Prop 8 is the proposition that will be voted on in California deciding whether or not homosexuals should be able to marry in California. In case you haven't heard, just recently, the state jury overturned the last proposition dealing with this matter (Proposition 22 in 2000) ruling it unconstitutional and same-sex marriage legal.
Matters are getting a lot worse. According to an email by Merrilee Boyack:
"The California Supreme Court has ruled that doctors in a private clinic, based on their religious beliefs, cannot withhold unnecessary medical care to homosexuals and lesbians. A San Diego area lesbian claimed that a private fertility clinic refused to inseminate her because of her sexual orientation. The Court's decision means that California's civil rights law barring sexual orientation discrimination trumps religious freedom laws."
Let's hope that the people of California have not become too liberal in the last 8 years and that the proposition passes (everyone vote YES), defining marriage as only existing legally between a man and a woman.
For your continued reading, read the commentaries on the newsroom website for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' on the proposition, and please, please, please get involved however you can!
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I've been trying to study this a lot lately and figure out really where I stand. I think it is really important to say that it is not about trying to keep people from being homosexual. We dont really have a right to say what they can or can't do so if they want to be homosexual, that is totally up to them. Civil Unions can be performed if people are looking for union for tax benefits, etc. but the Proposition is defining what the idea of "marriage" means which is the religious institution that goes along with the union of a couple. Keeping the term marriage as a sacred religious term is what the proposition is about. Marriage, as it has been defined since the beginning of time, is only valid in the eyes of God when it is between a man and a woman. It is just a term definition to keep that separated. If the state chooses to allow civil unions, that is another matter.
Hey Claire! I agree--this is so important. Ryan and I are the responsible for organizing our ward's efforts to distribute flyers all throughout our zip code. Let's pray everyone's efforts make a difference!
I agree with tammy -
The issue is not a rights issue, people should be able to obtain some of the governmental protections afforded married couples even if they are in a homosexual relationship.
The issue at hand is two-fold. Firstly, the term marriage with all of its religious and social implications does need to be protected and defended. On that note, marriage IS available to everyone who chooses to enter into it. Entering into marriage means that you marry, whether civilly or religiously, someone of the opposite sex. Anything other than this does not constitute a marriage. It needs to be decided what this union does represent and benefits need to be guaranteed by state governments through popular vote. These benefits can and ought to be somewhat similar to the benefits of marriage because it is otherwise discriminatory.
The other issue at hand touches on the nasty, backhanded, crooked way that the current "laws" were effected in California through judicial review. Just because someone does not like a law, they can not have it struck down by an judge who buys into their political agenda. The people of the state of California must decide the issue because that power is in THEIR hands.
Post a Comment