These are difficult times for our nation. Those who consider themselves to be minorities have long worked to be granted equal treatment under our laws. Those who don't get their way frequently turn to the courts where they stand an even chance of being heard and redressed. If not, they sometimes turn to violence, reckoning that at least their voices will be heard and the issue may once again be discussed.

It is difficult in today's political climate to voice an opposing opinion. There are so many "hot button" issues in the United States (and, indeed, throughout the world) today. It is nearly impossible to present a point of view — any point of view — and expect it to be heard or read without any negative feedback. Even this insignificant blog of mine is a good case in point. No matter what opinion I voice, there are always those who are eager to thow the arguments back in my face. No matter what the issue, the process is always the same: attack, denigrate, be as sarcastic as possible, but for heaven's sake don't bother to offer thought-provoking discourse because the simpleton that wrote the article obviously is unwilling (or unable) to listen. It probably doesn't help that my own sense of humor frequently provokes such responses.

On occasion, however, an issue becomes so important that being silent is unacceptable. An opinion must be voiced. Efforts must be made to persuade. A majority will speak this November, and the rest of us will have to live with the consequences of any resulting decision.

The issues surrounding Proposition 8 are relatively simple when taken at face value. Those of us who support this proposition do so from the perspective of wishing ardently to protect and preserve the definition of a "traditional marriage" as being between a man and a woman. Those who oppose this amendment to our state constitution see only the idea that marriage is being denied to one class of citizen in this state. It is a battle of wills, enjoined by people who would otherwise get along just fine if left to their own devices.

I do not deny that life is not always easy for homosexual people. There are those who are violently opposed to their lifestyle and will inflict that violence on otherwise innocent victims. There can be no quarter expected or granted to those who willingly hurt or destroy the lives or property of others. Everything else about this issue, then, comes down to how one believes.

It is no secret (except, perhaps, to my detractors) that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is also no secret that the Church has made statements to its membership regarding Proposition 8 and why, precisely, we need to support it. This is not a question of political "neutrality" for the Church. This is a social issue that has wide-reaching ramifications if the current status quo remains unchanged.

Those of us who have been watching such things carefully have noted a disturbing trend. Along with being LDS we are also a homeschooling family. This was a decision that Mrs. Woody and I made many years ago, even before our daughters were born. We knew we wanted to homeschool because it was becoming increasingly clear that public education was forcing (and I do not use the word lightly) an agenda on our children with which we strongly disagree. Much of this agenda has its roots in the word "diversity" and all its connotations, both the good and the not so good.

Across the nation we have read countless stories and news articles relating to this agenda. It consists primarily of something called "inclusion," and demands tolerance of all sorts of social behaviors that stand in stark opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a significant difference between public education and the Church in how the issue of homosexuality is perceived and handled.

The Church understands that same sex attraction is real. However, the gospel makes it clear that the gift of procreation is sacred, and should only be enacted within the confines of a legal marriage between a man and a woman. Together this couple have the power to bring children into the world to be raised and nurtured with love and protection. Indeed, the realization of the fullest blessings of eternity, including life with our loving Heavenly Father, depends on our obedience to this principle of marriage, sealed for eternity by those who hold the proper authority.

Other religions hold similar views and have traditionally discouraged any union other than the one described above. The only difference might be in the method or authority used to create such a union, but the basic principle has remain unchanged for centuries: marriage between man and woman. No other marriage is honored or allowed in the heavens.

Lately some religions have been experiencing tremendous upheaval by entertaining even the idea that changes to this long-standing commandment of the Lord might be somehow acceptable to Him. We have watched with no small concern the turmoil in the Episcopal church in the United States. A sharp division has risen throughout its congregations regarding the practices of same-sex marriage. Congregations are threatening to secede from the body of the church if they insist on formally adopting such practices.

Elsewhere, entire churches have already given themselves over to the inclusion of same-sex practices. Large portions of scripture are re-written (or "translated" to justify the practice) to eliminate the conflict between revealed word and desired results.

