Hate and Hostility

Hate and Hostility

An instant of clarity in a difficult fight

Oct 23, 2008  by Judy Eisenbrand

Dear Voters,

A fifth and sixth grader stood on a patch of grass by the homecoming game at our local high school, holding up “Yes on 8” signs.  Cars drove by with people yelling obscenities at them and flipping them off.  Someone threw an egg at the 4 year-old.  A woman even pulled over, harshly admonishing the children that they didn’t know what the signs meant or what they were doing.  What is wrong with this picture?

The 9 year old boy who drew this still life was one of the children targeted by an angry motorist who threw trash at them as they sped by a proposition 8 rally.

The 9 year old boy who drew this still life was one of the children targeted by an angry motorist who hurled trash at them as they sped by a prop 8 rally.

The slogan put forth by opponents of Proposition 8 is:  “Don’t Hate, No on 8.”  The scenario above makes me wonder which side the hate is really coming from.  Why would people openly display such hostility and anger towards small children?  Perhaps children holding signs brings an instant of clarity to an issue that has been intentionally confused.

Many well meaning people believe that legalizing gay marriage is about equal rights, as millions of lobbying dollars have advertised.  But California law already grants domestic partnerships the same rights as married heterosexual couples;  including tax and health benefits.  The only “right” at stake with Prop 8 is the right to change the meaning of marriage, and thus the role of marriage in society.  Our traditional notion of marriage has served all humanity for centuries and exists as a legal and social institution  primarily because its simple mission at root is for children, for the civilization of future generations.  California’s new definition of marriage, by contrast, because it can be either homo- or hetero-sexual, centers on the couple.  Children become an afterthought, or less.  What will be the consequences?

State sanctioned gay marriage also redefines the morality of homosexuality.  By equating homosexual unions with heterosexual marriage, we implicitly condone such issues as gay parenting and exposure to an adult lifestyle choice in public school education.  Is it right to intentionally set up a child to be fatherless or motherless?  Is it good to provide a public environment that allows for the confusion of sexual orientation of impressionable children when current science shows that homosexuality is a spectrum phenomenon, clearly affected not only by genetics but also by environment?  Are children commodities subject to the whim of their adult guardians, or does society have a role in safeguarding our children?  The ramifications are far reaching for the children of society, and by its very nature, how much investment can the gay community have in the interests of children?

Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that legalizing gay marriage will have no impact on public education or on religious organizations.  After the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, Catholic Charities of Boston, a widely respected organization that had placed more orphans in homes than any other in the state since its founding in 1903 – had to shut down its adoption agency because it could not comply with State law forcing the agency to allow adoption to gay couples (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/06/25/they_cared_for_the_children/). Just last week, California public school children in the 1st grade were taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding, justified as a “teachable moment” with “historic significance” and an “academically relevant” civics lesson.   (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html)  These are only two examples of the profound effects that legalizing gay marriage can and will continue to have on society.

The California Teachers Association just donated $1M to the “No on 8” campaign on the basis that they believe “in teaching the importance of equal rights for all.”  Yes, it is good to have equal rights, but in this case, the CTA has literally “thrown the baby out with the bath water,” as they used to say.  Decreasing homophobia is good for society, but does achieving this end have to be at the cost of destroying the oldest human institution devised solely for the protection of children?  The children holding up the signs in my community the other day understood what they were doing.  They don’t have lobbyists and resources to stand up for them.  They stood up for family the only way they knew how.  Please consider voting “Yes on 8,” for our children and our future.    -Judy Eisenbrand

It’s been said that the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins…Find out more:

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. lahona said,

    October 25, 2008 at 5:28 am

    That is one of the best arguments for prop 8 that I have ever heard. Thankyou.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    November 6, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple in Westwood

    More than a thousand gay-rights activists gathered Thursday afternoon outside the Mormon temple in Westwood to protest the role Mormons played in passing Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

    It was the latest in an escalating campaign directed against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its role in marshaling millions of dollars in contributions from its members for the successful campaign to take away same-sex marriage rights.

