SUPPOSEDLY if you've seen over 85 films, you have no life. Mark the ones you've seen. There are 239 films on this list. Copy this list, go to your own facebook account, paste this as a note. Then, put x's next to the films you've seen, add them up, change the header adding your number, and click post at the bottom.
(x) Rocky Horror Picture Show
(x) Grease
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean
(x) Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest
() Boondock Saints
(x) Fight Club
(x) Starsky and Hutch
() Neverending Story
(x) Blazing Saddles
(x) Airplane
Total: 8
(x) The Princess Bride
(x) Anchorman
() Napoleon Dynamite
(x) Labyrinth
() Saw
() Saw II
(x) White Noise
() White Oleander
(x) Anger Management
(x) 50 First Dates
(x) The Princess Diaries
() The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Total so far: 15
(x) Scream
() Scream 2
() Scream 3
(x) Scary Movie
() Scary Movie 2
() Scary Movie 3
() Scary Movie 4
(x) American Pie
() American Pie 2
() American Wedding
() American Pie Band Camp
Total so far: 18
(x) Harry Potter 1
(x) Harry Potter 2
(x) Harry Potter 3
(x) Harry Potter 4
() Resident Evil 1
() Resident Evil 2
(x) The Wedding Singer
() Little Black Book
() The Village
(x) Lilo & Stitch
Total so far: 24
(x) Finding Nemo
(x) Finding Neverland
(x) Signs
(x) The Grinch
() Texas Chainsaw Massacre
() Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
() White Chicks
(x) Butterfly Effect
(x) 13 Going on 30
(x) I, Robot
() Robots
Total so far: 31
(x) Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
() Universal Soldier
(x) Lemony Snicket: A Series Of Unfortunate Events
(x) Along Came Polly
(x) Deep Impact
() KingPin
() Never Been Kissed
(x) Meet The Parents
(x) Meet the Fockers
() Eight Crazy Nights
(x) Joe Dirt
(x) KING KONG
Total so far:39
() A Cinderella Story
(x) The Terminal
() The Lizzie McGuire Movie
() Passport to Paris
(x) Dumb & Dumber
() Dumber & Dumberer
() Final Destination
() Final Destination 2
() Final Destination 3
(x) Halloween
(x) The Ring
() The Ring 2
() Surviving X-MAS
() Flubber
Total so far:43
() Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle
() Practical Magic
(x) Chicago
() Ghost Ship
() From Hell
(x) Hellboy
(x) Secret Window
(x) I Am Sam
(x) The Whole Nine Yards
() The Whole Ten Yards
Total so far: 48
(x) The Day After Tomorrow
() Child's Play
() Seed of Chucky
() Bride of Chucky
() Ten Things I Hate About You
() Just Married
(x) Gothika
(x) Nightmare on Elm Street
(x) Sixteen Candles
() Remember the Titans
() Coach Carter
(x) The Grudge
() The Grudge 2
(x) The Mask
() Son Of The Mask
Total so far: 54
() Bad Boys
() Bad Boys 2
(x) Joy Ride
() Lucky Number Slevin
(x) Ocean's Eleven
() Ocean's Twelve
(x) Bourne Identity
(x) Bourne Supremecy
() Lone Star
() Bedazzled
(x) Predator I
(x) Predator II
() The Fog
(x) Ice Age
() Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
() Curious George
Total so far: 61
(x) Independence Day
() Cujo
() A Bronx Tale
() Darkness Falls
() Christine
(x) ET
() Children of the Corn
() My Bosses Daughter
(x) Maid in Manhattan
(x) War of the Worlds
() Rush Hour
() Rush Hour 2
Total so far: 65
() Best Bet
(x) How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
() She's All That
() Calendar Girls
() Sideways
(x) Mars Attacks
() Event Horizon
() Ever After
(x) Wizard of Oz
(x) Forrest Gump
() Big Trouble in Little China
(x) The Terminator
(x) The Terminator 2
(x) The Terminator 3
Total so far:72
(x) X-Men
(x) X-2
(x) X-3
(x) Spider-Man
(x) Spider-Man 2
() Sky High
() Jeepers Creepers
() Jeepers Creepers 2
(x) Catch Me If You Can
(x) The Little Mermaid
(x) Freaky Friday
() Reign of Fire
() The Skulls
() Cruel Intentions
() Cruel Intentions 2
(x) The Hot Chick
(x) Shrek
(x) Shrek 2
Total so far: 83
() Swimfan
(x) Miracle on 34th street
() Old School
() The Notebook
(x) K-Pax
() Krippendorf's Tribe
() A Walk to Remember
() Ice Castles
( ) Boogeyman
(x) The 40-year-old Virgin
Total so far: 86
(x) Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring
(x) Lord of the Rings The Two Towers
(x) Lord of the Rings Return Of the King
(x) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
(x) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
(x) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Total so far: 92
() Baseketball
() Hostel
(x) Waiting for Guffman
() House of 1000 Corpses
() Devils Rejects
() Elf
() Highlander
() Mothman Prophecies
(x) American History X
() Three
Total so Far: 94
() The Jacket
() Kung Fu Hustle
() Shaolin Soccer
() Night Watch
(x) Monsters Inc.
(X) Titanic
(x) Monty Python and the Holy Grail
() Shaun Of the Dead
(x) Willard
Total so far: 96
() High Tension
() Club Dread
(x) Hulk
(x) Dawn Of the Dead
(x) Hook
(x) Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
() 28 days later
() Orgazmo
() Phantasm
(x) Waterworld
Total so far: 103
(x) Kill Bill vol 1
(x) Kill Bill vol 2
() Mortal Kombat
() Wolf Creek
() Kingdom of Heaven
() the Hills Have Eyes
() I Spit on Your Grave aka the Day of the Woman
() The Last House on the Left
() Re-Animator
() Army of Darkness
Total so far: 105
(x) Star Wars Ep. I The Phantom Menace
(x) Star Wars Ep. II Attack of the Clones
(x) Star Wars Ep. III Revenge of the Sith
(x) Star Wars Ep. IV A New Hope
(x) Star Wars Ep. V The Empire Strikes Back
(x) Star Wars Ep. VI Return of the Jedi
() Ewoks Caravan Of Courage
() Ewoks The Battle For Endor
Total so far: 111
(x) The Matrix
(x) The Matrix Reloaded
(x) The Matrix Revolutions
()Animatrix
() Evil Dead
() Evil Dead 2
(x) Team America: World Police
() Red Dragon
(x) Silence of the Lambs
(x) Hannibal
Total so far: 117
Now Add them up and...
Put "I've seen ... out of 239 films" in the subject line and repost it.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
My extreme leftist/righty political view
I thought I'd take a moment to try to explain my political views, which seem confusing to some. People on the right - like my hard-core republican boss- think I'm a total liberal, while people on the left- like my husband- think I'm a right-wing nutcake.
The truth is I really am extreme on both sides, depending on the issue.
Socially, I'm very conservative. I believe life begins at conception and a woman's right to choose does NOT override the baby's right to live. The baby in-utero absolutely has every right that the same baby has as soon as it emerges from the womb. As you all probably know, I was pro- prop-8, as well. Most other social issues - I'm gonna go the same way, because for me they are all spiritual issues and the rules are actually made by God, not man.
However, on the issues of government and finance, I am quite liberal. While capitalism is the way of our country, it doesn't work for everyone and those who are disadvantaged by the system must be helped so they can help themselves - not as handouts to live off the government and promote laziness, but so that they can become self-reliant and, in turn contribute to society and the less-fortunate. Some, who can never be self-reliant like the mentally handicapped should be helped on a more permanent basis - it is our responsibility as humans to care for each other this way. I also believe that government is for our benefit and if we want it to do certain things for us and the less-fortunate, we need to pay for it - taxes.
I do think the rich should pay more in taxes so the poorer people can get the help they need. I look forward to the day when I can pay more in taxes because I'm fabulously wealthy! Obviously, I have no problem with people having money - but they shouldn't hoard it and once you have enough to live comfortably - even luxuriously the rest of your life, share the rest. You don't need it and you could probably never spend it, anyway. Your kids would be better off working out their own fortunes, anyway. These ideals also come from my religious beliefs - love one another, feed my sheep and the other examples Christ set. And, I believe a rising tide really should raise all ships, not just the yachts.
So, it's not so confusing when you think about it - it's common sense to me and it fits perfectly with what I've been taught all my life. It's based on Christ and his great example. It's also based on many values coming from the left- tolerance, caring and idealism - we can be better and we absolutely should be the best we can be.
The truth is I really am extreme on both sides, depending on the issue.
Socially, I'm very conservative. I believe life begins at conception and a woman's right to choose does NOT override the baby's right to live. The baby in-utero absolutely has every right that the same baby has as soon as it emerges from the womb. As you all probably know, I was pro- prop-8, as well. Most other social issues - I'm gonna go the same way, because for me they are all spiritual issues and the rules are actually made by God, not man.
However, on the issues of government and finance, I am quite liberal. While capitalism is the way of our country, it doesn't work for everyone and those who are disadvantaged by the system must be helped so they can help themselves - not as handouts to live off the government and promote laziness, but so that they can become self-reliant and, in turn contribute to society and the less-fortunate. Some, who can never be self-reliant like the mentally handicapped should be helped on a more permanent basis - it is our responsibility as humans to care for each other this way. I also believe that government is for our benefit and if we want it to do certain things for us and the less-fortunate, we need to pay for it - taxes.
I do think the rich should pay more in taxes so the poorer people can get the help they need. I look forward to the day when I can pay more in taxes because I'm fabulously wealthy! Obviously, I have no problem with people having money - but they shouldn't hoard it and once you have enough to live comfortably - even luxuriously the rest of your life, share the rest. You don't need it and you could probably never spend it, anyway. Your kids would be better off working out their own fortunes, anyway. These ideals also come from my religious beliefs - love one another, feed my sheep and the other examples Christ set. And, I believe a rising tide really should raise all ships, not just the yachts.
So, it's not so confusing when you think about it - it's common sense to me and it fits perfectly with what I've been taught all my life. It's based on Christ and his great example. It's also based on many values coming from the left- tolerance, caring and idealism - we can be better and we absolutely should be the best we can be.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Mormons' support of Proposition 8
To all those thinking the Mormon church should be taxed, hurt or otherwise punished for its members support of Proposition 8:
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California . There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California . Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.
Written by a member in the Newbury Park area.
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California . There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon church) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California . Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.
Written by a member in the Newbury Park area.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Election Post-Mortem
I find it hard to describe how I feel about life, today. I am calm, tired and at peace, I guess. Basically, I feel the lightness of me now that the weight of the campaign is off my shoulders. I can enjoy life again.
In fact, I don't even really want to write this but feel I should as a remembrance for myself. As Andy says, "It's the gift I give myself" for the future. It was a very momentous time for me and the country.
I was really enjoying the election season - two great candidates, exciting debates, public energy at the thought of really good change coming- no matter which candidate won, in my opinion. I think both John McCain and Barak Obama are very competent and smart guys. It was fun to sit back each night and watch the activities of the day from both sides and hear the commentary from the pundits.
Then, I got the assignment to run the local Yes on Prop 8 campaign (the one man one woman marriage amendment) and my entire view of the season changed. Now I had big responsibilities, that other people really didn't want, and I don't blame them a bit. I had to gather volunteers, coordinate a ton of activities, including phone calls, distributing yard signs, redistributing them daily after they'd been stolen, sign-waving rallies on street corners and a myriad of other things.
While I am very strong in my conviction on this issue, I didn't know where everyone I knew stood on it. It was not fun figuring it out since it's such a divisive issue and I do NOT like confronting people on them when there's a possibility I could get "rejected", lose a friend or even have mean words said to me. I'm actually quite sensitive and my main goal in life is for everyone to like me so this was hard for me. But, I manned-up and did what I could and slowly but surely I had a small contingency of volunteers (thanks to the help of some others who aren't as afraid as I am) and we were making calls, having phone banks, passing around email news and waving signs together.
With my group of supporters, I felt really positive and energetic. But, by myself, I still felt those pangs of fear that people I cared about would disown me. It almost happened once and I am so very grateful that we are still friends and can hopefully move past this. I did get plenty of swear words, birds shot at me and really mean words of response to things I wrote to the paper or online. Those things were easier to deal with because, for the most part, I don't know those people and will probably never have to face them.
Anyway, it is now over and regardless of the result - I am glad it is over. I am still reading a few news stories just to see what's happening and what will happen next but otherwise - I am avoiding the topic as much as possible.
Now, I want to bask. Bask in the lightness and the change that is coming to our country. I am so very excited that Barak Obama will be our President. While John McCain is truly a great man and would have made a good president, Obama is truly inspiring, to me and many others and I think that unity really is what our country needs right now. We have been so divided for so long that we must pull together to accomplish real good for ourselves and the world. I believe Obama is the one that can do that.
So, tonight I'm going to watch the news of what happened, today - who Obama is thinking about for Secretary of this or that, the implications of his election and all the positive things that we have to look forward to. We really do live in a great country where great things can happen and great people can be president. And, now I can enjoy it again.
