This is part of my concluding reply from a discussion about Proposition 8. I hope it will explain why someone who neither hates, nor is afraid of gay people or same-gender relationships, would still support such a proposition. Please consider it and know that I am sincere.
Thanks to everyone who has been a part of this discussion so far. I really appreciate being able to have a thoughtful, respectful exchange like this. I'm afraid everyone may be tired of hearing from me, but I would like to say how much I love and respect you all. I hope you don't mind if I shift the discussion here to clarify one important point and to share what defending this issue has meant for me personally.
I realize I've been pretty vocal about defending my constitutional right to have and legislate my views. And while I may be accused of discrimination, because of the sincere belief I hold about what marriage truly is, it cannot be claimed as unlawful discrimination. To be sure, in the purest meaning of the word "discriminate" (recognize or perceive the difference) I AM discriminating, but it is not based on
prejudice. It is based on my firm belief--which can be debated, but cannot be conclusively proven false--that marriage means, and has always meant, the joining of man and woman. The claim that it means, or should be changed to mean, anything other than that is a relatively new claim in the context of human history.
Now please, on a personal note, I would like you to consider something else that I consider significant and would like to make perfectly clear. I do not hate gay people. I do not think they should be prevented from loving and committing themselves to someone they love. Further, I do not think marriage should be reserved for me because I think I am better than another person. To the contrary, I believe marriage and family are the most important, most fulfilling, most noble things in this life, and yes, because of my religious beliefs, in all of eternity as well. And I sincerely desire for ALL to have it. I find it truly heartbreaking that good, loving, committed people, some of whom I know and love personally, should be denied this opportunity. But it is not because they are less of a person or less deserving, or even less righteous than I am. It is because they have chosen a pattern which is inconsistent with the true definition of marriage. (Also, I would like to reiterate that defining marriage as between a man and woman will not revoke any rights that civil unions and domestic partnerships currently allow and will not prevent same-gender couples from being committed to each other.) Furthermore, I am NOT asserting that homosexual desires are something a person can choose or control, but behavior is. I am not ignorant of the fact that someone who is attracted to the same sex would find it incredibly, even painfully, difficult to not act on those desires. To the contrary, it hurts me as well and I don't think I'm overstating it to say that I feel sincere anguish. But these points relate to the reason I define marriage the way I do and are beyond the scope of Proposition 8. Prop 8 does not pass judgment, prevent, or punish a person from acting on homosexual desires or from committing to any person they choose--it merely defines the term "marriage" as being between a woman and a man.
So if I'm not motivated by hate or fear, and I know that what I am defending is causing sincere, loving, capable people pain, why should I do it? Why don't I put my personal beliefs aside and allow for a change in marriage? Consider also, please, that by defending my view I will (and have been) be accused of bigotry and stupidity. Why go through all this unnecessary pain on both sides? Can you imagine, please, what it
might feel like to knock on a door, pick up the phone, or write out a message when you are certain to be reviled and persecuted? You may not think so from the way I have been so vocal in this forum, but I am not a confrontational person. I normally avoid it whenever possible. Those of you who know me personally can affirm this. I am extremely uncomfortable with the thought that something I do brings another pain. The only thing that could motivate me to defend my belief in marriage so fiercely is that it is true.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Jennifer B.
Comments are now closed.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Yes on Prop 8-It's about definition, not discrimination
A friend of mine posed a few questions regarding marriage and Proposition 8. It made me really think about why marriage is important and why I support restoring the traditional definition of marriage in California. These reasons can stand outside of any particular religious creed. (I do however, hold strong religious beliefs which also support the importance of protecting marriage. You may read them here.) I'm posting my reply in hopes that it clarifies why people like me feel strongly about this issue.
The principal difference, as I see it, is how we view marriage. I believe marriage is much more than just the legal union of two consenting adults. Traditionally, marriage has been understood as the sanctioned union of a man and woman to be sexually intimate with the realization that this relationship has the potential to create children. In the interest of those children, and society as a whole, marriage has long been a heavily regulated institution.* These regulations, or limits, demonstrate the significance society places on marriage and the importance of the commitment between husband, wife, and child.
I reject the simpler and more recent definition of marriage for the following reasons. Viewing marriage as a mere arrangement of two consenting adults does not take into consideration the significance of procreation or the impact on children. A vital purpose behind limits on marriage is to honor the power to create life and to protect children by ensuring they are raised by both a father and a mother. While it is true that heterosexual couples do not have to prove fertility or even the desire to have children to be married, these exceptions do not nullify the biological truth that only a man and woman can produce a child and that this potential for family warrants special benefits and protections that marriage can provide. Legal marriage encourages the fidelity of couples and the responsibility of parents to care for and nurture the children they bring into the world. Furthermore, this union benefits society in several ways--a few of which include discouraging promiscuity, and increasing the likelihood that children will avoid crime, tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse. Genderless unions shift the focus of legal marriage from the bearing and rearing of children to the attempt to satisfy the desire for intimate adult relationships. It becomes merely a sanctioned social ordering of couples. In other words, the focus is not on creating and protecting families, but on adult relationships.