    Members of the Mormon church, who were strongly urged by church leaders to contribute to the Proposition 8 campaign, had an undeniable role in the measure’s victory. Opponents of Proposition 8 have accused the church of discriminating against homosexuals, but the backlash against the denomination has also sparked accusations of discrimination.

    During the campaign, a website established by Proposition 8 opponents used campaign finance data and other public records to track Mormon political contributions to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Opponents estimated that members of the church had given more than $20 million, but the amount is difficult to confirm since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors.

    Critics of the website noted that the religious affiliations of other political donors are not generally researched.

    A commercial opposing Proposition 8 also drew criticism. In it, two actors portraying Mormon missionaries forced their way into the well-kept home of a married lesbian couple.

    “Hi, we’re here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” one says.

    “We’re here to take away your rights,” says his partner.

    The missionaries then rip the wedding rings from the women’s fingers and ransack their house until they find the women’s marriage license, which they destroy.

    “Hey, we have rights,” one of the women says.

    “Not if we can help it,” answers the missionary.

    The ad was produced by an independent group not affiliated with the official No-on-8 campaign and was shown on MSNBC and Comedy Central, according to Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, a progressive political group.

    Jeff Flint, strategist for Yes on 8, called the ad “despicable” and said it “crossed every line of decency.”

    “I am appalled at the level of Mormon-bashing that went on during the Proposition 8 campaign and continues to this day,” he said. “If this activity were directed against any other church, if someone put up a website that targeted Jews or Catholics in a similar fashion for the mere act of participating in a political campaign, it would be widely and rightfully condemned.”

    Members and leaders of the Catholic Church and other Christian churches were also heavily involved in the campaign to pass Proposition 8. The Knights of Columbus, which is tied to the Catholic Church, gave $1 million, and several evangelical groups gave millions more. But they have not come under the same kind of attack.

    Leaders of the No-on-8 campaign said they did not believe they were engaged in Mormon-bashing. “This is not about religion,” said Jacobs. “This is about a church that put itself in the middle of politics.”

    Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she had grown up in the Mormon Church and thought it was “very disappointing what the church has done and the alliances they have made with churches that don’t even like them and have called the church a cult.”

    Church officials made few public statements during the campaign. On Thursday, they issued a statement asking for “a spirit of mutual respect and civility.”

    “The Church acknolwedges that such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family and marriage — stirs fervent and deep feelings,” church spokeswoman Kim Farah wrote in an e-mail. “No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.” She did not elaborate.

    Outside the Los Angeles temple Thursday, dozens of protestors screamed “Bigots” and “Shame on You” at half a dozen men in button-down shirts and ties who looked out at the demonstration from behind the temple’s closed gates.

    Benjamin Wiser, 27, came to the protest dressed as a Mormon missionary, complete with black plastic name tag.

    It was not a costume, he said. He was a missionary and a member of the church until age 23, when he left because he was gay.

    Wiser said he did not feel the protesters were unfairly targeting the church.

    “I don’t think the Mormon church should be involved,” he said.

    Some gay-rights activists said they plan to continue to question the church’s involvement.

    Lorri L. Jean, chief executive of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, which organized the rally outside the temple, announced the launch of a new website, invalidateprop8.org, which will raise money to fight for same-sex marriage rights in California.

    For every $5 donated, Jean said, a postcard will be sent to the president of the Mormon church condemning “the reprehensible role the Church of Latter-day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law.”

    “It is a travesty that the Mormon Church bought this election and used a campaign of lies and deception to manipulate voters in the great state of California,” she said.

    David Loder, 40, a business manager from Corona and a member of the Mormon church, heard about the protest on the radio. He said he was saddened by the anger directed against the church. Loder said he had not given money to the Yes-on-8 campaign because finances are tight raising five daughters, but he did put a sign in his front yard. It was vandalized, he said.

    “As a member of the LDS church we have known (and still do) the feeling of being ridiculed and mistreated because of our faith,” he said.

    entire story found here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: