MILK

I went and saw this a couple days ago and loved it. Sean is almost a shoe-in for a best actor oscar. If you get a chance, I reccomend going to see it.

I only wish that this film had come out in October so that people would have had a chance to see it before they voted in November. Maybe prop 8 would have turned out differently.

mixed emotions

yesterday our country voted, and in a huge victory, Barack Obama will be our next president. this is an important chapter in history that we are witnessing by electing a black man to the white house. i am proud that i voted for him. it makes me happy to see that the majority of the country, mostly the younger generation, are able to vote for a man based on the issues at hand and his vision for the future, instead of casting their vote based on fear of the unknown and the color of a mans skin. this country has come along way since Martin Luthor King Jr. stood up in washington and told everyone that he had a dream.

"Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........

yesterday our country voted. and by a small margin, proposition 8 was passed and the california constitution will be amended to restrict the right of homosexuals the freedom to get married. at a time when i actually thought that the country was moving forward in equality, when people are more then just tollerant, but ACCEPTING of people who are different then they are, we are now back to restricting peoples rights.

proponants for the proposition argued that this is only changing the definition of marriage, and that homosexuals in a domestic partership are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple. to a certain extent, they are right. but that is just like telling someone "you can ride on the bus, but you have to sit in the back". This picture was posted on Bradin's blog, and i think illustrates the point very well.



people knew that the outcome of this proposition would set the standard for more then just california. and that is why $20 million dollars was donated by members of the mormon church to support this proposition. most of that money was given by members who are not residing in californa, and because they were solicited by their church leaders to do so. the mormon church took a very strong stance on this issue, and did everything in its power to make sure that it passed. i have said alot in previous blogs concerning my feelings on the church and what it has done to support this, and i dont feel the need to say the same things over and over again. i will say though, that i am deeply saddened at this outcome. i am ashamed that we as americans still believe in hate and segregation. i am ashamed of those who voted in favor of this proposition, knowing that it was wrong, but still did so because their church leaders told them to. i am sad for my friends who now don't have the option to get married to the one they love.

i hold the LDS church responsible for this outcome. and i am sure that members of the church pride themselves in the fact that because of their donated money and support of their leaders, they succeeded in "preserving traditional family values". if you are concerned about the welfare of children in america and preserving traditional family values, why dont you now try to make divorce illegal for families with children as well. divorce is destroying gods family plan alot more then homosexual marriage ever will.

it is going to take me a while to get over this.

YES vs. NO

concerning the divine institute of marriage... pt. 2

for those of you who have not yet read any of my blog before this, i suggest you start by reading my post from Sept 4, 2008 entitled "recent thoughts". This will give you a background of where i am coming from before you read my post from yesterday as well as this one today.

on the website http://www.preservingmarriage.org/ they have 2 videos posted. yesterday i responded to the first one, and today i will attempt to respond to the second one. here is the video:




this video is set up as a Q&A format, but i think that all the questions asked were scripted so that the speaker could get certain points accross. he uses some of the same arguments as before, but i will again try to touch on some of his key points.


1- one of the questions that was asked was: "I think alot of people view the church's stance on this issue as an intollerant stance, and basically labling our (LDS) views as immoral, when we are really taking a stance for morality. How do we address that argument?" - alot of people (including myself) do infact view the church's stance on this issue as intollerance towards people that believe differently then they do. i don't see how this would be any different then trying to limit the rights of someone because of race or gender. i understand that the church has certain moral standards that they feel they need to take a stance on, but it doesnt make any sense to try and force your own moral code on someone who has a different system of beliefs. let me try to put this argument in perspective. lets say that the amish community decided that they wanted to pass a law in the state of Pensylvania prohibiting the ownership and operation of automobiles. would this pass? of course not. and why is that? because it would be forcing the amish's moral code on everyone else. now does it mean that we think the amish are immoral? of course not. they have the freedom as citizens of the United States to practice their own religion.


