Sunday, September 28, 2008

Yes for Marriage.. and VOTE

Okay quick note. The deadline to register to vote is OCTOBER 6. That is just one short week away. If you have not registered to vote.. DO SO NOW! If you live in AZ you can vote here.

Now as for today. We had an excellent meeting with our stake president discussing prop 102 in AZ. What is Prop 102?
Proposition 102 is 20 simple and clear words that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Prop 102 reads:
“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
Prop 102 is on the November 2008 ballot in Arizona.

In May, California judges redefined marriage in that state. The Arizona Constitution is
the highest law in our state, so amending the constitution is the only way to prevent judges or
politicians from tampering with the definition of marriage here. In addition to being merely
statutory, the current law is also more limited than Prop 102 because it does not define
marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We got lucky in our ward because we have Laura Knaperek (who is the Executive Director of United Families International) in our ward and she gave us lots of very valuable information about the effects of this proposition. Yes the proposition we are voting on is only the DEFINITION of marriage, but how you vote will vastly effect many things.

If this proposition does not pass these are just a few things that might happen:
Just like you can get a drivers licence in one state and drive all over... if 2 people of the same sex go to California, Massachusetts or Canada and get married soon wherever they go they will be recognized as a legal lawful marriage.
This one day could be the end of LDS social services because the LDS church could not legally refuse to give children to just man-woman marriages.
Doctors with anti-gay religious beliefs are not excused from obeying the laws that govern all of us, there have been doctors that have lost their licences due to not inseminating lesbians.

Recently, there have been cases of doctors who were *forced* to perform abortions and artificial inseminations even when they objected to the practice. There were ample alternatives available, but the poor doctors were given the choice to perform the work they disagreed with or face penalties.
Why should we expect religions be treated any different? Churches will be sued and could face varying degrees of penalties for failure to comply. They could face the loss of non-profit organizational status, meaning they would have to pay taxes.
The churches could face financial penalties of fines and punitive charges. On and on the list could go.The leaders could face personal financial penalties including fines and punitive charges.
They could face potential jail time for failing to comply with a court mandate. They could face varying degrees of punishment for a desire to follow their beliefs.

I know it all sounds a little extreme, but I figure if it is important enough for the church to discuss it, then it is important enough for me to express my opinions. I know the church always emphasizes that they are politically neutral and do not ask the members to vote any certain way. They are always very careful to let members have their own freedom to vote however they choose. However, I know the family is sacred and that we have obligations to uphold to keep the definition of marriage sacred.

Sorry, it is all a little jumbled. I am not going to edit. I was just rambling and so now I am clicking publish post with out even reading over.


Chazilyn and Patrick said...

I can't agree with you more!! Don't worry, I AM VOTING!!!!!!! ;)

Matt Gallagher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Whitehorn Family said...

Love this post!! thanks for breaking it down

Susan (Mommy) said...

Well put, keep our families sacred!

Elise said...

Thank you for leaving the link to vote! I registered and now i am ready. I love this post... Let's keep our families sacred!

Chantal said...

Some argue that churches will not be forced to accept the practice, but there is precident. In the late 18th Century the federal government imprisoned leaders and seized land from the church for deviating from their idea of how marriage should be. The Supreme Court said that the first amendment only protects religious brlief and not actions based on those religious beliefs.