Such things are perfectly acceptable in this nation. The guarantees of being allowed to worship as we choose are still one of the keystones of this republic. Those who would create a church that allows same-sex marriage are allowed to do so. We who feel differently certainly do not have to acknowledge their claims to authority or doctrinal correctness. We are not required to attend their services. We are free, in other words, to believe differently from them.

Which is what makes the recent decision of the California Supreme Court so critically dangerous. By using a simple majority of the court to override the language of Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 by 61% of California voters, they have changed the rules of engagement. It is now possible for fringe groups to launch legal challenges against those who do not believe as they do. They have already made changes to the state education code that allows such things to be taught to our children in school at very tender ages. That they now feel empowered to legally challenge churches to require that they allow same-sex marriages will set up a colossal struggle between church and state.

The tone of this challenge has already been established by San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom. Gay marriage is coming, he says, "whether you like it or not." Yes, a distinct challenge. And we must be equal to it.

The only way to deal with this challenge is to find the one way that the California Supreme Court cannot overturn it; by making it an amendment to the California state constitution. Proposition 8 takes the same language that was approved eight years ago in Proposition 22, and makes it an amendment. That will make it "constitutional" and will eliminate the court's ability to override it on those grounds.

It is important to understand that, whatever you may feel or believe about this issue, many of us who support Proposition 8 are not doing so to discriminate against homosexuals. We are not supporting it to violate anyone's civil rights. We are not trying to deny same-sex couples the same rights and privileges afforded to married couples. We are, instead, fighting to protect our own civil rights; the ability to continue to believe and worship as we have been instructed. It is important enough to us that we will continue this fight, if needed, even if Proposition 8 is somehow defeated.

We can only pray that it will pass this November.

UPDATE: Connecticut's Supreme Court has now overturned their state's ban on gay marriage. The challenges will continue to mount. This fight is far from over.

Interestingly, the article implies that California's ballot initiative is the "first time" this issue has come before voters. Breitbart is incorrect: Proposition 22 in 2000 placed that language in our state code, which is what the Supreme Court cancelled with their decision.

 

(Cross-posted at Woody's Woundup)

Hey, there, Young Conservatives! It's been a busy year. Coming up on Election Number Three in this state, which by my count is approximately two elections too many. However, the monster must be fed, and you're here because you're looking for some deep, insightful analysis presented in a concise format that will make all the California ballot initiatives clear in your young minds.

 

 

What you get instead is whatever knee-jerk reactions Uncle Woody has had whilst perusing the voluminous "Official Voter Information Guide" that weighs approximately as much as the car you're driving right now. Shame on you, Young Conservatives! Pull over before you start reading this stuff!

 

And now, for your Ritalin induced dementia research and reading pleasure, we present you with

Uncle Woody's Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters, 2008 General Election (California) Edition

Prop. 1A - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.

The idea here is to issue bonds (state politicians' favorite non-tax tax) in the amount of just under $10 billion to build and improve passenger rail service between the major population centers in the state. Hence a trip from Los Angeles to Oakland would take 2 hours and 40 minutes. Sounds terrific, and Uncle Woody is an old railfan from waaay back. I just don't know if there's enough interest in such commutes (except for state-hopping politicians, perhaps) to really make any money off of it. Reminds me of past attempts to build high-speed lines between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. That one would have had you losing money paying for the line, and losing your shirt when you got there.

 

Uncle Woody says get out of the way and let Amtrak do their thing. No on Prop 1A.

Prop. 2 - Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.

Thinly veiled attempt by the ASPCA and PETA to quit torturing animals that are targeted for eventual slaughter and eating anyway. Forcing "humane" conditions on growers just inevitably raises prices between them and the dinner table, which, I have little doubt, is PETA's ultimate goal. Make the animals expensive enough to eat, and everyone converts to Veganology.

 

Uncle Woody oinks in their general direction. No on Prop 2.

Prop. 3 - Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.

Uncle Woody must break with his traditional curmudgeonry in this particular instance. Children's (and other) hospitals across the state provide services that Uncle Woody's extended family has required in the past, and they always need more funds. This money is used to help maintain, increase, and promote the level of care and research that these hospitals provide. Even though much of Proposition 61's funds have yet to be awarded, we need to keep this money flowing. I'd even rather see the money we might have spent on high-speed rail travel being spent on kids instead. Cancer, in particular, is much more pervasive now than it was even ten years ago.