2- "One of the things that can occur over time is that if marriage is defined as a relationship between two of the same gender, there can be a decreasing tollerance for our beliefs as members of the Church..." - this is a reoccuring theme throughout his video. he states that eventually society will become increasingly intollerant toward the beliefs taught within the church. like i have stated before, you have a freedom of religion in this country to believe and teach what you want to your congregations. you have that right as an american. you also have the right to free speech. this is why there are still members of the KKK expressing their beliefs openly. You may not believe what they do, and you may not agree with how they go about teaching what they believe, but they have the same rights as Americans to say and believe what they want.


3- "It is not just wild and crazy to suggest that there could be sanctions against the teaching of our doctine because we focus on marriage between a man and a woman, and would not place on equal standing marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman." - actually, you are wrong. the slope is not as slippery as you make it out to be. you are still trying to make the same arugument that you did before by saying that people will be intollerant of your beliefs, and that they will try to take away your right to teach what you want. read my response to #2.


4- the question was asked how this will affect our children, to which he basically says that public school curriculum will teach that homosexual marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. to him is a "...very troubling and uncertain consequence..." - i have addressed this topic already in a seperate blog but i will address it again. just because someone is taught something in school does not mean that they will have to participate in it. if a teacher gets up in front of a classroom and teaches that it is legal for any 2 consenting adults to get married regardless of gender, then the teacher is teaching the children factual information. if the parents of these children want to then address the issue to their kids, and say that homosexual relationships are a sin, and that God does not sanction same-gender marriage, they have the right to do so. teaching children in schools about homosexual marriage will not turn your kids gay. if anything, it will reduce the hate and discrimination in this country by teaching children to be respectful to different belief systems. i don't see this as a negative in any way.


5- "Marriage, between a man and a woman is ordained of God" - i respect the fact that you believe this and that your church believes this. but please consider the separation between church and state. and also consider Doctrine and Covenants 134:9 which states: "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

concerning the divine institute of marriage...

there is a new prop-8 website that i just found out about this morning. this site is an official LDS church website. it is http://www.preservingmarriage.org/

at the top of the main page of the site there is a video. to save you the trouble of linking to it, i will post it here.




now, if you have read my last blog, you know that i have some strong feelings on this issue. i know that there are some people who disagree with my views, and i respect that. but i want to address some specific points in this video.

1- education on the issue - this is something that i will agree on with the makers of the video. i think that if you are going to vote on something, you should know what you are voting for and not just doing something blindly. i know alot of people personally who disagree in their heart with prop 8, yet they support it because the church told them to. the LDS church knows that a majority of its members will follow what they are told by the leaders of the church without question. why else do you think they have the statement at the bottom of the website "An Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

2- protecting religious freedom - this country was founded on the fact that people wanted basic freedoms, including the freedom to worship however they choose. the video mentions multiple times that this issue is "protecting religious freedom". if you actually think about it, religious freedom is NOT what is at stake. if gay marriage is legal, any religious organization still preach whatever they want about homosexuals and whatever they want about marriage. let me try to put it in perspective how dumb this argument is. currently, it is legal to purchase and consume alcohol in the united states. as someone over the age of 21, i can legally walk into a store and purchase alcohol for my consumption. yet the LDS church teaches against it, and they have every right to do so. if something is legal, yet you find it immoral, you can preach all you want against it in your church. it doesn't matter whether that be drinking alcohol, premarital sex, or homosexual marriage. you still have the freedom to preach and believe however you wish. that is a right in this country that is not under debate.

3- children have the right to be raised by a mother and father - actually, parents have the right to raise their children the best way they know how, and to teach them what they feel is correct. you have every right to teach your children that homosexuality and gay marriage is a sin, just like someone else has just as much right teaching their children about sexual equality and tolerance for others beliefs. the justices of the California supreme court wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individuals sexual orientation."

4- supreme court judges acting on their own against the will of California - 6 of the 7 judges on the supreme court that made the decision are conservative republicans. the statement they released as to why they overturned the ban was that: sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." this is a case of discrimination. personally, i like that the will of the judges on the supreme court is to stand up for the rights of its citizens.

