Let's Talk About California's Prop 8

Okay, first and foremost, a disclaimer. I don't really know what I'm talking about here. I'm not an expert and haven't really studied both sides of this issue.

But I just got back from California (lots of pictures are on the way...stay tuned), and it is a HEATED debate, this whole same-sex marriage thing. So I've been thinking a lot about it, and would love to hear your take on it.

Please forgive me if I say something insensitive or non-PC. I never have been very good at being politically correct anyway. And if I say something hurtful, feel free to correct me. But when you do, please keep in mind that whatever insensitivities I might have are due to ignorance and most certainly not hate. With that, I'll just jump right in...

If you read this blog or know me at all, then you must know that I am a Bible-believing, Jesus loving Christian. If you voted "no" on Prop 8 (or believe you would have if you lived in CA), then you're probably rolling your eyes right about now. Hang in there, please.

As a Christian, I have a belief about homosexuality that is most definitely not PC. I believe homosexuality is a sin. But me? I too, am a sinner. I am nothing more than a lowly sinner saved by Gods incredible grace and mercy. He loves me. He loves every sinner. His salvation is equally available to everyone, hetero or homosexual. And sin is sin...is sin. Murder is no worse sin than hating as far as God is concerned. I am heterosexual, but that most certainly does not make me "better" in any way than someone who is not.

As a Christian living in "One nation under God", I would have serious issues voting in a way that clearly contradicts God's teachings. We are blessed by God in ways that we're probably not even aware of. But history shows that there has never been a civilization to turn it's back on God and his ways...and continue to be under his blessing. I want to stay a nation "under God".

So why am I even writing this post? It seems I've made up my mind, right? Well, not really.

The fact that this issue is being voted on makes it a LEGAL issue, not a moral issue. So let's look at it from a legal perspective.

I believe strongly that "law" has a very specific place in our lives. If we try to legislate parts of our lives that fall outside that specific place, then we'll see our rights trampled every single time. We'll lose freedom. We'll lose choice. I'm not willing to lose those things. I doubt you are either.

What is that "specific place"? Laws exist to protect us from each other...NOT from ourselves. For example. You can be a raging alcoholic and damage your physical, mental and spiritual self. It's within your legal right to do so. But the minute your alcohol consumption brings you to a place where you're hurting someone else (or might hurt someone else), then the law steps in and says, "Whoah, that's far enough. You're infringing on someone else's freedoms now and I'm going to stop you."

It's my view of the law's place in our lives that is one of the reasons that has me confused about why Proposition 8 even made it on a ballot. Who are we protecting? Who is hurt by homosexual union? Are we trying to legislate morality with this proposition? If so, I'm not willing to go there. There are too many Americans that disagree with my beliefs to allow morality issues to make it onto a ballot. What's next? Is the law going to tell me that I can't tell my children about Jesus until they're of legal age to decide for themselves? This is a very slippery slope, folks.

I keep hearing about "protecting marriage" with this proposition. Honestly, I'm not even sure what that means! My marriage is not affected one iota if a homosexual union is allowed to take place. As for the Institution of marriage - what are we talking about here? From what I can see, the Institution of marriage is a mess already...with "open" marriages and adultery and convenience marriages and abuse and divorce running rampant. None of that will be fixed by anything we can vote on.

And if it's a moral issue..."we don't like it that people are homosexual"...well, that's not going to change with a ballot measure either. Voting against same sex marriage will not make same sex couples cease to exist.

The Institution of marriage & the moral debate about homosexuality....there are some things that the law can't do anything for...only Jesus can heal in these areas.

On the other hand...what if Prop 8 was shot down and same-sex marriages were allowed to continue? What would that look like?

The only thing that really would concern me (from a purely "me" perspective) is what it would mean to public schools. Would public schools then be required to teach that marriage between same-sex couples is okay? It seems to me that they would - it would be law after all. Now, all of a sudden, we're getting into my religious freedoms as a parent. If I teach my children that the Bible is God's Truth, and therefore that homosexuality is a sin...suddenly I'd be "hateful", "intolerant", and maybe in need of some special government mandated counseling (there are good reasons I love California, but could never live there). Again, we're getting into some pretty slippery territory!

Oh, what a mess.

