an education for my 5 year old is simply reading, writing, math, etc.  Why are they getting books about divorced families and gay couples?  Who the freak is deciding that's a topic for a 5 year old kid?  What's wrong with Dick and Jane and See Spot Run?  And who is writing stupid books like that and publishing them?  Why would that even come across someone's mind as a great topic for a 5 year old?  We all know that the topics in books for kids that age are pretty mindless and focus more on their ability to see words and recognize them.  See Spot Run.  Run Run Run.  That kind of thing. 

great point.  gotta agree with that.

I don't have a problem with books in general going home that are topics beyond See Spot Run - part of our "homework" with Jared is for us to read to him, and in that case the parent is reading things that the kindergardener can't. We read the Magic Treehouse a lot, not diversity books, but same idea applies. I don't have a problem with a bag of books being sent home that we can choose to read from. I have a slight problem with it being a diversity bag, because I think diversity is pushed a little too much -diversity is fine and all, but I don't really see why it's an end in itself (that's another topic, though). But I agree with Charlotte that the presence of a book I don't want to read to my child isn't so terrible, I can choose to read it or skip it or discuss it or whatever.

I think the more concerning thing is that this book brought to the attention of the parents the school's policy on encouraging discussion of homosexuality, and they then requested that they be notified before it was taught to their child. That seems reasonable to me, but the school refused that request. I think this individual parent did push above and beyond and was probably a bit out of line - he was trying to make a point. But Charlotte, I don't really think it's fair to resent him for wasting tax dollars. Plenty of gay people have protested and been led away in handcuffs, as have civil rights protesters and others. Protests seem to be fairly acceptable in society when there's something you want to call attention to, I don't think his case is all that different.

On my baseball example, I know it is silly and not perfect, but I don't think it's the same as arguing black children can't go to white schools. I said that John could play for the Rockies, just not as a designated hitter. He can't have the relationship with them that he wants, but it's a relationship. Anyway, I guess it doesn't quite fit, but then marriage is a unique relationship, that's the point. And equating it to civil rights doesn't feel fair to me. I am not saying a gay person cannot be married, just that they can't be married to another person of the same gender. If you allow them to do that, then you are modifying the accepted definition of the word marriage. I don't have a problem with them trying to modify it - that is, I don't want it to be modified, but I recognize their right to legally change the definition. But it should be truth in advertising - it's not being recognized/awarded a right they already should innately have, it's changing things to modify their rights.

This is all words/semantics, so I think it's very difficult to talk about - you get stuck on what the words mean instead of the point that you're trying to make. One more try - it seems to me that a reasonable definition of discrimination based on a trait is that you substitute the exact same person but with that trait different and they would be treated differently. So if Jane is black and wants to attend a school and is told she can't, but if I am identical to Jane in every way but have white skin, I can attend, that's discriminating against her because she is black. If Jane is gay and wants to marry Mary and is told she can't, and I am identical to Jane in every way except I am not gay, I can't marry Mary, either. So I don't see this as discrimination against Jane - neither of us can marry her. If Jane is gay and someone calls her names or refuses to employ her, or something else like that, that's discrimination, but sticking to the accepted definition of marriage is not.

 Amen, Aimee.  Well put.

Wow, Aimee you really put a lot of serious thought into your explanation.  Saw a clip the other day where several black men said they were offended and insulted that the gay rights would in any way be compared to civil rights.  Their point being that gays had a choice but black people could not choose the color of their skin .  But there again is the argument as to whether or not gay tendencies are nature vs nurture and obviously there is no question that black skin is nature. 

I like having excuses to think. Doesn't mean that my thinking is perfect, but it makes me feel better to think that I have some logicality in my beliefs (I seem to be making up a lot of words lately).

I saw the same video, Valorie, and I don't know that I was really convinced by it. I think most gay people believe that it is genetic, not a choice. I am not sure either way, and probably there is a continuum between nature and nurture tendencies.

Here are my final thoughts.