Thank you to all those who supported me in the last 2 months - especially my wonderful husband Andy who, even though disagrees with me on this issue, stood up for me, allowed me time and space to accomplish my task and even went on a stakeout with me to protect our signs. He's the best husband ever!
In fact, I don't even really want to write this but feel I should as a remembrance for myself. As Andy says, "It's the gift I give myself" for the future. It was a very momentous time for me and the country.
I was really enjoying the election season - two great candidates, exciting debates, public energy at the thought of really good change coming- no matter which candidate won, in my opinion. I think both John McCain and Barak Obama are very competent and smart guys. It was fun to sit back each night and watch the activities of the day from both sides and hear the commentary from the pundits.
Then, I got the assignment to run the local Yes on Prop 8 campaign (the one man one woman marriage amendment) and my entire view of the season changed. Now I had big responsibilities, that other people really didn't want, and I don't blame them a bit. I had to gather volunteers, coordinate a ton of activities, including phone calls, distributing yard signs, redistributing them daily after they'd been stolen, sign-waving rallies on street corners and a myriad of other things.
While I am very strong in my conviction on this issue, I didn't know where everyone I knew stood on it. It was not fun figuring it out since it's such a divisive issue and I do NOT like confronting people on them when there's a possibility I could get "rejected", lose a friend or even have mean words said to me. I'm actually quite sensitive and my main goal in life is for everyone to like me so this was hard for me. But, I manned-up and did what I could and slowly but surely I had a small contingency of volunteers (thanks to the help of some others who aren't as afraid as I am) and we were making calls, having phone banks, passing around email news and waving signs together.
With my group of supporters, I felt really positive and energetic. But, by myself, I still felt those pangs of fear that people I cared about would disown me. It almost happened once and I am so very grateful that we are still friends and can hopefully move past this. I did get plenty of swear words, birds shot at me and really mean words of response to things I wrote to the paper or online. Those things were easier to deal with because, for the most part, I don't know those people and will probably never have to face them.
Anyway, it is now over and regardless of the result - I am glad it is over. I am still reading a few news stories just to see what's happening and what will happen next but otherwise - I am avoiding the topic as much as possible.
Now, I want to bask. Bask in the lightness and the change that is coming to our country. I am so very excited that Barak Obama will be our President. While John McCain is truly a great man and would have made a good president, Obama is truly inspiring, to me and many others and I think that unity really is what our country needs right now. We have been so divided for so long that we must pull together to accomplish real good for ourselves and the world. I believe Obama is the one that can do that.
So, tonight I'm going to watch the news of what happened, today - who Obama is thinking about for Secretary of this or that, the implications of his election and all the positive things that we have to look forward to. We really do live in a great country where great things can happen and great people can be president. And, now I can enjoy it again.
Thank you to all those who supported me in the last 2 months - especially my wonderful husband Andy who, even though disagrees with me on this issue, stood up for me, allowed me time and space to accomplish my task and even went on a stakeout with me to protect our signs. He's the best husband ever!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love
By Dennis Prager from Townhall.com
Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.
It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.
But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."
The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.
Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.
According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."
What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.
And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.
The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."
It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."
But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."
Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?
These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.
It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.
But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."
The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.
Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.
According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."
What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.
And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.
The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."
It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."
But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."
Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?
These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
Friday, October 10, 2008
My Proposition 8 Op-Ed
Amidst the frenzied emotional opposition to Proposition 8, I’d like to make a rational argument to vote yes on this constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
First, I’d like to dispel some myths. Proposition 8 wouldn’t take away any rights from same-sex couples. According to California’s domestic partnership laws, same-sex couples are given every right that opposite-sex couples have. See Family Code section 297-297.5. This includes visitation rights, divorce, probate and medical and other benefits.
Also, those opposed to Proposition 8 purport that gay marriage would not affect anyone but the same-sex couple. However, since the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and the introduction of civil unions in other states, a plethora of lawsuits have been filed against religious-based organizations for discriminating against gay couples because they refused service to them based on their religious beliefs. “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty on NPR.org cites several cases won by gay couples forcing adoption agencies, churches and parochial schools to either go against their beliefs or close their doors. This is a violation of their constitutional religious rights as guaranteed by the first amendment. This could and probably will happen in California if Proposition 8 fails.
Another consequence would be the teaching of children about same-sex marriage in school as early as kindergarten. The opposition would tell you that saying this is an exaggeration but, the education code section 51890 requires public schools to instruct children as early as kindergarten about marriage. If Proposition 8 fails, teachers will have little choice but to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage – or face complaints or even lawsuits. This takes away parents’ rights to teach this issue to their children the way they see fit.
