Marriage Does Not Define Same Sex Unions

This term is what is used to define a union between a man & man or a woman & woman. It is being incorrectly used and I think the gay community should be offended.

Here we go again.

Maybe. It's been on everyone's mind more than it probably should. It has been discussed on this blog more than once. Mostly because this is where I put my possibly offensive political and religious opinions.

So what's different?

Nothing, everything. I'll start with quickly defining marriage. It is used to define a union between a man and a woman. The word marriage actually includes both man and woman in it's etymology. The latin "matrem" means mother and the latin "monium" means the action, state or condition of. Together they define the creation of a state where the woman becomes a mother. The word actually defines traditional marriage.

But the world has changed.

Not really. 95% of women on the planet have been married to a man by age 49 (1). That means 95% of women know what marriage means. By sheer volume of understanding, the definition of marriage stands.

But the laws & rulings?

There have been laws passed and rulings made in the last decade that have been trying to change the definition of the word. We can all vote to change the meaning of water, but water is still two hydrogen and one oxygen in a chemical bond and no amount of money and lawyers will change that.

So gay folk can't get married?

Yes. Society has bombarded them with the idealism of marriage their whole lives. Why shouldn't they want to add that label to their unions? They love each other, they want to start a family, they want to be just like everyone else...but they're not.

How rude!

Stop right there. What is wrong with not being like everyone else? They go on parade celebrating their differences. They fight in court to have rights applied to them as a seperate protected group (and rightly so). They have gone out of their way to point out how they are proud to be different.

But they're not?

This argument is much like a stereotypical Feminist demanding to be a man. Not demanding the same rights as a man, but demanding to legally be a man. Not a sex change, that's a whole other discussion. She demands to have her birth certificate say man, her employment records to say man, her tax returns to say man, legally a man in every way, but she's still a woman. A true feminist would find this idea offensive. What is wrong with being a woman that you would need to legally be a man? Fight for the rights not the label.

How does this apply to gay marriage?

They're fighting for the wrong thing. The label does not define them. They will forever be fighting people to agree with their new label when it does not fit them. Just like a the woman above arguing with someone that she's a man when clearly she's not. I think the gay community should be offended.

Well, they are mad.

They should celebrate the virtues that make them who they are. Not try to conform to a label that they can never live up to. The gay community needs to understand this before they find that their victories are hollow.

Hollow victories?

Yes, this is not like slavery. Slavery was about denying human rights to people who are human. Gay marriage is about fighting to obtain a label to define something that label does not define. Many of the rights are already available and more are being won every day without the offending label. So it doesn't matter if you are fighting to call alcohol water, when what you want is the right to drink alcohol.

And can get drunk?

This is not something that goes away with the generations. 100 years from now they will still know the etymology of marriage. They will still know that 2 men or 2 women cannot have children on their own. They will still know that a happy household with a mom & dad produce happier and healthier children. If it looks like a goose, walks like a goose, honks like a goose it's not a duck, but it doesn't mean that geese are lame.

Honk if your gay!

Do not hate your brother's & sisters because they disagree with you. My gay friends are dear to me and I am tired of them hurting over something that shouldn't have hurt them at all.

Be equitable.

The Supreme Court Ruling on Proposition 8

This is a quick explanation of the actual Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8. Unfortunately it is not actually about Proposition 8, it is about the people's right to defend it.

Proposition 22

In California, voters passed a law (Proposition 22) in 2000 defining marriage. The Gay Marriage community threw money at it until they found a loophole they could invalidate it with. The decision by the California Supreme Court was that since the California constitution did not have any words about Gay Marriage in it, a law containing those words was unconstitutional. Proposition 22 was invalidated.

Proposition 8

Insensed at being disenfranchised by money and lawyers the people of California decided to change California's constitution to include the wording defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Gay Marriage supporters filed suit to prevent the initiative from being placed on the ballot. The California Supreme Court upheld the right of the initiative to be placed on the ballot. It again passed and the Gay Marriage supporters went to task throwing money at the problem trying to find a loophole.

Proposition 8 Upheld

The California Supreme Court upheld the Proposition 8 as voted. The case was then taken to Federal Court.

The People Fight Back

When suit was filed in Federal Court to get rid of the initiative that was passed by the people...again, the people who were supposed to uphold the law decided not to. It is the job of elected officials to defend the laws voted in by the people otherwise laws mean nothing. Governor Schwarzenegger decided to force his opinion on the people by not defending the case and allowing the plaintiffs to win by default. The people who passed the law asked to defend the law they passed and were allowed to be named as defendant in the trial.

