Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Tonight's debate and Prop 8

I must say that I have been very disappointed with the campaign that McCain and Palin have run. It has been extremely negative. It is not working. Please, please, please, please, please do not tell me why I should not vote for Obama. Tell me why I should vote for McCain.

The task in tonight's debate is to pull a rabbit out of the hat. He needs to give the voters a reason to vote for McCain. Give the voters a real indication that there will be a change in direction.

I have found out that while Obama is the #1 recipient of Fannie Mae money, Bob Bennett is #3. Are you sure that you still want to run for re-election one more time, Mr Bennett?

I have avoided talking about Prop 8 in California until now. Why is it an issue in Utah? Because the California Gay Marriage Law does not have a residency requirement. A gay couple in Utah can go to California and get married, move home and sue the State of Utah to recognize the marriage. If the California law is not overturned, Gay Marriage will be leagal in all 50 states in four years.

Proponents of Gay Marriage have argued that marriage laws are discriminatory. The fact that heteros can get married and homos can not creates a 2nd class citizen. I agree, but it is not the laws of the country that create this imbalance. It is the laws of nature.

Adam and Eve get married. And if Eve is younger than 35, there is a 90% chance that Eve will conceive a child that will be nearly half Adam and half Eve without the help of a medical professional. Adam and Steve get married and there is a 0% chance that Adam and Steve can make a baby that is part Adam and part Steve. In fact, Adam and Steve have to hire a surrogate mama to carry a baby for them. Even with the help of medical science, it can not be done. Eve and Sarah get married and there is also a 0% chance that they can make a baby that is part Sarah and part Eve. Even with the help of medical science it can not be done.

If marriage is man's invention, what was the intent from the beginning. It certainly was not love. It was to control bloodlines. If marriage was man's invention, the purpose was to make certain we know the identity of the baby's daddy. If marriage was man's invention, it was never about who you love. Since adultery is not prosecuted as a crime in this country, the laws of the land do not restrict who you love. You certainly have the freedom to love who you want to love regardless of who you are married to.

If a man and a woman are married and do not "love" anyone outside of this partnership, and then if they concieve naturally, we know who the genetic parents of the children are. We know that the King is the father of the prince. There is not doubt about this. The idea that marriage is for love is a relatively new idea.

But in our society today, there are perks to being married. You can file taxes differently. You can bank and borrow money jointly. You can get health insurance together. The list goes on and on. So if you love someone of the same gender, how can you get these perks without marriage?

But remember, we can call such a relationship marriage if you go to court and force us to do so. But there are perks of marriage that no court in the world can give you. Adam and Steve can not sue the court of nature to give them a baby that is genetically part Adam and part Steve. Even our best and most brilliant medical experts can not do this. We do not have the ability to "correct" this inequality. I do not know if we ever will.