 

My point has always been that it's important to think about the downstream ramifications of your vote on any issue.  I think too many people read the headline and make a decision on an issue without probing deeper.  For example, I'm pro-alternative energy and anti-crime - but voting against both of those things on our CA ballot based how what I think that props really mean and would do. 

 

IMO we've been admirable on TF thinking through all of the issues and possible scenarios.  Even after much thoughtful consideration, however, people will have fundamental differences for a number of reasons and that's fine.  For same-sex marriage, I think the most salient fundamental issues are, 1) To what extent is homosexulality a choice? and 2) Does God exist and how does He feel about homosexuality?  If you don't start at the same starting point, no amount of analysis will get you to the same end point. 

 

This is Chris Severson - signing off (but it's been a wonderfully fun).

I think skin color is by choice. I change mine, why can't others do the same?

On another note.  I'd like to thank Bush for all his hard work to bring Gas Prices down.  People complained and he listened!!  What a great President!

Yeah thanks to everyone for such thought provocative conversation.

$2.49 here in Salem.   I'm trying to find ways just to burn gas now, so I can go fill up again.  I'm so excited.

Geoff, you are on the wrong blog. 

$2.39 now on State street.  Oh, and I think OJ is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Well, it's election day.  Good luck everybody.  Will election results spur another onslaught of political discussions?

I'm not going to join the debate, which I think is (hopefully) over on TF, on whether one should vote for or against Prop 8.  My only comment is how sad it's been for me to see the backlash against people who choose to voice their opinion in favor of Prop 8 (I'm not talking about the discussions on TF).  Friends of ours had their house egged and cars keyed last night for displaying a yes on prop 8 sign.  My parents' signs placed on their own property have been repeatedly stolen and destroyed.  Several friends have been criticized, called names, and otherwise verbally abused for stating they would vote yes.  It's sad to me that people who are proclaiming "tolerance" and "fairness" are themselves acting extremely intolerant of others' freedom of speech.  They are hoping for a future with fewer hate crimes against homosexuals, and feel that the way to achieve this is to commit hate crimes themselves?  Obviously this is a small number of people taking such actions, and doesn't represent the general will of those who support gay marriage.  But it's clear that it's not a one sided problem - the hate and intolerance is not one directional.  Can't we all just get along? 

Our signs have been written on, stolen and ripped apart, and thrown into the gutter. It is sad. Politicians like Feinstein and others have created this hatred by trying to link the proposition to discimination, which it is not.  Its merely a definition of what all of us know is correct in a pure legal sense.  We must always function legislatively in ways which  preserve moral values and protect us in the same manner as the laws enacted to preserve our liberties.

My cousin Trista in Modesto has had the same problem.  She's had all of her Yes on Prop 8 signs stolen from her yard and all of her friends have had the same problem.  I guess it's getting kind of ugly down there.  A friend of hers kept getting his McCain signs stolen or thrashed so he made a huge sign that says "Obama supporters trespassed, vandalized, and stole my McCain-Palin sign violating my 1st amendment right.  Do it again and I will show you what my 2nd amendment right is all about!"  Funny.

haha sweet. 

We lost our security force with the recent move of Deja to Utah. We had our Prop 8 sign placed near the front window, so that Deja could see it and bark whenever strangers came on the property.

Dejah moved to Utah?

that is really awesome about the sign.   And yes Laura, I have wondered too why some people fail to see if someone chooses to defend their belief or right, it is considered discrimination.  But then you see behavior like you mentioned, and it isn't defined the same.

Yes, Deja decided she wanted to be with her Mother, Alesha.  So she was transported via St. George. So far, she enjoys Utah, although she had a  slight kidney problem at one point. Maybe we can get her on Turtle Fox, too? She misses some of  her neighborhood boxer friends.

This biggest question is... how is Valorie doing without her?  What does Alesha do with her when she is at work.. there isn't a fenced yard.

She is not taking it well. She would have rather that I moved to Utah and Deja stayed home. Its hard for her to be an empty dog nester.

Ya, she can't be doing well without Deja.  And same question, there's no fence so how does that work?  Better not let her run out in the street.