When defined traditionally, marriage between a man and a woman is not an infringement of rights. All citizens have the right, or choice, to participate in marriage as it is legally defined or not. Changing the definition of marriage is another matter, and not one based on fundamental rights, but the desire to alter a long-established understanding of it as an institution that encourages and protects the natural creation of families.
Finally, because of the way marriage is traditionally defined, the union of two same-gender adults is not a "separate, but equal" union, but an entirely distinct one. To call such a union marriage undervalues the significance of the procreative power and, to quote a brief to the California Supreme Court, "would necessarily alter the law's current emphasis on procreation and child welfare, refocusing it on affirming and facilitating adult relationship choices. A gender-neutral marriage definition would unavoidably change the message, meaning, and function of marriage by altering its underlying rationale and structure."
If you read this far, thanks for your patience/indulgence. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and hope I haven't offended (or bored to death) anyone who reads this.
Jen B.
*Current regulations of marriage include that marriage is limited to two people, cannot be incestuous, and--until age 18--one cannot marry without parental consent, a court order, and the possibility of requisite premarital counseling. Furthermore, a couple must obtain state permission (or license), be married by a statutorily authorized person, and cannot terminate a marriage without a judicial decree.
** (Added later) Limits on marriage like those above are not unconstitutional and are already in place. The people have the right to legally define and limit marriage. Citizens who oppose current definitions and limitations as stated in the law have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to initiate changes to the law and should do so using the democratic process. This proposition is misrepresented as an initiative that will take away people’s rights. The right for same-gender couples to marry has not been granted by the voice of the people. To say that Prop 8 takes away rights is misleading and deflects focus from the central issue of defining what marriage IS. A significant change like altering the traditional definition of marriage, should come before the people (and three California Supreme Court judges concur). This proposition does NOT prevent citizens from engaging in the democratic process and putting initiatives on the ballot that could ammend our state constitution to reflect their wishes and beliefs; it only seeks to clarify the legal definition of marriage.
Comments are now closed.
The principal difference, as I see it, is how we view marriage. I believe marriage is much more than just the legal union of two consenting adults. Traditionally, marriage has been understood as the sanctioned union of a man and woman to be sexually intimate with the realization that this relationship has the potential to create children. In the interest of those children, and society as a whole, marriage has long been a heavily regulated institution.* These regulations, or limits, demonstrate the significance society places on marriage and the importance of the commitment between husband, wife, and child.
I reject the simpler and more recent definition of marriage for the following reasons. Viewing marriage as a mere arrangement of two consenting adults does not take into consideration the significance of procreation or the impact on children. A vital purpose behind limits on marriage is to honor the power to create life and to protect children by ensuring they are raised by both a father and a mother. While it is true that heterosexual couples do not have to prove fertility or even the desire to have children to be married, these exceptions do not nullify the biological truth that only a man and woman can produce a child and that this potential for family warrants special benefits and protections that marriage can provide. Legal marriage encourages the fidelity of couples and the responsibility of parents to care for and nurture the children they bring into the world. Furthermore, this union benefits society in several ways--a few of which include discouraging promiscuity, and increasing the likelihood that children will avoid crime, tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse. Genderless unions shift the focus of legal marriage from the bearing and rearing of children to the attempt to satisfy the desire for intimate adult relationships. It becomes merely a sanctioned social ordering of couples. In other words, the focus is not on creating and protecting families, but on adult relationships.
When defined traditionally, marriage between a man and a woman is not an infringement of rights. All citizens have the right, or choice, to participate in marriage as it is legally defined or not. Changing the definition of marriage is another matter, and not one based on fundamental rights, but the desire to alter a long-established understanding of it as an institution that encourages and protects the natural creation of families.
Finally, because of the way marriage is traditionally defined, the union of two same-gender adults is not a "separate, but equal" union, but an entirely distinct one. To call such a union marriage undervalues the significance of the procreative power and, to quote a brief to the California Supreme Court, "would necessarily alter the law's current emphasis on procreation and child welfare, refocusing it on affirming and facilitating adult relationship choices. A gender-neutral marriage definition would unavoidably change the message, meaning, and function of marriage by altering its underlying rationale and structure."
If you read this far, thanks for your patience/indulgence. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and hope I haven't offended (or bored to death) anyone who reads this.
Jen B.