Another issue is who decides the law? In 2000, 61% of Californian’s voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage through Proposition 22. Unfortunately, this was simply a change to the family code. So, earlier this year, four activist judges from San Francisco were able to overturn the will of the people. This is why Proposition 8 is on the ballot again, this time as a constitutional amendment. Once it passes, these judges will not be able to overturn it again. The will of the people, not a few left-wing judges, will prevail.
This is not an issue of equality. Same-sex couples already have that. This is an issue of what constitutes a marriage, which has been understood to be an institution between a man and a woman since its introduction thousands of years ago. In an article entitled “Protecting Marriage to Protect Children”(LA Times, Sept. 19, 2008), president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, David Blankenhorn, a self-proclaimed Liberal Democrat, says that marriage is not primarily a license to have sex nor to receive benefits or social recognition, but a license to have children. He says that children have a right, specifically guaranteed by the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, as much as society can make it possible to “know and be cared for” by their biological parents. Gay marriage will always violate that right.
To this, some will argue that in the world today, we have divorce, hetero couples unable to have children and other instances that keep children from being raised by both biological parents. Blankenhorn points out that most time children are denied this right, it is thought of as a tragedy, whereas with gay marriage, this loss of a child’s rights is celebrated.
I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 8 to uphold the will of the people, the rights of children and proper definition of marriage. Those supporting Proposition 8 have no will to lessen the rights of same-sex couples. We, however, must not let them and left-wing judges change what marriage means in our society for the rest of us.
First, I’d like to dispel some myths. Proposition 8 wouldn’t take away any rights from same-sex couples. According to California’s domestic partnership laws, same-sex couples are given every right that opposite-sex couples have. See Family Code section 297-297.5. This includes visitation rights, divorce, probate and medical and other benefits.
Also, those opposed to Proposition 8 purport that gay marriage would not affect anyone but the same-sex couple. However, since the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and the introduction of civil unions in other states, a plethora of lawsuits have been filed against religious-based organizations for discriminating against gay couples because they refused service to them based on their religious beliefs. “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty on NPR.org cites several cases won by gay couples forcing adoption agencies, churches and parochial schools to either go against their beliefs or close their doors. This is a violation of their constitutional religious rights as guaranteed by the first amendment. This could and probably will happen in California if Proposition 8 fails.
Another consequence would be the teaching of children about same-sex marriage in school as early as kindergarten. The opposition would tell you that saying this is an exaggeration but, the education code section 51890 requires public schools to instruct children as early as kindergarten about marriage. If Proposition 8 fails, teachers will have little choice but to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage – or face complaints or even lawsuits. This takes away parents’ rights to teach this issue to their children the way they see fit.
Another issue is who decides the law? In 2000, 61% of Californian’s voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage through Proposition 22. Unfortunately, this was simply a change to the family code. So, earlier this year, four activist judges from San Francisco were able to overturn the will of the people. This is why Proposition 8 is on the ballot again, this time as a constitutional amendment. Once it passes, these judges will not be able to overturn it again. The will of the people, not a few left-wing judges, will prevail.
This is not an issue of equality. Same-sex couples already have that. This is an issue of what constitutes a marriage, which has been understood to be an institution between a man and a woman since its introduction thousands of years ago. In an article entitled “Protecting Marriage to Protect Children”(LA Times, Sept. 19, 2008), president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, David Blankenhorn, a self-proclaimed Liberal Democrat, says that marriage is not primarily a license to have sex nor to receive benefits or social recognition, but a license to have children. He says that children have a right, specifically guaranteed by the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, as much as society can make it possible to “know and be cared for” by their biological parents. Gay marriage will always violate that right.
To this, some will argue that in the world today, we have divorce, hetero couples unable to have children and other instances that keep children from being raised by both biological parents. Blankenhorn points out that most time children are denied this right, it is thought of as a tragedy, whereas with gay marriage, this loss of a child’s rights is celebrated.
I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 8 to uphold the will of the people, the rights of children and proper definition of marriage. Those supporting Proposition 8 have no will to lessen the rights of same-sex couples. We, however, must not let them and left-wing judges change what marriage means in our society for the rest of us.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A Powerful Feminists For Life Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQR1-1OXK4
A very powerful video from Feminists For Life, of which I'm a proud member. They have a dead-on approach to the Life/Choice issue. Check them out at: http://www.feministsforlife.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)