That was my concern over the whole thing. But Deja seems to be adjusting. She likes the challenge of making the escape from an open gate or door more than doing it in wide open spaces. Sort of an Alcatraz effect.  Like when we camp, she never leaves the campground.

Ok, quit talking about me behind my back.  I am fine with Deja being with Alesha--she is only on loan while Tyler is in China.  I have to retrain my brain that she is not always out there but otherwise I am good.  Deja plays with Melissa's dog and is getting the royal treatment of sleeping on the masterbed at night.  Doesn't compare to her rug in the garage in FV.  Laura, you couldn't have said it better.  I am shocked that the opposition would do so much vandalism.  I think a lot of ours are the HS kids as they walk back and forth from school.  They have really strong feelings about this--funny as they were the ones picking on the gay students no too long ago. 

Man, I'm watching my Child Tax Credit vaporize before my eyes.  An instant $4000 more I will owe on taxes.

HA HA That was a good one, Robie.

Does this mean I have to trade in my gun for a rainbow sticker?

ahaha, wow.  Osama Hussein Biden Laden?   I am really surprised.

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content%5fid=e1f83189-843f-41d7-84c4-2029fbd9a2ce

Watch the U-tube--2 Mormon missionaries invading lesbian home looking for their wedding rings. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

Yes on 8 campaign today condemned as "bigoted and intolerant" a new 'No on Proposition 8' television commercial scheduled to run on TV stations tomorrow and demanded that No on 8 campaign leaders, including US Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and California Schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell publicly denounce the ad and urge television stations to refuse to run it.

 

Well, it looks like 8 passed.  Probably the only good news out of this entire election.  Well, except that in California chickens and cows now have more rights then an unborn child.  That's good too.

i LOVE that commercial.  It is hilarious!   I love when people get creative.  It was only lacking intelligence, but the comedy was great.

What gets me is that 95% of the precincts have reported the results of Prop 8, but none of the press are willing to say it has passed. Its over 400,000 votes ahead--how much ahead does it need to be?

My friend Larry Crandall got reelected here in Fountain Valley, councilman. That makes me very happy.

They still haven't announced it officially? 

I saw that prop 4 failed.  So minors can't get tattoos or piercings without parental consent but an abortion is fine.  That's amazing.

I'm pretty sure that they have officially called Prop 8 passed by now. Or at least the press is mostly saying so, although opponents are still holding out hope until every last ballot is counted:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_10901475?source=most_viewed

There also looked to be articles about the gay community planning legal action against Prop 8, saying it's against the state constitution, which I don't quite understand since I thought the point of the propoistion was to change the state constitution. But the web sites are so slow I haven't read the article yet, just the headlines.

I am happy that our local school bond passed. And actually I think most of the Oregon measures went the way that I voted, except possibly 64, which was tied last time I checked.

Okay, read the article, a few quotes although I figure nobody wants to discuss this here anymore, which is fine if you want to let it drop:

While refusing to concede that the ballot measure has passed, gay marriage supporters nevertheless filed a petition with the state's high court in the event the current vote holds...
argue that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples...
The legal challenge maintains that Proposition 8 is invalid and takes away a "fundamental right'' from "just one group — lesbian and gay Californians.'' The petition argues that the state constitution cannot be amended if it violates other constitutional rights.

I already expressed my opinion on this, that it isn't a matter of giving one group different rights than others of a different group, so I'll stop now :-)

I think they haven't officially called it yet because of absentee ballots.  Most likely won't change the results, Prop 8 will pass, but I think they're hesitant to say for sure until everything is counted.

Brad said he thinks there should a court decision BEFORE a proposition is even put before the voters that it is already constitutional so there is none of this after the fact--after we have spent millions of dollars to get something passed. 

That would have been a good idea - good thinking Brad! I have to say I am a little pessimistic about things - it passed for now, but the gay rights backers are not going to give up, so it seems they'll keep pushing it in the courts or the votes until they win.