*Current regulations of marriage include that marriage is limited to two people, cannot be incestuous, and--until age 18--one cannot marry without parental consent, a court order, and the possibility of requisite premarital counseling. Furthermore, a couple must obtain state permission (or license), be married by a statutorily authorized person, and cannot terminate a marriage without a judicial decree.
** (Added later) Limits on marriage like those above are not unconstitutional and are already in place. The people have the right to legally define and limit marriage. Citizens who oppose current definitions and limitations as stated in the law have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to initiate changes to the law and should do so using the democratic process. This proposition is misrepresented as an initiative that will take away people’s rights. The right for same-gender couples to marry has not been granted by the voice of the people. To say that Prop 8 takes away rights is misleading and deflects focus from the central issue of defining what marriage IS. A significant change like altering the traditional definition of marriage, should come before the people (and three California Supreme Court judges concur). This proposition does NOT prevent citizens from engaging in the democratic process and putting initiatives on the ballot that could ammend our state constitution to reflect their wishes and beliefs; it only seeks to clarify the legal definition of marriage.
Comments are now closed.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Once Upon A Time. . .
A mom posted a little story about taking a walk to school with her 2-year-old son. His spontaneous sprint toward the street that day was just one of many exciting adventures they shared. Her story became a guest post on Blog Segullah, and then had the honor of becoming a chapter alongside many beautiful, touching, funny, real-life stories (and poems) about motherhood. Reading them made me laugh, cry, and sometimes do this weird sort of snort-like coughy sound when I laughed unexpectedly through my tears.
And now you can enjoy them too.
Check it out here.
What's your story? Why don't you write it down and send it here?
And now you can enjoy them too.
Check it out here.What's your story? Why don't you write it down and send it here?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Happy Mothers' Day!
I hope my mom won't mind me sharing some of my memories of her.
Happy Mothers' Day Mom!
(and all my sisters and Mommy-friends)
Memories of Mom
Laughing together as Pooh bear thumped down the stairs or disguised himself as a rain cloud.
Thank you for reading to me.
Warm hugs that I sometimes resisted, but wanted and needed.
Thank you for not letting go.
Coming in from the cold to the spicy scent of hot punch on a rainy day. (To this day that smell still comforts me and reminds me of you.)
Thank you for making a gray day something to cherish.
Sitting next to you in church as you ran your hand through my hair or passed me a stick of Juicy Fruit. (All six of us wanted to be the one at your side.)
Thank you for taking turns.
Inviting me to be your official “taster” whenever I was in the kitchen with you.
Thank you for making me feel important.
Holding the phone to my ear after I had Alison, when I was unable to do it for myself, so I could listen to my sister’s encouraging words.
Thank you for doing what I couldn’t.
Telling me I am doing a good job (and meaning it) when I am blinded by my inadequacies.
Thank you for cheering me on.
I love you Mom. Thanks for the memories!!!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Suddenly he exclaimed, "I can't wait 'till I'm dead!"
Trying not to act surprised, I asked why. He replied, "Because then I can put flowers on myself."
I'm glad he doesn't think of death as the end. Neither do I.
"as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"
1 Corinthians 15:22
Happy Easter. I hope yours was memorable.
Monday, March 17, 2008
*Update*
I really should have written a President's Day post.
Would you like to know why?
Because over President's Day weekend something monumental happened. I had my first ever In Real Life meeting with a friend from blogland. And it was none other than Compulsive Writer (lovingly referred to as CW, C-dub, and "the Queen of Nice").
She was visiting Disneyland on the VERY day I had planned to take my children there. We met up near the Golden Horseshoe where she charmingly engaged my kids in conversation (not an easy task as they are usually shy in public) and kept me company when my older children got in line for Big Thunder Railroad. It was lovely. We helped my youngest boys feed the ducks and chatted about blogging, writing (are they the same?), and other great topics like how to pronounce "Segullah." Thanks for taking the time to meet up with me CW! You were delightful and I hope we meet up again before too long.
Who have you met through blogging?
Would you like to know why?
Because over President's Day weekend something monumental happened. I had my first ever In Real Life meeting with a friend from blogland. And it was none other than Compulsive Writer (lovingly referred to as CW, C-dub, and "the Queen of Nice").
She was visiting Disneyland on the VERY day I had planned to take my children there. We met up near the Golden Horseshoe where she charmingly engaged my kids in conversation (not an easy task as they are usually shy in public) and kept me company when my older children got in line for Big Thunder Railroad. It was lovely. We helped my youngest boys feed the ducks and chatted about blogging, writing (are they the same?), and other great topics like how to pronounce "Segullah." Thanks for taking the time to meet up with me CW! You were delightful and I hope we meet up again before too long.
Who have you met through blogging?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)