Pumpkin Patch

Here we are on Friday at Adobe Pumpkin Farm for Emma's class field trip.

Emma has such a hard time making decisions. Alan finally had to give her two pumpkins to choose from.

I love the light in this one of the girls in the corn maze!

My Testimony on You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L83NF58VUEo

I've put my testimony on You Tube! Check it out!

My Discussion of Gay Marriage on Facebook

Last week the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints held a fireside wherein Elder Ballard asked members in California to continue our efforts in supporting Prop 8. He asked for the young people who are computer savvy to spread the word through blogs, social networking sites, etc. and to join the conversations happening on this issue. So I joined the Facebook Group "Protect Marriage: One Man One Woman." Here is the reaction of a few friends I went to high school with, and my responses.

Friend 1: I believe gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. It is not right to deny people the opportunity to marry the person they love because they are of the same gender. Gay couples are denied significant rights when they are not allowed to marry. The arguments against legalizing same sex marriage do no merit the legal support of the state since the state's job is not to promote popular morality or opinion, but the rights of it's citizens.

Me: I totally respect your opinion. Thank you for sharing with me. As I understand it, in California, the law provides for marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Prop 8 does not diminish these benefits.

Friend 2: DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS and MARRIAGE AREN’T THE SAME.

CALIFORNIA STATUTES CLEARLY IDENTIFY NINE REAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS. Only marriage provides the security that spouses provide one another—it’s why people get married in the first place!

Think about it. Married couples depend on spouses when they’re sick, hurt, or aging. They accompany them into ambulances or hospital rooms, and help make life-and-death decisions, with no questions asked. ONLY MARRIAGE ENDS THE CONFUSION AND GUARANTEES THE CERTAINTY COUPLES CAN COUNT ON IN TIMES OF GREATEST NEED.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should guarantee the same fundamental freedoms to every Californian.
Source: noonprop8.com

Me: California Family Code
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 (a) "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." The only right same sex unions don't have is to call their union a "marriage." See http://www.calchannel.com/MEDIA/0304A.asx where both sides make their oral arguments before the CA Supreme Court wherein the advocates for gay rights admit that there are no substantial differences between marriage and domestic partnerships. They are fighting to have the constitutional definition of marriage changed to include a man/ man & a woman/ woman which will have serious consequences on schools, churches & the family.

Friend 1: As a very close and smart friend said to me today, this isn't so much about marriage, but about equal rights for all people. Every person should have the right to marry. What right do you have to take that away from someone? What if the roles were reversed? How would you feel? You talk of serious consequences on schools, churches and families, what are you so scared of? Because I really think that's what it comes down to. Open your eyes. By voting yes on prop 8 your taking peoples rights away from them, no one should be able to do that.

Me: I understand where you're coming from & I don't want to offend. I respect the agency people have to choose whomever they want to be with & I do not antagonize anyone based on their sexual orientation. Still I believe my concerns about the consequences of changing the constitutional definition of marriage are legitimate. If it is changed, public schools may be required to teach same sex marriage to children which will confuse. Churches may be sued for choosing not to perform same sex marriages. Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech may be at risk. I believe God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman since the beginning with Adam & Eve, and His plan is for us to come to earth in families with a father & mother. I support Prop 8, NOT to discriminate or because I want to take away rights (it doesn't take away rights), but to stand up for these things. That's what's so great about America- we both get to stand up for what we believe! :) I've learned a lot!

Last night I couldn't sleep because I was up wondering if my responses were good enough, and I only had a limited amount of space. I worry about being misunderstood and if I conveyed my testimony well enough without offending. It's so hard when people know nothing of Christian teachings and the sanctity of marriage. But I'm doing my best-- I hope that it's good enough.

Here's another conversation I joined:

Friend A: "yes on 8" signs popped up around our new neighborhood while we were away this weekend. Should I be afraid?

Friend B: I think you should engage in friendly neighborly conversation about why their opinions suck.

Friend C: I would be worried.... In LA the signs are "no on 8," I guess we'll see in November what California is made up of.

Me: No need to be afraid, especially cause I'm one of them! :) (for religious reasons, not to discriminate.)