Every time a  controversial proposition is passed, those in opposition try to take it apart by stating that it is unconstitutional. This happened with Prop 13 here in California, a major tax cutting effort which was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in 1978. It has been put through the courts a number of times, and it still stands. As a result, seniors living on fixed incomes in California enjoy lower property taxes than other states where homes are worth far less. I think the voters decision should be final, and the proposition should be examined and cleared by the State Supreme Court before it is put on the ballot. This might not be a normal precedence of review. but if it could be initiated, it could save alot of court cost, uncertainty, and waste in election expense.

Well, I've been browsing through some anti proposition 8 groups on FB.  It's like a hornets nest and they are all up in arms about it.  There's a number of riots planned this weekend of course and I've seen people suggesting interupting church meetings on Sunday by storming the chapels.  Hopefully it doesn't come to that I guess. 

 

 

I agree, it is very sad. I read an article today about some people picketing the LA Temple. I know people have different opinions and that those who were against the proposition are very upset, but it doesn't seem right to take things out on a church.

Yep silly people. Won't bug me at all.  Try interupting our sacrament meeting.  :)

Here is the link to the video of today's events at the LA Temple

http://www.latimes.com/video/?slug=la-me-protest7-2008nov07-vid

Wow, got worked over by some samoans.

Yep, don't mess with our Samoan brothers. Our supreme protectorates!

Wow pretty passionate video. 

Although I was sad to see violence happen, even though we obviously don't know exactly what happened. I think it's important for church members to take the higher road and not give people any ammunition to use against the church.

Its true, we should not react with violence or hateful speech. It only furthers the cause of  those who merely don't understand who we are and what we believe in.

yah, i was glad when they were ripping the signs off our property, but the nasty language really shot themselves in the foot.  I wish they woulda just did some needed cleansing, and not yelled profane words.

I heard someone on the news from the Catholic church really defending the Mormons.  Also it said 70% of the blacks voted Yes on Prop 8. 

Here we go...  After 31 years some intelligent judge overturns it.  Watch all the adoption agencies in Florida start closing now.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_re_us/gay_adoptions

 

 

ah, and now the theory that "there is no victim" comes into play.  I would think an infant/child is very subject to becoming a victim, without any say, in being raised in a gay home.

good quote at the bottom of that article - "Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."

Great point.

The judge says there is no scientific reason to prohibit it.  I'm not sure what she's looking for.  Seems everything I read and hear says that children learn different behaviors from mom and dad.  What else proof do you need?  The 8 year old exclaims that 'now they are a family'.  Kid never had a chance....

I read this very interesting article from France.  I wish I had the link so you could read it yourselves, but here is a synopsis.  France is a very progressive country and they looked seriously into gay adoption/families.  They spent lots of money and time researching the effect of gay parents on children, looking to the Netherlands, England, US for research material.  France has interesting "rights" rules, one of them is that children's rights supercede those of adults.  What they found was that it did great harm to the children, emotionally, culturally (and also in another way, but I can't quite recall the word they used for it) and that in turn affected the society as a whole.  They ruled that gay couples could not only NOT adopt children, they could not conceive children using a surrogate mother or by in-vitro fertilization.  They concluded that the adults had less right to be parents than the child had to be raised by a mom/dad partnership.  I thought that was a very interesting take on the whole idea.  I am glad France stood up for the children.

Well its about time France got something right.

BINGO paperboy. I was going to say the exact same thing.  It's surprising anything like that would come out of France but I totally agree with their conclusion and think that children's rights should come before adults. 

Yeah, remember when I said that France opposed gay marriage in a previous comment on this blog (the 16th one) and how 9 countries had legalized it and the social repercutions?  Interesting how the US has stated the effect of one parent families on children and has instituted programs like Big Brother so that kids have the "father-male" figure in the kid's life but then say it is ok to have 2 moms or 2 dads and that is emotionally ok for a kid.  The other day Dr. Laura made an interesting assessment.  She was speaking with a girl that was asking if she should try to reconcile with her dad.  Dr asked why she was estranged and she said her dad had said that she was raising her children in a satanic environment, etc. etc.  She told her she was a lesbian and was raising adopted kids in her home with her partner.  Dr asked why she would want to reconcile with her dad.  She said because she loved her dad and he had taught her a lot.  Dr asked if she loved her mom.  She said yes but they had both taught her a lot.  Just to let you know if you haven't listened to Dr she often has gay people call in and ask questions about their relationships.  She always treats them as she would anyone else.  But Dr is a #1 child advocate.  Children and their welfare come first--no exceptions.  So she ask this girl why she would want to purposely put a child in a situation that she herself was not wanting--to be estranged from a father figure?  This girl was about to adopt her 4th child.  Some may say well it is better than being in an orphanage or an abusive situation and that may be true, but really how many times is that really the case?