 

Uncle Woody votes an unqualified Yes on Prop 3.

Prop. 4 - Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Here we go again. We keep trying to outwit our teenagers, rather than communicate with them. Look, parents, if you're so worried about your daughter rushing out to get an abortion without your consent and knowledge, then you have already slammed the doors of communication shut between you. If you want to get ahead of the curve, STAY INVOLVED IN THEIR LIVES. Just because they're old enough to go to high school is no reason to abdicate your position AND INFLUENCE as a parent. If you love your kids, help them know that their lives are safe in your arms. That includes being able to come to you with news of a mistake — even a huge one like unprotected sex — without having to fear for their young lives.

 

I hate to admit that Planned Parenthood, of all subversive organizations, might be right, but forcing doctors to tell parents about abortions 48 hours before performing them is only going to drive kids to seek such treatment elsewhere, under unsafe conditions. If you'd rather your daughter not get an abortion, teach her about the nobility of adoption. Then go vote for legislation that criminalizes all elective abortion.

 

Try again and get it right, folks. Uncle Woody votes No on Prop 4.

Prop. 5 - Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.

Uncle Woody sees several huge problems with this initiative. The biggest problem, both in terms of uselessness and gross weight, is a "19 member board" to be created to direct parole and rehabilitation policy. In other words, a new bureaucracy that will toss drug offenders into rehab, wash their collective hands of the offenders, then gasp with surprise when 90% of those offenders wind up back in jail.

 

Here's where Hollywood really sets the example, folks. How many rehabbed actors and musicians have cleaned up and stayed that way?

 

Uncle Woody votes No way, Dude, on Prop 5.

Prop. 6 - Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.

Uncle Woody supposes that, since he votes No for Prop 5, he'd better be ready to vote for increases in funding for law enforcement. Since I don't, you know, believe in rehab, for example. This initiative alots nearly $10 billion (that figure, again!) for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, and facilities to handle stiffer regulations with regards to gang activity in particular. In other words, it's all intertwined in this initiative, and voting against it kind of kills the whole thing.

 

My problem here is that we continue to view gangs as just another element of society with (as some have argued) potential for (here's that word again!) rehabilitation. Uncle Woody, on the other hand, keeps wishing someone will wake up and actually label gangs as what they really are: enemy combatants. Then we can persecute and prosecute under provisions of Homeland Security and send in the National Guard, rather than wasting the efforts of good cops.

 

Until then, however, Uncle Woody will swallow hard and vote Yes for Prop 6.

Prop. 7 - Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.

Requires utilities in California to generate 20% of the power from renewable sources by 2010, 40% by 2020, and 50% by 2025.

 

Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But there's a problem, and this initiative isn't going to solve it. We DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THIS IDEA. Honestly; am I the only one in this state still waiting to see Schwarzenegger's promised "Hydrogen Corridor?" Well, guess what: that's an infrastructure issue, and WE AREN'T THERE YET. Ask folks in Tehachapi how much of a break they get on power provided by all those ugly windmills that besmirch their lovely foothills.

 

There's also the small issue of calendar. By my calendar, we have just over 15 months left until 2010. Even if we give them until December of 2010, that only gives them 27 months to come up with this 20% of renewable power. It will take 26 months alone for the Public Utilities Commission ("Preventing Your Power For Your Own Good") to approve the plans.

 

Uncle Woody votes Lights Out (that's "no" in utility-speak) on Prop 7.

Prop. 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

You just know that Jerry Brown came up with this description. "Eliminates" their right. Cute, that.

 

A future post is forthcoming in regards to Proposition 8. There are arguments aplenty in support of the initiative, one of which is that it took 61% of California voters to approve the exact same language in Proposition 22 back in 2000, but only 4 arrogant California Supreme Court justices to overturn it a few months ago. Said it wasn't "constitutional." Like they would know.

 

Let's make it constitutional. Uncle Woody votes YES on Prop 8.