I guess it makes me feel better to know I'm trying! I just REALLY do not want my children taught about homosexual behavior in elementary school. And I REALLY wish everyone could understand the Plan of Happiness!

PROP 8 AND PRESERVING MARRIAGE

My husband Alan wrote this and posted it on his blog. He's had lots of positive feedback and I wanted to share it with you. We both feel passionately about this issue and what's going on in California right now.

Gay Marriage and Society

Elections are nearing and people all over the nation are discussing the California proposition to amend its constitution making marriage legal only between a man and a woman. This is an issue that without question has significant media coverage much of which is good and much of which is distortion. If careful and thoughtful attention is given to the consequences of this decision it is clear that gay marriage is not beneficial to society. For reasons set forth below my position is that gay marriage, not gays, is in fact a detriment to society.

Disclaimer

Let me be clear up front that I do not antagonize gays and nothing said here should be construed in that way. My gay colleagues receive the same respect I give to my straight colleagues. The issue here is about the societal institution of marriage, not a personal decision of sexual orientation. Therefore I will correctly confine my writing likewise.

Net Gain

Decisions of this magnitude should not be made in haste. They must be carefully weighed and measured. All points should be considered and legitimately thought through. What is more, the full consequences of these decisions must be considered. In many cases there will be both good and bad consequences. The question almost always becomes:

"What is the net gain of this decision?"

After careful consideration of the issue from legal, societal, natural and religious viewpoints I must now draw the line in the sand. There is no net gain of gay marriage, there is loss.

Legal Considerations – A Battle of Rights?

I have heard the legal arguments from both sides. As is often the case I was undecided when first approaching the issue. Only after respectful and diligent research did I conclude that gay marriage is not in society’s best interest. I was fortunate enough to watch the advocates for both sides make their oral arguments before the California Supreme Court (see http://www.calchannel.com/MEDIA/0304A.asx). Interestingly the issue here is about the title “marriage” and nothing more.

Currently in the state of California gay domestic partnerships are legally recognized and receive the same protections, rights and benefits as marriages. (See the California Family Code § 297.5 - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5) That means one thing and one thing only:

The only right gays do not have is the right to call their union a “marriage”.

They have the right to enter contracts, to create wills and trusts, to make medical decisions for their partners, to take out mortgages and car loans together, to have joint bank accounts and divide assets when dissolving their partnership and every other right that a married couple has under California law. (The case refers to extremely slight technical differences between domestic partnerships and marriages. These negligible technicalities were so minute they were not relied on. The determining factor rested exclusively on use of the title of “marriage”.)

Some media, corporations, entities and uneducated individuals portray the issue of gay marriage as a significant rights issue in which gays are deprived of substantial rights. There have been comparisons of the gay marriage issue to the civil rights movement. Despite the overwhelming media distortion and indeed the misunderstanding and miseducation of some of the population these allegations are not factually founded.

As the case and law shows, the issue has nothing to do with a body of rights, but rather the one right to use the term “marriage”. Unlike the civil rights issues gays do not have to sit on the back of the bus or drink from different water fountains. Neither are they deprived of the rights of married couples other than the use of the term “marriage”.

(See http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1352578267?bctid=1784553601 for the distinctions between the gay marriage issue and civil rights movement. Note that there are religious views expressed in this video which are not applicable to the legal argument.)

Ultimately what gays seek to do is change the meaning of the term marriage as it stands in the law. This change of meaning will offer little benefit to the gay community. Conversely it will infringe on those who are not gay. The law will require that gay marriage be taught in public schools.

In the end I do not agree that the title change merits imposing gay beliefs on a society that has already establish law otherwise.

Societal Considerations

Secondly, irrespective of the law society itself doesn’t benefit from gay marriage. Ultimately the adoption of gay marriage diminishes the meaning of marriage altogether. It begs the question, How is it that we define marriage? How do we define families? How do we define society? Where exactly do we draw the line? If we take away the clearly established and time tested boundaries we are left with a net loss and the demise of society.

There is considerable empirical evidence to show that children are benefited most when raised by a father and a mother. The gift of social science has from years of research shown that children suffer when they are deprived of a parent. Additionally, the varying influences of male and female parents, that is having two parents of different sex, contributes to the positive social development of a child. Interestingly the influence of fathers contributes to sexual identity in children.