right, you can't base policies on the exceptions to the rule.  Like it's been said before, there are terrible moms and terrible dads, which are exceptions to the rule.  But, again, the best chance that any child has, no matter who thinks otherwise, is to be raised in a home with a solid father and loving mother.  It's been proven billions of times over.  Any country in any culture of any era can provide the research material to prove that. 

Well, talking to my professional politician boss, he thinks it will go to the state surpreme court first and be overturned.  You could cherry pick a judge to overturn anything if you want to.  Hopefully this won't last long.

 

 

Jay sent this to me earlier and now it's made Yahoo news.  I got a few chuckles out of it but it is anti-prop 8.  I thought they sort of made the anti 8 point of view look kind of ridiculous and I thought maybe for a moment it was pro 8 but alas in the end it isn't.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/ap_en_ce/prop8_musical_video

 

Boooooooooooo

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban

 

I just saw that--that is sad.

As much as I try to be positive about this Presidency, I think that is just the first of many poor policy changes that are going to be made.  I was hoping it wouldn't but it's already happening just a few days in.

 

I saw the closing of Gitmo which I guess I have mixed feelings on.  I don't really know enough about it to say.

I am real positive about him freezing the white house staff's pay.  I heard he is suppose to get rid of lobbyists which would be great, but we'll see.  I head one guy released from Gitmo went and joined al Qaida.  I don't really want them in a prison on our soil but the thought is it is too far away and cannot be monitored properly.  One of the 9-11 prisoners will not be prosecuted as he was supposedly tortued.  Seems like you could just fix the system and keep it but probably no warden wants to live there. 

Reopen Alcatraz and use it. There are only 255 prisoners left in GITMO. Mc Cain and even a majority of Americans favor closing it. It has too much of a stigma attached to it, and we need to do all we can to restore relations with the World after Bush and Cheney destroyed our credibility. It  was a campaign promise he made, and he's keeping it.

Yes I was glad to hear about freezing the staff's pay.  Maybe that will help pay for the record by 4x $150,000,000 inauguration.

$100,000 a year in Washington DC is poverty level. Now they will have to get food stamps. Or maybe just Fred Meyer gift certificates?

Interesting to read that Kennedy took his salary and donated to BSA and Girl Scouts of America.  Clinton raised the Pres salary from $200,000 to $400,00 per year and Obama is taking a cut from his last job. 

let the flood gates open.  I think this is the beginning of a bunch of crazy moves like this.   So, let me see if I can follow Obama's logic here.  Earlier in the week, he shouts that we all need to take more responsibility, stand up together, and earn our way back to a great country.  Then today, he indirectly supports abortions, which in some ways promotes promiscuity, lack of self control, which leads to a whole bunch of other issues that will burn more tax dollars. 

Whats next, Pres?

It all started with Roe vs. Wade, a decision that forever changed the face of abortion in this country. 36 years from yesterday, 7 Chief Justices voted to recognize a "womans right to choose." Of those seven who voted in the majority, 4 were appointed by Republican Presidents (one by Eisenhower and three by Nixon). I do not agree with this decision, but I feel as though I am in an increasing minority. I fear the same for Prop 8. When it reaches the highest court, I feel it will become a rights issue and will thus be struck down. The silent and unborn do not seem to get the rights as others. Its  very sad. 

Most women chose when they said ok to the men.  Sadly there are some who had no choice and for these women I say we help them all we can.