And of course, there are the daily life questions that keep popping up. Generally speaking, a hospital will allow "immediate family" to be with a patient who is seriously ill. Should someone be able to have their partner visit them in the hospital and make medical decisions for them? Absolutely. If someone's loved one wants to be there and the patient wants them to be there, then that's a patient's rights issue, and the patient's wishes should be respected. But folks, that's not a legal issue. That's hospital policy issue (unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible). Get the paperwork done to express your wishes in the event that you can't make your own decisions. Get the paperwork done to make it clear who you want with you and who you want making your decisions for you.

Alright. This has become entirely too long. I'd love to hear from you. What do you think? What are your concerns? I know that there are people who I love and respect who feel strongly that Prop 8 should have been shot down (Esther?!)...I'd love to have you weigh in. I promise I won't beat you with my Bible :)

Erin K.  – (11/10/2008 10:40:00 AM)  

Great post. You made me think about this in a new way. I'm not sure that I've come to a specific conclusion on how I feel about it, but you've given me much more to think about. Thanks!

Anonymous –   – (11/10/2008 04:43:00 PM)  

Wow, Daiquiri, we are so in tune sometimes. You put into words just what I think and talk about to my husband but never think to blog about. Many people have not heard this, but this is a hot issue here in AZ too. We also passed a constitutional amendment mandating that marriage is one man, one woman. The reason it's not quite as controversial is because we're not CA, home of the liberal, and because gay marriage had not been ruled legal like it had been in CA.

I, too, differ from the usual Christian opinion on this matter, because of what I believe about the role of government. I believe in limited government--I believe in a government that is dramatically different than the government we have now. I believe government law can protect some rights--when they are rights and not just preferences. I believe that laws can protect us from harm. And I believe that laws can protect us from GOVERNMENT. (Good ol' abuse of power that no one is immune to.) But I believe, as do you, that law should never be used to impose our opinions/values on others. I get so annoyed by things like seatbelt laws and outlaw of trans-fats. If a person wants to risk his life by not wearing a seatbelt or by eating tons of trans-fatty foods, so be it. If he wants to gamble away his earnings or pay for sex (or if she wants to sell sex) then who am I to say it should be illegal? I might try to convince a person that it's not a healthy or godly way to live, but the government ought to get out of it. And I really tend to think government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all, much less telling gay people whether they should marry or not.

But when it came down to it, I voted for the constitutional amendment here. My concern is for that slippery slope of viewpoint and perspective. A change like this--allowing gay marriage--can completely change the way our kids look at the world when they're grown. I don't want them to grow up thinking gay marriage is as common and as normal as hetero marriage. Think about how our attitudes about teen pregnancy and divorce have changed. As we have grown more accepting of both situations, their numbers have risen dramatically. At one time in our nation's history, the fear of condemnation from one's community might have influenced people's behavior. And while I don't want to return to a time of shunning and judgment, I do think that once we start accepting something like this, our kids grow up thinking it is a viable option.

Anonymous –   – (11/10/2008 04:58:00 PM)  

We moved here from California a little or a year ago. I have not been happy with the schools there, because of the changes they are implementing. The Governor put into law that you can no longer refer to parents as Mom and Dad, because it might upset those children that have different home lives. What about my rights being infringed upon. They are teaching that "Heather has two mommies" is normal and acceptable. I was taught that was wrong. If this group is mad legal, what will be next? They have tried to legalize prostitution in SF. Will NAMBLA then come forward saying that they have every right to accost some little boy because that should be legal as well. Where does it end? Why should my children have to learn about things in sex ed that i find morally wrong. Would you like some teacher explaining to your kids how two men have sex? That has happened and will happen again unless sanity can prevail. If you complain to the school, your voice means nothing, as they know better than you. You are labeled a homophobic person.

When did i lose my voice in my own country. Sorry for going on so about this, but i get so tired of not being able to say what i think. Being PC sucks.

Marlayna  – (11/11/2008 12:13:00 AM)  

Maggie you are right being PC is exhausting. I voted YES on 8 proudly. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and only a man and a woman. As our pastor stated, this will undoubtedly pass some day, but in the meantime we have to stand up for what we believe in.