In single family homes often the case is that children know they are missing certain beneficial experiences that would help them in life. This knowledge isn’t founded exclusively in the number of parents, but also in the number of sexes. What more can I say other than that thousands of years of recorded history offer no support that gay families help societal progress. The evidence is to the contrary, history has proven that societies that institute marriage between a man and a woman function extremely well. This holds true regardless of religion, race, culture or nationality. Marriage in its traditional form works and it works well enough to be instituted across all of humanity.

As society propagates from generation to generation we seek to improve it. By depriving the rising generation of the valuable parenting experiences that can only come from marriage between a man and a women we cripple it from the very start. The result is that society as a whole is weakened with each generation that is deprived of the pattern that is most beneficial, traditional marriage.

Natural Considerations

From a mere Darwinist perspective it goes without saying that gay populations cannot survive independently. By definition they are incapable of reproduction. Although medical science has made reproduction possible without sexual intercourse it still requires the use of both sexes and can hardly be classified as a natural process. This is a very powerful pattern for humanity. Our species requires both sexes for existence and our bodies provide clear evidence as to how this reproduction takes place. Indeed the reproductive instinct needed to carry on the population is innate in humans.

I am compelled by nature’s design to support what clearly is meant to be. Men and women are meant for each other. This pattern is exhibited in nearly every species on the planet. Species that don’t use male-female reproduction propagate asexually. Some rare species are even able to switch between sexual and asexual reproduction. Yet despite this interesting variety no species on earth propagates homosexually. I find this evidence compelling, particularly because marriage is intimately linked with human propagation.

Religious Considerations

Lastly I turn to religious considerations. I must reiterate that I do not antagonize gays and nothing said here should be construed to demean or belittle gay people.

Religious views generally consider gay behavior sinful. This view separates the behavior from the person seeking to uplift the person and destroy the behavior simultaneously. Under Christianity each person is considered an invaluable child of God, equal with all others. As I am Christian (Mormon) I believe this whole heartedly.

I now put away the logical reasoning, the fact finding, the evidence gathering and literary devices to conclude with my pure testimony of what I know in my heart to be true.

I considered the issue of gay marriage very seriously over sleepless nights because I love all people and wanted to make sure that my vote was cast in a direction that was pleasing to God, who also loves all people with a love beyond comprehension. I am confident with my decision that gay marriage is not appropriate.

Gay behavior is an addiction and trap like any other addiction and trap we pass through. One who practices gay behavior is no different from one who practices any other sinful behavior. Both are loved by God who seeks to teach them how to achieve the greatest happiness possible. Gay behavior, like other sin, will ultimately lead to sorrow. It is my prayer that humanity will return to God and experience the greatest joys possible. Gay marriage will only detract from that end.

For these reasons I vote yes on proposition 8.

Alan's Blog:
http://alanclindsay.blogspot.com/2008/10/gay-marriage-and-society.html

Additional Info: www.preservingmarriage.org and www.protectmarriage.com

3rd Annual Apple Hill Trip

On Friday we went to one of our favorite places-- Apple Hill! We've decided to make it one of our family traditions every Autumn. There are tons of pumpkin patches. There's a fish pond where we saw fish jumping at the rain drops that they thought were bait. Emma fed the ducks some of the homemade donuts we bought. And Brooke fed me some of them. Emma and daddy talked about life and had deep thoughts. We saw a 540 lb. pumpkin. And there were many APPLES, of course! We also bought an apple pie and some kettle corn. We wanted to go on a hay ride but it was raining a bit so they stopped them for the day. Maybe next year! It's so nice now that we live with my parents we actually HAVE TIME to go and do things as a family sometimes even though Alan is in school.

Emma's 1st Official Hair Cut

I finally decided to face the truth-- I stink at cutting Emma's hair! So last weekend she had her first official hair cut at Petaluma's "Lions, Tiger's, and Hairs" children's salon. She was a little nervous at first, but she did great! They give the kids baskets of toys to play with and they even get to have sparkles and hair paint put in their hair.
Isn't down town Petaluma so cute?