Prop. 9 - Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

This one will be tricky. So-called "victims rights" are tenuous at best, especially in California where we seem to glory in creating safe-havens for every undocumented murderer that comes across the border. Berkeley still hasn't learned this lesson, and I doubt that this amendment will convince them otherwise. There's also the fact that the real damage to victims is typically done in court, and is inflicted by defense attorneys whose only goal in life is to win the case, without any moral compunction about using every available loophole to prevent an obviously guilty defendant from receiving the full brunt of the penalty they deserve. Still, as a sort of consolation prize, we have the opportunity to make it somewhat harder for criminals to be granted parole, warn the victims when parole may be granted, and give them a greater voice in whether parole should be considered.

 

Uncle Woody votes Yes for Prop 9.

Prop. 10 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.

Money, money, money. Everyone wants it. No one wants to give it. Particularly when they refuse to build infrastructure to support what they're asking for. Look, Uncle Woody is all for alternative fuels. The problem is, we're not very good about implementing these ideas. Everyone who has a hand in it is really looking to have a controlling interest (read: huge payback) in how it grows. If you want hydrogen fueling stations at more than a handful of locations around the state, you need to make it worth someone's while to build them. This is something Schwarzenegger has utterly failed to do, and remains one of the last things on which he campaigned that hasn't seen much activity. Bio-fuels are also dicey. We have a tendency to go overboard when something seems to work (corn, for example), then realize that we fouled up and forgot that people have a tendency to want to eat the stuff, not burn it in cars.

 

Uncle Woody "Brakes" for Prop 10. Show me something that will work to everyone's advantage, then we'll talk.

Prop. 11 - Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

1. California's redistricting process is broken.

2. Everyone wants it fixed.

3. No one can agree on how this should be accomplished.

 

Solution: make the voters do it! Really. This initiative creates a 14 member commission from a pool of 60 (can you say "lottery?"). Of the 14, 5 must be Democrats, 5 must be Republicans, and 4 must belong to "neither party."

 

Oh, really? Does that mean this commission might be influenced by 4 stoners from the Green Party?

 

Uncle Woody votes to snuff out Prop 11. Sober commissions only, please.

Prop. 12 - Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.

The only argument provided against this initiative is that the Cal-Vet loan program isn't limiting enough. Seriously. Someone volunteers to serve in the military to protect their country and (by extension) their state, and some Bozo in a three-piece suit wants to limit loans to only those veterans who actually serve in a combat area.

 

This program makes more sense than anything Congress is currently hashing out with respect to our credit crisis.

 

Uncle Woody salutes the flag for Prop 12.

-----------------------------------------

Convenient summary for Young Conservatives to clip out and take to the polls:

Proposition

1A - NO

2 - NO

3 - YES

4 - NO

5 - NO

6 - YES

7 - NO

8 - YES

9 - YES

10 - NO

11 - NO

12 - YES

Cross-posted at Woody's Woundup.

As a long-time blogger (Woody's Woundup; The Inner Dad) I have found that many folks have found me while looking for a conservative voter's guide of some sort. You know... the kind that we get in 4th class mail just about this time of year. You'd think that more of those would wind up on the web nowadays, but I guess the hawkers haven't quite caught on to "new media" just yet.

 

For the 2004 general election I created something called "The Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters" as a way of helping conservatives (me, primarily) understand the numerous ballot initiatives for which California is notorious. The initiatives often conflict with each other, or even cancel each other out. A careful analysis is required in order to have a full understanding of the ballot and be able to cast one's vote intelligently.

 

The Guide, however, is not the way to accomplish that. The analysis and opinions offered are strictly of my own invention and rely on whatever research I can do by perusing the increasingly hefty "Official Voter Information Guide," plus any web sites that appear to know more about the issue than I do. The result is the "Curmudgeon's Guide," a hopefully humorous description of the issues that Californian's must decide, written from the point of view of an average, ordinary conservative.

 

I've been posting these missives over at Woody's Woundup thus far, but decided to air them out on the Townhall.com laundry line. If you find them to be of any value, then terrific. If not, don't say I didn't warn you.