As for children being taught about same sex parents. I believe it is a sin and it is what I believe. I am sorry and so for my own personal reasons I do not want my children exposed to books and lectures about same sex marriages. Again, too exhausting thinking about everyone elses rights, I am thinking about mine and my family's.

And the legislators who overturned this over the summer were wrong, abuse of power. It was never voted on by the people and the people spoke on Nov 4th, loud and clear.

I feel this is a moral, religious victory and we have so few of those anymore.

Anonymous –   – (11/11/2008 08:35:00 AM)  

I believe the difficulty with this issue is there are several valid definitions of what marriage is. One is a union between two people recognized by our country that provides certain rights and the other is recognized by a church. Most marriages serve both purposes.
I am an evangelical Christian and therefore could not be married in the Catholic or Mormon church, but that does not make my union any less valid before my country or my God.
So, while I agree that homosexuality is a sin, I do not agree that our government is in a position to tell sinners that their union is valid or invalid. Which sin is next? I hope it is none of mine.
All that said, I'm not sure how I would have voted.

weelassie  – (11/11/2008 11:44:00 AM)  

I'm a Mormon and I also believe homosexuality goes against God's laws, and goes against the natural way we were created. I do not believe in the "born that way" argument, but--from personal experience with family members and lots of study--believe that homosexuality arises from a complex combination of environmental and psychological factors (so much so that a person may THINK he or she was born that way). I believe it is a preference, not something uncontrollable like race, which does demand rights, as in the case of laws being changed to allow blacks the same freedoms as whites. I disagree with people going and changing the definition of marriage that has existed since the beginning of time, just to fit the lifestyle trends of today.

However, I do believe in "live, and let live". People will choose what they want in their lives, and can't be treated as outcasts for it. I feel sorry that same-sex couples don't have the same hospital rights, tax benefits, etc. etc.

So, give them rights. JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. Call it something else. What do they really want anyway...do they want the rights? or do they want the label of marriage? By calling it marriage, you start to deny those who believe in "traditional marriage" their rights. If same-sex marriage was passed, then churches who do not want to perform same-sex marriage in their church would start to lose their rights and tax benefits. So it's not "equality" at all. And it IS a very slippery slope....it would be the beginning of "anything goes", and eventually chaos. That's why laws were created. Societies have always been governed by laws. So if you live under a government (or under God), you have to expect to abide by certain laws. And if you don't, you can't expect the same privileges. If a law is discriminatory, then let's work together to compromise and cooperate, but NOT change fundamental principles upon which society is based.

Unknown  – (11/11/2008 12:06:00 PM)  

Government has always legislated "morality" in one way or another. The question really is - What level of intrusion is society (you) comfortable with? Daiquiri says "Laws exist to protect us from each other...NOT from ourselves." Really??? Can you smoke marijuana legally? - last I checked, someone high on MJ was no more dangerous than a drunk. Can you build your own house without a permit/inspections? - nope, not even if you promise no one else will EVER live there but you. Can you legally take the one action that truly affects just you - Suicide? Nope, that's illegal too.

Government's role is, unfortunately, not as simple as most would assume. But in a nutshell, the government's role is WHATEVER the society which operates it says it is. So if a society (ours) established a government based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, then one can, and should expect that government to cross moral lines.

In my perfect world, the government wouldn't sanction marriage (hetero or homo) at all. Marriage is historically a religious ceremony. But, since ours does, I would have voted yes on Prop 8 if given the chance. Why? Because advocates of homosexual marriage have brought the debate into public schools in their attempt to legitimize the practice. My kids can now be exposed (indoctrinated) with this life view, against my will. Therefore, MY RIGHTS as a parent are infringed.... If you want a fight from this Libertarian, try and trample my rights!

Anyway, good topic Daq. :0) Final comment to Kimberly - I'm a Libertarian at heart - I don't care if prostitution were legalized, I don't care if you eat a diet of 90% fat, etc. Do whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect me. But! I do have to take issue with not wearing your seatbelt! As an individual trained in Emergency Vehicle Operations, I can state that an un-buckled driver CAN NOT control his vehicle during an emergency maneuver if he's not buckled in. Why? Some maneuvers are so violent in action that the driver would no longer be in the drivers seat if not buckled. If you could assure me that in this situation, no other cars were around & only you were going to die, I'd be ok with it. But since driving is a team sport, you put my family at risk & this is unacceptable - Buckle up!

