California and Marriage

wedding_rings.jpgIn November California voters will be given the opportunity to add to the California Constitution.  The wording of the amendment will make it clear that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.  My church’s Proclamation On the Family is clear that this is how God intends marriage to be. I hope to provide some information on this topic until it is time to vote.  To start I will quote ProtectMarriage.com which my church and my family is supporting:

Why It’s Needed:

1.  Children need the love of both a father and a mother.  The body of research-proof is overwhelming and consistent.

2.  Traditional marriage deserves protection because of its contributions to societal well-being.  The historic purpose for governmental recognition of marriage has been about children and society, not the relationship of two adults.

3.  Expanding the definition of marriage by including homosexual relationships adds to the continued disregard for marriage’s ultimate purpose. Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy. Nine European nations have had same-sex marriage since the early 90s—and just 2 percent of same-sex couples in these countries ever bother to marry, while there has been a 46 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births.

4.  Expanding the definition of marriage begs the question: Why stop at same-sex couples?  What legal basis would remain to limit the number of partners in marriage?

5.  Legalizing same-sex marriage necessarily mandates changes to all California public-school curriculum.  Children will be subjected to a mandatory acceptance of homosexuality and all of its practices.  Public school curriculum will actively discriminate against the values of the majority of its community’s families.

6.  Religious freedom has been the cornerstone of success for the United States of America.  It is naïve to believe that when acceptance of same-sex marriage is legislatively or judicially forced upon citizens via employment law, education, or other government mandates, rights of religious liberty won’t decrease.

2 Comments

  1. nana
    Jul 14, 2008

    Way to go Amy. California can not approach this issue the way they have other issues and worry about political correctness. We must vote. If we want to protect our children and grandchildren we must pass this amendment! A few comments: I know because I am a teacher and have kept up on ed code, schools are now required to mention same sex marriage every time they refer to marriage OR to a child’s parents. Teachers can no longer refer to parents as mom and dad. Can anyone really believe this is a good thing? When I teach cooking classes at our elementary school now I have to say not only parents but “grand parents and whoever does the grocery shopping at your house” when I encourage the kids to make healthy foods for their family. AND I really worry about where this will end. Obviously polygamy will become legal but what about parent-child marriage or siblings,or parent-foster child…and the list goes on. Once you say any two people who love each other should have the right to marry you can not change the rules for couples of any description. Parents can now give a children the right to marry at 16. Will incest now be passed off as love and marriage? Do you remember how the royal families in Europe produced off spring with limited mental capacity due to inbreeding? Who will pay to take care of those children? There was a reason the laws were made by man. Of course God gave those same laws to us from the beginning. When we ignore God’s laws we will always lose.

  2. Jesse
    Oct 31, 2008

    “Obviously polygamy will become legal but what about parent-child marriage or siblings,or parent-foster child…and the list goes on.”

    You’re a teacher? I would expect, then, that you would know better than to use this textbook example of a slippery-slope fallacy to defend segregation and discrimination. Hopefully you don’t work at my school. =/