Thursday, October 30, 2008
CTA rolling in cash
I was disappointed that the California Teachers Association spent 1.3 million dollars in opposition to proposition 8. The next time the teachers want a raise (which I really think they should get, topic for another time), maybe they could just withhold their dues -- that would be like an effective raise. Or maybe they could go straight to the union. Sounds like they have a lot of extra money to blow.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Impact on future generations
I was driving home yesterday and saw a large home made sign on the corner with the question "how does gay marriage affect your marriage?" This is a common question that is raised by opponents of proposition 8.
If you had asked people 100 years ago whether smoking was harmful, I am sure they would have said "no, and certainly my smoking could not possibly hurt you (a non-smoker)." Today, with the benefit of hindsight, the dangers of smoking are clear -- to me in particular and to society in general.
Opponents of 8 often state that same sex marriages will have no impact on my marriage in particular nor on society in general. What proof do they offer? None. Can I predict what impact it will have? No. Not me either. Am I willing to risk the possible (and in my opinion likely) negative impacts to my children that might occur from redefining marriage? No. We have no idea where this will lead. It will likely be a generation or more before all the consequences are known -- just like with second hand smoke.
As voters, each of us is trying to use our own “crystal ball” to see where this will lead. There will be many, perhaps unintended, consequences if proposition 8 does not pass.
For instance, in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal, Catholic Charities recently closed its adoption program because the state mandated that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt. This is a clear demonstration of impact on religious freedoms. In Albuquerque, a wedding photographer was ordered by the state's Human Rights Commission to pay a large fine (thousands of dollars) because she declined to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony. She declined because of her religious beliefs -- another demonstration of freedom of religion being adversely impacted. There is the very real possibility that churches could lose their tax-exempt status for refusal to perform gay marriages because of religious beliefs.
The value of same-sex marriages will be discussed and taught within our schools. Because of Section 51890 of the California Education Code, teachers would be required to instruct children as young as kindergarten about marriage, which would have to include discussions of gay marriage. Just a few weeks ago, a class room of first graders was taken on a school sponsored field trip to witness a lesbian marriage at city hall in San Francisco. We have gone from what might happen to what is already happening. The California Teachers Association donated one million dollars to the campaign against proposition 8. Clearly they think it is an educational issue.
You can argue whether these consequences are intended or unintended, but regardless, I am hoping to protect myself from these consequences of changing the definition of traditional marriage.
Vote yes on proposition 8.
If you had asked people 100 years ago whether smoking was harmful, I am sure they would have said "no, and certainly my smoking could not possibly hurt you (a non-smoker)." Today, with the benefit of hindsight, the dangers of smoking are clear -- to me in particular and to society in general.
Opponents of 8 often state that same sex marriages will have no impact on my marriage in particular nor on society in general. What proof do they offer? None. Can I predict what impact it will have? No. Not me either. Am I willing to risk the possible (and in my opinion likely) negative impacts to my children that might occur from redefining marriage? No. We have no idea where this will lead. It will likely be a generation or more before all the consequences are known -- just like with second hand smoke.
As voters, each of us is trying to use our own “crystal ball” to see where this will lead. There will be many, perhaps unintended, consequences if proposition 8 does not pass.
For instance, in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal, Catholic Charities recently closed its adoption program because the state mandated that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt. This is a clear demonstration of impact on religious freedoms. In Albuquerque, a wedding photographer was ordered by the state's Human Rights Commission to pay a large fine (thousands of dollars) because she declined to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony. She declined because of her religious beliefs -- another demonstration of freedom of religion being adversely impacted. There is the very real possibility that churches could lose their tax-exempt status for refusal to perform gay marriages because of religious beliefs.
The value of same-sex marriages will be discussed and taught within our schools. Because of Section 51890 of the California Education Code, teachers would be required to instruct children as young as kindergarten about marriage, which would have to include discussions of gay marriage. Just a few weeks ago, a class room of first graders was taken on a school sponsored field trip to witness a lesbian marriage at city hall in San Francisco. We have gone from what might happen to what is already happening. The California Teachers Association donated one million dollars to the campaign against proposition 8. Clearly they think it is an educational issue.
You can argue whether these consequences are intended or unintended, but regardless, I am hoping to protect myself from these consequences of changing the definition of traditional marriage.
Vote yes on proposition 8.
My (limited) experience discussing proposition 8
It has been my experience with proposition 8 that there are several "branch points" that divide supporters and opponents.
The first is a belief in God. If you believe in God, and if you believe that God established the definition of marriage, you will probably find yourself supporting proposition 8.
The second is your beliefs about history. This “branch point” cannot probably really be called such since the historical record can be interpreted in so many different ways. Marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. Opponents to 8 would like California to take the lead in the nation (as we have in so many other instances, e.g. global warming) and establish practices and policies different than the vast majority of the other states in the Union.
I myself am uncomfortable with having my children and grandchildren being used in such a novel experiment. We have no idea where this will lead.
I find myself similarly perplexed with this redefinition of marriage. There is no obvious reason to change the definition. We know what we can reasonably expect by seeing how (traditional) marriage has served society in the past. Can anyone really predict how this will end if we tamper with traditional marriage?
I will be voting in support of proposition 8.
The first is a belief in God. If you believe in God, and if you believe that God established the definition of marriage, you will probably find yourself supporting proposition 8.
The second is your beliefs about history. This “branch point” cannot probably really be called such since the historical record can be interpreted in so many different ways. Marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. Opponents to 8 would like California to take the lead in the nation (as we have in so many other instances, e.g. global warming) and establish practices and policies different than the vast majority of the other states in the Union.
I myself am uncomfortable with having my children and grandchildren being used in such a novel experiment. We have no idea where this will lead.
I find myself similarly perplexed with this redefinition of marriage. There is no obvious reason to change the definition. We know what we can reasonably expect by seeing how (traditional) marriage has served society in the past. Can anyone really predict how this will end if we tamper with traditional marriage?
I will be voting in support of proposition 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)