Daiquiri  – (11/11/2008 12:18:00 PM)  

You know, Pat has a great point. I guess I mis-spoke. I should have said I THINK that law SHOULD exist to protect us from each other and not from ourselves. Clearly, there are places where the law steps over this boundary and does us the "favor" of trying to force us to do what's "best for us".

But me? I'll decide that for myself, thank you very much.

beBOLDjen  – (11/11/2008 03:11:00 PM)  

I took a couple of days to think this post over and came back to read the comments. I'd have to say most agree with Patrick in that he made the point I was already going to make about a society which regulates morality. Basially, to me, all laws are reflective of the morality of a nation. We legislate those things we collectively value or don't value either to promote them or discourage them among greater society and to me that is the whole of the law from a secular or nonreligious persepctive. As a Christian I would say I have Biblical values and so I have a responsiblity to cast my vote in a manner consistent with how I believe God commands me to live. Why? Ultimately because that's the kind of society I'd want to live in and by voting I am casting my vote for the kind of America I'd like to live in. Isn't that the point of democracy? We all get a say about how we'd like the country to be and whoever has the most folks agree with them wins? It's NOT a perfect system.... just better than most others.

Anonymous –   – (11/12/2008 02:25:00 AM)  

Hi. I wouldn’t have weighed in if Daiq hadn’t specifically called me out, because I’m a stranger in a strange land on this blog. And I'm late, because I don't check it every day. But, here goes.

For starters, I don’t associate homosexuality with sexual deviancy. For me, there is no slippery slope from homosexuality to child molestation, and it isn’t in any way related to prostitution. Those relationships are created by a dominant culture that lumps things together by defining them all as “other.” It’s fear-based. I’m not afraid of people who look different from me. I’m not afraid of adult, consensual love that looks different from mine. Daiquiri’s marriage is quite the opposite of mine, and I don’t pass judgment on her.

Anyway, I believe that it is not mine to judge the sins of others.

I see the marriage of my dear friends Sean and Bill to be genuine, mature, and enviable.

And now… vulnerable to be contested in court.

The thing that is so upsetting about the passage of Prop 8, and that caused so much grief among my closest friends, is that the vote was turned by a deceitful advertising campaign paid for in part by out-of-state money. Until days before the vote, polls showed California voters saying “no.” But then the ads hit. Obama (who is wildly popular here) was not in favor of Prop 8, as the pro-8 ads stated he was. That was a blatant lie. He has stated that he is not in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but he also said he was NOT in favor of a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.

And then there was the advertising suggesting that Prop 8, a constitutional amendment redefining marriage, was going to change what is or isn’t taught in schools. In theatre we call that a “bait and switch.” Wave the shiny thing over here so the audience doesn’t notice the rabbit going into the hat. Prop 8 is an attack on the rights of homosexuals. The parameters of sex ed are in the state education code already and are not in any way affected by this amendment. Yes, that shiny thing is shiny, but it doesn't have anything to do with the rabbit.

California education code mentions marriage only to require “respect for marriage and committed relationships.” In the schools that do talk about marriage, it isn’t taught until high school. And state law requires parents to be informed before “sex or other sensitive issues” are discussed. I know this, I’m in those classrooms, dealing with touchy subjects, in my case with pregnant teens, and the law ties our hands and for good reason. It’s absurd to think that last summer’s judicial overturn of the same-sex marriage ban somehow forces teachers to change their curriculum.

However, it is true that the judicial overturn this summer was a step towards the inclusion of homosexuals into mainstream society. If that’s what you have a problem with, admit it, as some folks have done here. I believe that if the vote had been framed around that question, Prop 8 would have lost in California.

And one more thing, for the person who thinks that we should give them rights, but just call it something else… How is that different from a “blacks only” drinking fountain in the US or in South Africa? If it is really equal, why does it need to be separate? And if it needs to be separate, then admit that you are withholding something, and that something is called equality.