5- "This is the most important thing that our generation will do, because it will determine the structure of our society for the rest of our lives." - i agree with this statement. previous generations fought for equal rights for women, which in turn shaped the structure of the society. then another generation fought for equal rights for African Americans, and now we fight for equal rights for homosexuals. i do not want to be known as the generation who denied the rights of others to be counted as equals in society.



there are alot of things that supporters of proposition 8 are saying to try and justify what they are doing. there have been lists circulating via email and blogs of the "6 consequences" if prop 8 fails. most of these arguments are untrue or misleading. Morris Thurston, an active member of the LDS church, graduate from both BYU and Harvard Law, has written a commentary on these consequences found here http://connellodonovan.com/thurston_response.pdf

if you are like me and agree with what i have said, send this blog and the link to Morris Thurston's response to your friends. the LDS church has become very vocal on this issue, and i think that people who oppose prop 8 and are for equal rights should be just as vocal!


(btw... here is another video i thought was apropriate)

recent thoughts

its been almost 3 months since i have posted anything on here. i guess i will just never be much of a blogger. anyway....

over the last few months religion and politics have been on my mind more then they have been in years. normally i don't talk too much about either topic because it usually starts people trying to argue/"debate" with me. i don't like arguing. so i avoid it for the most part. but lately i have felt like i need to voice my opinion about the highly publicized debate over Proposition 8 in California. this is what Wikipedia says about it:

"Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot. If passed it would amend the California Constitution with a new section that would read "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. The measure as submitted for the ballot by petitioners is called the "California Marriage Protection Act."[1][2] The ballot title, as prepared by the Attorney General Jerry Brown, is "Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry."


i don't live in California.
i am not gay.
why should i bother myself with this if it doesn't affect me?


living in Utah i am surrounded by members of the church who have some very strong opinions concerning homosexuality and marriage. the church itself has taken a strong stance with this bill and is doing everything in its powers to try and get it passed. over the last couple months, the church has sent official letters to bishops in California to be read over the pulpit basically telling people that they should vote to pass this proposition. stake presidents are going to individual members and asking them to donate money in support of this cause.

here is the problem i have with the church supporting this bill. to me, it makes the church look very hypocritical. the church teaches that we have free agency, and that the reason we are here on earth is to test us. consider what the church believes about the "War in Heaven":

"This term arises out of Rev. 12: 7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14: 12-20; Luke 10: 18; Rev. 12: 4-13; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29: 37; see also Rev. 12: 9; Abr. 3: 24-28). "

basically, there were 2 sides to the war. Jesus wanted to let people have their agency, where Lucifer wanted to take away the option for people to sin. if this is what the church believes, and if it is central to the church's plan of salvation, why is it that the church is trying to restrict peoples agency? why is it that the church wants to take away the rights of someone who believes something different from what they teach?

consider also the church's 11th article of faith:

"11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. "

and so i ask the members of the church; if someone believes something different then you, why are you trying to force your beliefs and morals upon them? isn't that exactly opposite of what you are saying in the 11th article of faith? why are you trying to take away the agency of people who have different beliefs then you? isn't that exactly opposite of what Jesus proposed at the council in heaven?

if a homosexual couple gets married, how is that contributing to the downfall of society? how is that going to affect your personal marriage? do you feel like if this passes, your marriage to your spouse is cheapened in some way? according to http://www.supportmarriage.com/ these are the consequences:

"The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergartners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it."

.... so what? do you think that by learning about homosexuality in school your kids will turn gay? by that same logic, we probably shouldn't teach our kids about the Holocaust for fear that they will follow in Hitler's shoes. we also shouldn't teach them about slavery for fear that they will become racist. don't you see how stupid that sounds? kids will learn about homosexuality whether it is from a teacher or from the playground. i learned about sex and homosexuality long before it was taught to me in school, and i didn't turn gay.




i know that this has been a long blog with some strong opinions. if you agree with me on this issue, please go to http://www.signingforsomething.org/ and read what others have said. put your name on the petition.

i believe in a free America where we are free to make decisions for ourselves and our own happiness.

I'm Voting Republican!

Spread the word!