Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Big Deal.

Before I agreed to dial up utter strangers at the phone bank to help garner support for Prop 102, I had to analyze the issue further. Although major proponents of this constitutional ammendment do include the Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical and Jewish churches, I found that this issue doesn't necessarily boil down to religion vs. secularism.

Interestingly, even the secular/socially liberal French have published some incredibly strong arguments in favor of preserving traditional marriage (between one man and one woman), that have nothing to do with religion. These arguments are based almost exclusively on reproductive and societal pragmatism, given that the family is the basic unit of society. The vitriolic rhetoric (from both sides, I admit) during an election cycle is unbearable. I was reading the arguments for and against Prop 102 (which would "provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state"). One argument (against, perhaps?) stated that Prop 102 is "a pointless attempt by extreme right wing special interest groups to write hatred and bigotry into our state constitution." Once again, the hate card played because there are those who don't subscribe to The Church of Gavin Newsom.
I don't feel like a hateful bigot today. For voting to preserve marriage and the family unit as it has been since the beginning of time. Not since the 1950s. Not since the early 1700s. Not even since cavemen allegedly dragged their women into caves by the hair. But since the beginning of human history.

All that aside, I love this article that resonates with my personal religious beliefs on the divine institution of marriage. I do not want my children to grow up in a genderless society. It's been interesting to watch the silent majority of people wake from their former political apathy and get involved in this literally society-altering issue.


elizabeth bryant said...

amen (especially to not wanting your kids to grow up in a "genderless society").

just today, my incredible cousin received one too many "hate" comments on her blog for stating one of her political opinions. it makes me sick.

way to go, karen, for saying what you feel on YOUR blog! i love your guts!

Natalie said...

Thank you girl!! We're right on board with you!

michael h said...

Word. Today in my American Heritage lecture the theme was "The heterosexual marriage and family is essential to sustaining free societies." You can easily support that claim from a religious perspective, but as I learned in class today you can also support the argument from a purely secular standpoint.

Oh, and you've been added to the list of people who tell me Vancouver is one of the most beautiful places they've ever been. I guess I'm pretty lucky as far as mission calls go.

Reuven said...

We're starting to see Evangelicals question the wisdom of proposition 8.

jaredski said...

Don't tell Marc I'm blogging. I'm supposed to be preparing for the fantasy basketball draft.

Thank you for being so active on an issue that is so important. Check out this article, it's the best one I've ever read on the subject.


karen said...

that's interesting. A little cutting off your nose to spite your face. I read the reasoning behind this particular Evangelical church's "NO on 8" campaign, and the reticence is exclusively based upon the common misconception that the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints isn't Christian. Mormons are unequivocally Christian in every aspect. For more facts about the Mormon church, you're welcome to

[BrookeO] said...

Ok. Honestly best news ever so glad you are back blogging. I've got lots to catch up on...and Disneyland, oh my goodness, you guys are the coolest.

I just love ya, fun to have you back.

Brock said...


Becky said...

Yep, your words are put together well here. You know, my sis has been told she is a hateful person for having the prop 8 on her car. WE DON'T HATE PEOPLE! OK? People, get that straight! The fact is that we believe in God. This God is the God we believe created MAN and WOMAN. We believe that marriage is from Him, and that HE is the one that says it's for a man and woman. Not us. It's basic and that is the truth. No apologies and no hate in my heart.

Ashley Eddington Hoopes said...

"For voting to preserve marriage and the family unit as it has been since the beginning of time. Not since the 1950s. Not since the early 1700s. Not even since cavemen allegedly dragged their women into caves by the hair. But since the beginning of human history."

Hey Karen, thanks for sharing your views. When speaking of human history, you meant all of it EXCEPT those decades when a few of the
cavemen dragged in more than one woman. Guess times change. :)

karen said...

Good point.So do you think that the anti-prop 102/Prop 8 people are vying for polygamy to become legal as well? Or only two men or two women? What about two women and their son getting married? A man, his sister, and thier purebred Sharpei dog wanting to "tie the knot" because of fond emotions they have for eachother? How do you really think the opposition would like to COMPLETELY DEFINE marriage? Where is the line drawn? interesting subject. THX.

MarvelousMightyMommyMichele said...

one person made the comment that "you must be closed minded" to think that EVERYONE wants to marry someone of the opposite sex...hmmm...i just can't figure out how being "open minded" has anything to do with the simple fact that it takes a man and a woman to make another human. that's not my religous belief, that's just how it is? i've always sort of questions the motives behind having test tub babies, but i'm sure dang glad there are fertility drugs to help my body do what it was designed to do. let's keep our minds open to the fact that there in history many men did have more than one wife, they just had the first one killed and than the next and than the next...don't think i'm wanting that in my life, yet maybe i'll open my mind to it? or the fact that in many cultures it was just "known" that if a husband cheated on his wife with young boys that was OK? i'm sorry, i think the human race KNOWS better, religious or not...

Ashley Eddington Hoopes said...

Hey Karen,

No idea what the "opposition" thinks. Just putting it out there that the standards of marriage have changed since the beginning of time, especially with regards to the church. So, that the standard can be one man with twenty wives for one hundred years, and then one man and one woman for another hundred and then a man and his partner for the following century, does not surprise me.

As for that causing us to have a "genderless society", I have no idea how that takes place. Pretty sure that the gay and straight who have married in Massachusetts got to keep their genders.

Steve and Jenn Fletcher said...

Yeah, I loved that. Well said. It's so difficult these days to have strong conservative convictions and not be thought of as a bigot. Frustrating! So thanks for the calm, yet logical points you made here.


I just came across your blog and read some of it, and dont get me wrong, i think people are entitled to their own opinions, but why push those one others?
I believe in the fact it should be your own choice to whom you fall in love with and marry, but that's just me up in Canada where it's okay to marry who you want.

You know how it feels to fall in love and marry your sweetheart, why take that feeling away from someone else just because they're the same sex?

you cant help who you fall in love with, and there are plenty of children in this world to be adopted, i dont think it will turn into a genderless world.