Daiquiri  – (11/12/2008 08:49:00 AM)  

I'm so thankful for all of you who have weighed in on this topic. Especially you, Esther. I'm only sorry that you feel like a "stranger in a strange land" on this blog. I guess I don't think of us as all that different, but maybe I'm naive :)

I wanted to make one point very loud and clear: Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with prostitution or child molestation. I'm not accusing anyone here of lumping them together...they were used as examples to make points. But it needed to be said.

The slippery slope I referred to had nothing to do with child molesation or prostitution. It had to do with my rights, as a Bible believing Christian, being threatened.

EVP-M  – (11/13/2008 04:31:00 PM)  

Good for you. You have managed to do what many of my fellow Christians cannot. You have addressed this very controversial issue without ignoring the legal implications. I have often found myself having to defend my own views to other Christians. They seem not to understand how anyone who does not agree with homosexuality has difficulty with denouncing same sex marriage. I, however, can reconcile the two because I cannot ignore the fact that no law can possibly instill morality into humans; that must come from within. I commend you for stating the obvious, we are all sinners and that too should be taken into consideration. The institution of marriage cannot be injured or saved by any law either. In fact, and I'm sure many will not agree, I wonder if the very fact that homosexuals have to work so hard to attain the right to marriage will in actuality protect the institution as they may not be so quick to terminate it as others may be. The fact is that the institution of marriage has experienced a great decadence for some time now. In any case, kudos to you for such a great blog!

Anonymous –   – (11/15/2008 01:25:00 PM)  

Thanks so much for your post… The loud call for opponents of Prop. 8 to “get over it and accept the will of the people” is embarrassing for teachers of social studies and American government in California public and private schools. Clearly, at least 52% of California voters missed the lesson where we learned about how our system of government was designed with a network of political checks and balances to prevent what is called the “tyranny of the majority,” to ensure that our system of government ultimately protects the rights of minorities against what any given majority (religious in the case of Prop. 8) might care to legislate into law.

Perhaps the Prop 8 people also missed the news that a consortium of civil rights groups have filed suit against Prop. 8 (story at: http://equaljusticesociety.org/prop8/). They know that any legislation that curtails civil rights for one group that is allowed to stand, regardless of how they may personally feel about that minority, opens the door as precedent to legislate against the rights of another. Perhaps there’s another group out there who doesn’t like having Native American tribes own all those casinos, or business signs in only Spanish, Korean or Farsi, and perhaps we should do something about those obnoxiously ornate Mormon temples all over the place. And what about those Knights of Columbus? Does anyone doubt their intimate connection to the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps a majority of us should pass a law so that the entire American Roman Catholic church is taxed as a private corporation consequent to the political activity of their Blessed Knights. Perhaps those of you who hate one minority and would deprive them of civil rights might reconsider your political stand (not your religious beliefs) if you consider the precedent being set by Proposition 8. It may be their very beliefs that become the next target for oppression despite your personal belief in their universality.

Whether one believes the Earth is flat, that Adam walked with dinosaurs, that Shiva had six arms, that crystals cure cancer, that fairies live in willows, that Jesus saves you from your sins, or that people choose their sexual identity, your freedom is protected by that Constitution they are trying to change. God save them from themselves. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to try to keep America whole, and not let our system be torn by more hate.

Let me add, too, that one's perspective on Prop. 8 is different when you have a gay child. What would you want for your gay child? Oppression leading to promiscuity and secret liaisons, or a stable, legally secured home life conferred by marriage? Don't say "I want them straight." That is, nor ever will be, a choice.

Unknown  – (11/16/2008 04:55:00 PM)  

On a strictly political note, I have to take issue with your contention that supporters of Prop 8 are attempting to "change the constitution". The historical fact is that the progressive movement is attempting to make this change. The founding fathers did not recognize the "right" of anyone to participate in sex outside of marriage - be it hetero or homosexual. There were laws at the time banning both fornication and sodomy (some of these laws are still on the books - but are rarely enforced). There was also never a question in the minds of the founders about what constituted a marriage.

Therefore, this entire debate is a huge departure from what is stated in, or meant by, the writers of the Constitution. We should all be at least intellectually honest enough to admit that.

Also, as I've known people who have left the homosexual lifestyle, I must say that there is ALWAYS a choice.

