Gay Marriage

Is marriage a right? Depends. Is gay marriage a right? Depends. What brings me to write about these questions. Anger at supposed guaranteed rights. Does our constitution protect the sanctity of marriage? I do not believe it does. Nowhere in the federal constitution is marriage mentioned, much less protected. Marriage was a province of religion until governments saw a chance of gaining revenue from regulating it. Therefore marriage began a religious institution, not a secular one. Does the federal constitution vaguely present support of gay marriage? Not really.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It appears to me that these two articles leave rights not specifically enumerated to States and to popular interpretation. Does this mean that states can constitutionally grant or deny certain rights? Certainly. Is this what California and many other states have done in recent years? Yes. Can it be done by referendum, or popular vote? Yes.
Is gay marriage an unalienable right, spoken of in the Declaration of Independence? I do not believe so. This brings up another point. It was stated that we live in a democracy, and that people had this right because of that. That point is flat out false. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. If we lived in a democracy, it would make the pro-gay marriage position even weaker than it is now. A simple majority would rule, and gay marriage would have been banned for over 2 years now in California, seeing as one law was already passed to prevent gay marriage.
So where does the issue currently stand. As of now, 3 cases are pending before the California Supreme Court, to decide whether this amendment was legally put before the California constituency. What will happen? Who knows? As has been represented recently in California’s Supreme Court rulings, gay marriage will survive. But at present this quote, I believe is law.
“Amending the California Constitution by voter initiative requires a simple majority to be enacted.[127] A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election.[127]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Living in the country we do does provide the general public to occasionally speak as individuals when addressing law. This time, as with most others, the majority rules. Some will say that the majority is taking away rights that were not theirs to take. Remember, at one point marrying 13 year olds was appropriate, as was marrying multiple women. Owning other humans was considered to be okay. But in the end, the majority ruled in those cases also; sometimes by might, other times by longsuffering and persuasion. In the end, righteousness won.
Like it or not, gay marriage is not legal in California. In three months, who knows? But until the courts rule, the laws as it stands, is the law.
I use this format to avoid conflict. Well based arguments are appreciated; opinions based on emotion are simply opinion. When both sides stand on fact, and arguments from both sides are considered by both sides, compromise and understanding will prevail.

Prop 8 Backlash

Beginning my blogging, I would like to state that anything written by me is opinion. I do not want or expect everybody to agree with me. I do not express the official views of any organization that I belong to, simply my limited understanding of what I believe to be true. With that said, there will be no more disclaimers written by me. If future viewers do not agree with me, and have not read this post, TOUGH.
Prop 8 passed in California during this past election. I agree with those who voted "yes". I agree with my churches stance, and support for this proposition. After reading some of the opposing rhetoric about this, I wanted to state my views.
Several articles and blogs I have read stated that the church and its members should understand homosexuals want to be treated equal: to marry, to be taxed as married people, to live as couples united in spirit, and the rest of that junk they believe is so great. They believe that since the government discriminated against our religious practices, to the point of sanctioning murder, we should understand their right to marry.
First of all, the LDS church never sanctioned violence against gays, nor did it sanction the unlawful confiscating of property, nor does it agree with the harassing of individuals to the point it causes expulsion. It did not threaten to torch the ACLU, nor has it falsely spread rumors that there have been threats to torch its' property.
It legally supported proposed legislation that is in line with its' own views of marriage and the family. It did not threaten its membership to support it at the voting booth, nor were(where I live) the leadership standing up every Sunday bashing us with the need to support this legislation. We had something of a similar vein in Arkansas, and I never was asked or told to support it.
Most people protesting now, are not even members of the church, some are however. To these people I say this, Stop trying to hijack our religion, go get your own. If you do not believe the brethren are making the right decisions, then you must not believe they are led by Heavenly Father. Why follow men who purport to be something they are not, this makes them nothing more than highly esteemed liars. To those non-members who are angered, SORRY. If you cared so much, you should have had a better game plan, more money, given more time to your cause. Do not be sore losers. It is pathetic. I have an idea. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Make a religion for gays who want to be married. Then marry each other. Churches used to control all matters of the family, especially marriage. The only reason the government got involved was to tax. If you create your own religion, eventually the government will give in, call it a "freedom of religion" matter, and allow all gays nationwide to marry. Why get mad at our church for supporting its own agenda. Should we get mad at PETA for supporting animal rights. Of course not, thats what they do. To be mad that they spent money supporting what they believe is downright stupid. I'm sure not all PETA members believe eating animals is bad, most probably agree that torturing them is. Not all members of any organization will agree on every decision of the leadership. Leaders are appointed, they make decisions, we live with those decisions or leave. Simple as that.

My point is this. One can only expect an organization to support its' beliefs. Is it okay to be mad? Yes. To protest? Yes. To pretend you do not now what it stands for when you know full well its' beliefs? No. To threaten violence? No. By all means, protest. Stand up for what you believe in. Try to advance your agenda. Do not expect everyone to agree.

Here are some pictures of our family on our oldest two childrens' birthday. The first is an image of our new condo( in front of the garbage pile, ours' is the orange one, spacious for 6), the second is our first real family photo, the third is the men hunting for dinner.