The People go to Trial

The case was heard by the Federal Court and Proposition 8 was overturned because it was not in the state's interests to allow the banning of Gay Marriage. This judgement was from a self identified Gay Judge. It was in his own self interest to have Proposition 8 repealed and I'm surprised this was allowed. The people then appealed this judgement with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the Federal Appellate court for California. They ruled that the California Amendment to its Constitution was Unconstitutional according to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

US Supreme Court Ruling

The appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgement went to the US Supreme Court and they made an odd decision. But let's recap first:

1. Prop 22 passed.
2. Prop 22 repealed by CA Supreme Court.
3. Prop 8 proposed.
4. Prop 8 allowed on ballot by CA Supreme Court.
5. Prop 8 passed.
6. Prop 8 Upheld by CA Supreme Court.
7. Leaders won't defend law in Federal Court.
8. The people defend the law instead.
9. Gay Federal Judge repeals Proposition 8.
10. Ninth Court Of Appeals Upholds Gay Judge's decision.

So the US Supreme Court Ruling today was not to repeal Proposition 8. It was not to uphold the California Supreme Court Decision. It was not to uphold the Ninth Court's decision. What was it you ask?

The US Supreme Court ruled that the People are not allowed to defend a law.

What are we supposed to to when our leaders go against the public will? How are we supposed to defend ourselves? We cannot. Or at least that's what the US Supreme Court ruled today. If the Governor at the time, Schwarzenegger, had actually done his job Proposition 8 would have been upheld and would be in place.

Ramifications

The smart part of their ruling is that it has nothing to do with Gay Marriage. They completely skirted the issue. This will not affect states where the laws have already passed. Nor will it prevent future laws from being passed. This only affects laws challenged in Federal Court where the people with the standing to defend them refuse to do so. I can only hope that the case is refiled and the Governor steps up to do his job. For now:

Be legal.

The Definition of Marriage

I decided to look up the definition of marriage the other day. I was curious as to the exact wording that would be used. I was surprised to see what they had done.

All sources clearly state that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. No surprise there, this definition has been clearly defined in nearly all societies in history. Though they might recognize other unions, genders or relationships, the clearly defined rules of marriage has always been assigned to a man and a woman.

The entymology of the word relates it both to a man and a woman. The latin matrem (meaning mother) and monium (meaning action, state, condition), together meaning a relationship where the female becomes a mother. This can only happen in a male-female relationship.

Imagine my surprise when some of the dictionaries included a secondary definition including same-sex marriages. The defining of words is a unpassionate discipline that does not bend to the whims of society. If a word falls into general use in society, it's definition needs to be established and subsequently published. If a word is used as slang by a small group and fails to gain such widespread usage or understanding it is not to be entered and called slang. But there it sits, begging the question why?

How about widespread usage? How many people in society use the word "ideal" to mean "idea" (ie. I have a good ideal)? Or how many say "I have more then you" when they mean than? Do you find those definitions in the dictionary? No. Well, what does society think?

Didn't same-sex marriage just become legal in several states? Not by the will of the peoople. In fact, not a single US state has voted in same sex marriage. Whenever the people have been asked to define marriage they have said again and again that it means a union between a man and a woman. Those states that currently allow same sex marriage only do so because millions of dollars were paid to lawyers to make it so. And serving a small group's interests does not a definition change.

Common use is where we derive definitions from and the common use for these alternatives to marriage requires modifiers to avoid confusion. When someone in the media or just a person on the street wants to tell you about the civil union of a homosexual couple they say phrases like "same-sex marriage," "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage." There is a reason for this, when the general public hears the phrase "married couple" they know that means a man and a woman. Without the modifiers the word's meaning is clear and understood.

If I were to mention dry water an idea pops into your mind contrary to the word water. There are scientific publications that refer to a silica coated substance that is 95% water. It is dry to the touch and could be very useful in chemical applications. If that term were to gain widespread usage would dictionaries then add the "dry" definition to the word water? No, of course not.

By adding the same-sex entries definition of marriage, dictionaries have taken a political stance on the issue. As a percieved neutral source, this is a violation of the public trust in such institutions as dictionaries. I find this unconsionable, irresponsible and damaging. What other definitions can they be persuaded to change?

Be defined.

Musing on Proposition 8

I was thinking about California's Proposition 8 passed in 2008. I decided to look up how much the LDS Church actually donated to the campaign. I found a letter originally written by Kevin Hamilton and modified by Elizabeth Ogden Agle. Here is that letter:

1. Mormons make up only 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 750,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 36 million.^{[1] [2]}
2. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then out of a total of 5,661,583 yes votes, LDS voters made up 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.3% of the total Proposition 8 vote (11,050,301).^[3]
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign (only spending legal, non-monetary, in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58, to cover the travel expenses of leaders, website creation and management, YouTube videos, and negligent publicity - a letter and a satellite broadcast). Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.^[4]
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $36 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.^[5]
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.^{[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Proposition 8. San Diego County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Orange County voted in favor of Proposition 8. San Luis Obispo County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Sacramento County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Fresno County voted in favor of Proposition 8. And the list goes on and on: Merced, San Bernardino, Riverside, Mariposa, Tulare, Imperial, etc.^[11]
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.^[12]
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).^{[13] [14]}
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.^{[15] [16] [17] [18] [19]}
10. Though the Church urged its members to "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment," not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.^{[20] [21]}
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.^{[22] [23] [24]}
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

Written by: Kevin Hamilton and edited by Elizabeth Ogden Agle: "[While] I do not know [Kevin] personally...I decided to research them (and tweak a few since I believe they were written before the final vote count)...my list of sources that concur with the statements [are at] the bottom of the facts...Thank you for any interest. If the media wants to use these facts, they would need to contact Mr. Hamilton. Please also note Mr. Hamilton's disclaimer that accompanied the original text: 'Any errors are mine and in no way reflect official Church policy or doctrine.'"

SOURCES:

1. http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/usa-california
2. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
4. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
6. Parker v. Hurley
7. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
8. http://www.conservapedia.com/Parker_v._Hurley
9. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association v. Bernstein and Pester
10. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07091902.html
11. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01
12. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
13. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
14. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
15. http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/organization
16. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=282
17. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/5050/story?id=6137237&page=1
18. http://www.forward.com/articles/14521/
19. http://510report.org/2008/11/08/fremont-muslims-vote-for-prop-8/
20. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html
21. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
22. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0
24. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/pdf/26cfr1.501(c)(3)-1.pdf

I knew most of the information above though it was nice to see it all put together in one place. This was posted on a Facebook Group about Proposition 8.

Be tolerant.

The LDS Church Supports Gay Rights

On Tuesday (Nov 11^th, 2009) the Salt Lake City Council passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and educational institutions. Being that these ordinances involve equal treatment of gay and trans gendered individuals it is easy to assume that the LDS Church opposed them.

False

Yes, not only did the church not oppose them it actually gave it's support on the issues. You heard me right. The same church that supported a ban on gay marriage supported anti-discrimination laws for the same community.

Weird

That would be one word folks would use. Some groups used other words:

• Affirmation: "...applauds the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for endorsing the employment and housing non-discrimination act...It is commendable that the LDS Church is taking a step toward living up to its own teachings"
• Equality Utah: "This is a great step"
• Bishop Robinson (Gay Episcopal Priest): "And I think this may be the first gentle melting of what has been a pretty solid opposition on their part, and I really congratulate them for that."

Comin' Round

All this is fine and well. It doesn't surprise me a bit. Where I start running into a snag is when I hear statements like "the Mormon Church was at least at the very beginning of rethinking their stance," "it's nice to see them finally coming around," and my favorite "Proposition 8 was a big black eye for the church and now they are trying improve their image." This shows that most people don't know very much about the LDS Church.

The decision to support these ordinances fits right in with all our other doctrines. The late Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley has always counseled against hate and discrimination. In letters read in General Church meetings the leadership advocated to love our opposition. Even our own Articles of Faith state that people should be able to live according to their own conscience.

And the political stuff?

We have the unique opportunity in this country to not only vote our conscience, but to help persuade others to do the same. The LDS Church still does oppose gay marriage, as it always has. It still supports being civil with our brothers and sisters, as it always has. As for saving face, they don't care, they have never cared about what the rest of the world thinks about them. The LDS Church has never changed their doctrine to look good or to gain more members. They will, from time to time, become indignant or annoyed at other people's thoughts, but who doesn't. Such is the state of men.

Be aware.

Civil Wrongs

It seems that New Hampshire has jumped on the Gay Marriage bandwagon. Just like many other states that passed "Man & Woman" marriage laws. Also, like many of those states, the Supreme Couurt nullified the law and put in their own law allowing gay marriage. The reason they use to justify their actions is that the "Man & Woman"* marriage law was unconstitutional. I would like to quickly address three of these issues:
 

1. Unconstitutional - There is nothing in any of these states constitutions about marriage. That is why the law was originally put on the ballot. So the only justification they have for their judgement is that since it is not in there it is not constitutional. Really, that's it. My speeding tickets, sales tax and not eating ice cream on Sundays are also unconstitutional. Hey, we should challenge the speeding laws!
   
   
2. Civil Rights - The underlying defense the court justices also cite is that civil rights are at stake. We are all born with things that we have no conrtol over and there should be civil rights to protect these attributes. For example:
   1. Brain - We're born with it and everyone's brain is unique. Consequently we will all have different ideas and opinions. The first amendment protects this as well as portions of other amendments.
   2. Body - We have a body and it should be protected. There are many civil rights that touch on this including the Fourth Amendment, anti-abortion laws, the 13th Amendment & 18th Amendment.
   3. Progeny - We reproduce, awesome! There are many of laws that protect this.
   Gay marriage falls under none of these. Who and what we are attracted to is not determined by existence, but by the choice of the individual.* The protection afforded choices by individuals is only that they are allowed to make the choice.
    
   
3. New Law - This is what I find most offensive. Not only are these supreme courts going against the will of the people, but they are making new laws. Wouldn't that be nice if we could just get a committee and have them just give us all our laws? No, that would be a oligarchy which is also similar to a dictatorship, sovereignty or communism. That is exactly what we were rebelling against when we founded this country.

So I fully disagree with these rulings, but hopefully they piss off their public enough to do the right thing and vote in a constitutional amendment. Then it will be constitutional.

Be legal.

* I know that I've left two things hanging here. I will discuss "Why marriage?" and "Choice Attraction" at a later date.