And finally - if you truly want people to listen to your arguments, you need to get away from the homosexual advocacy talking points... specifically the "hate" speech. I've NEVER known a Christian personally who had any animosity toward gay people, but rather, the sin itself is usually the target. I do know, and admit, that there are Christians who preach hate - and their sin is as bad as any other. But you insult the majority of us who do not "hate" when your rely on talking points.

ldsneighbor  – (11/18/2008 09:21:00 PM)  

I recognize that there are good people with opinions on either side of the Prop 8 issue. I cherish the fact that we live in a country where we can discuss issues and have differences of opinion and still show kindness and respect for each other. My opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays can do what they want and can live with their chosen partner and live without harrassment or intimidation. In California they can register in domestic partnerships which have all the same civil rights as married couples. Prop 8 is not about "rights". It is about preserving the definition of the institution of "marriage", which is between a man and a woman.

Some have said that gay marriage is necessary because "separate but equal" is like racism of the past. Racism was wrong. But not everything is racism. Prop 8 is not like separate facilities for blacks and whites. It is more like separate restrooms for men and women. Men and women are different. Both are unique and valuable. Children need a mom and a dad. Both bring unique and complimentary approaches to the raising of children, the future of society. Redefining the basic definition of marriage would devalue marriage, as has been seen in places like the Netherlands, where the trends on marriage took a turn for the worse with more out of wedlock births after gay marriage was passed. And, ironically, most gays (90%) didn't even bother to marry. So the foundational bedrock institution of marriage was weakened and for very little benefit to a very small group. That's why a bipartisan commission in France recently concluded against recognizing gay marriage, saying that it would put the desires of adults above the needs of children.

"Gay marriage" is NOT about rights. It is NOT about equal access. It is not even about tolerating homosexual lifestyles. It is really about control. It is about mandating approval for a deviant lifestyle choice. It IS their right to enjoy their lifestyle as they see fit. But demanding "approval" from the rest of us is NOT a fundamental right. Elton John recently weighed in on this subject, and I think he was right on when he said: "If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

There needs to be a compromise on this. There WAS a compromise. Californians in 2000 passed Prop 22 which was statutory law saying marriage is between a man and a woman. The compromise was that domestic partnerships would provide gays all the same rights to choose their partner and live their lives. But in May 2008 four San Francisco judges ruled by fiat and legislated from the bench to overturn Prop 22. On Nov 4 Prop 8 was passed which contained the same 14 words as Prop 22 only this time as a CA constitutional amendment, so the activist judges could not overrule it as unconstitutional.

Nov 4 is history now. The People have spoken. Prop 8 has passed. The compromise has been restored. Unfortunately the results of the election and the will of the People are not being respected by some, including targeting individuals for retaliation of their support for Prop 8. Restaurants have been boycotted and picketted because someone who happened to work there donated $100 to preserve marriage. Scott Eckern was forced out of his 25 year job for his private support for the measure. Churches have been vandalized, the most disturbing case so far being an LDS church where a militant anarchist gay group told the Mormons to "dissolve or be destroyed". We have witnessed these increasingly intense events unfold almost in disbelief. The end of free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.

It is wrong to intimidate people for voicing their opinions and supporting a cause in a free and fair election. There is very little difference between that and people in other times and places that are threatened with their lives if they dare show up and vote. This has got to stop. I for one and not intimidated. If anything this strengthens my resolve to defend my right to voice my opinion and my right to participate in the democratic process. In the words of William Wallace, "you can take away my life but you can never take away my freedom." On the one hand I fear for the future of America. Then on the other hand I have great hope for the future of America, because of things like the passage of Prop 8 and knowing that the majority are people of goodwill and courage. America is only as great as her People, and the heart of freedom beats strong within the breast of every patriotic American. Things will all work out in the end, no matter that there are tempests before then.

The definition of foundational institutions such as marriage should not be left up to a handful of liberal activist judges to do social tinkering. The People need to have a say on this. In the words of Lincoln, "we here highly resolve ... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Here are some backup videos on this and related topics.

Prop 8 - In Plain English:

Prop 8 - More reasons to vote Yes (which have more weight in light of the recent Prop 8 protest intimidation and threats):

Why Prop 8 is not like the Civil Rights movement:

Mormons don't hate anyone:

Prophetic words of an LDS leader 30 years ago that ring remarkably true today:

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template Shush by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP