Aren't they good breeding material?

That is not my observation; I have to give credit to Ashley Spencer for that. That was her very first remark on seeing the engagement picture and invitation for this upcoming marriage, "Ooh, good breeding material." But want to know who are NOT good breeding material? Homosexuals...more in a minute. My little sister and this darling boy will tie the knot on Thursday. I am so very happy for them, not just because this is a happy time, but because of they way they plan to begin and continue what they have already done in life, rather than end it. I have been so puzzled by the attitudes that have pervaded our society, that life is over once you get married...Marriage is all screwed up, from nearly every angle, these days. Prevailing sentiments encourage to either not get married until you have done absolutely everything you wanted to do in life, and then get divorced because you have become too selfish to enjoy sharing any of it, or marry someone who fundamentally is undestined to be your partner...and I don't even believe in destiny. These two beautiful people are doing it the right way.

To begin with, they are each marrying someone of the opposite sex, a noble and worthy endeavor, wouldn't you agree? Unfortunately, in light of the gay marriage issue my state is currently examining, I have to give them credit for that most basic of marriage choices. But since we have to go back to marriage fundamentals here, this is the way it is supposed to be done: man and woman. And while it may sound base, the reason is very simple: man and woman= ability to reproduce. man and man=...well, I won't tell you what it equals, but it does not equal the ability to reproduce. And if nature refuses to condone something that for very uncompromising anatomical reasons, cannot propagate itself, then, I very politely ask, why the hell should we?

I have, until recently, been categorized into the group of people who thought that allowing homosexuals to marry wouldn't really affect me all that much. Sure, it's a small group of people with very loud obnoxious voices arguing over very small technicalities, but gosh, why not just shut them up and give them that very disgusting and unnatural thing that they claim to deserve? I think a lot of people in California feel this way and may either not vote for the upcoming Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and woman, or worse, vote against it under the guise of being "non-discriminatory." Unfortunately, there are many pseudo parallelisms to civil rights that the gay rights community (see, even the name of the movement (gay rights) makes you feel as if you are a bad, narrow minded person if you don't jump on board) has fraudulently adopted. But being a non-white minority is not the same as being homosexual, even if for the sake of argument, we assume that being so is always biologically determined. The rights that the minority group of homosexuals are demanding have the potential to negatively impact the rights of far many more people; not so with the far more appropriate civil rights demands made by black people and other minorities.

I am secure enough in my marriage that I am not afraid of gay people devaluing my union by erroneously adopting the same-that is not my contention. My freedom to have a sacred marriage is not literally affected by homosexual marriage, however gross it is to me. But that is only because I am already married. What I am concerned about is my right, freedom and ability to teach my children right from wrong, and the ability of churches all over the country of every type to be able to maintain their own strict sense of morality by condoning ONLY heterosexual unions. That sounds really broad and sweeping and paranoid. It's not. Want to know why? Money. It always comes back to freaking money, doesn't it? All church organizations enjoy some tax breaks and incentives for being church organizations and the good that they do. My church recently came out with a statement that forced me to realize how seriously an allowance of homosexual marriage would affect me, my ability to teach my children, and future children's opportunities of marrying- even in private institutions:

"Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course..."

and here is the part that really spoke to me from this statement:

"Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions.[17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership."

These are very real ways that endorsements of homosexual marriage, on a governmental level, have the potential to affect ordinary people. The constitutional directive for church and state to remain separate is a very inspired piece of our government. It works best when church and state run parallel, when they mostly agree but just keep out of each other's domain. It becomes really, really difficult to maintain that critical separation when church and state are in such tense odds with one another. Once government declares that homosexuals deserve to have recognized marriages, that opens the flood gates for all kinds of lawsuits against organizations-including church organizations who receive tax breaks for being so- who still want to maintain their policies against homosexuality. It is entirely possible that the government could threaten many churches' ability to function, by removing their tax incentives, if they refuse to recognize and/or perform homosexual unions. What happens when public schools are required to teach that lesbian and gay marriages are exactly the same as heterosexual marriages? It has already happened in Massachusettes: Watch this. What happens to sex education if our schools now assume that kids need to learn about ALL types of sex? Well, I know that in my house, my husband may have just won the private vs. public school argument if this amendment does not pass.

I am not a gay hater. I have several lovely lesbo friends at my local dog park. My mom, much to my father's intolerant chagrin, has a gorgeous gay hairdresser (really, it is a shame for many a potential woman that this man is not straight.) We, as a church, as a society, as individuals, are not trying to persecute homosexuals. But the Constitution is very clear about the rights of society when they come into conflict with the rights of individuals: the rights of an individual end where the rights of the majority become jeopardized by the asserted rights of the individual. I have recently realized how very real my rights as a parent, the rights of churches everywhere, and more importantly, the rights of my children could be negatively affected if this amendment to California's constitution does not pass. So please vote for Prop 8. Please encourage people you know to vote. And go Britt and Chels-way to be heterosexual and put one up for the straight-thinking team. I can't wait to participate in this blessed, and very natural, I might add, event.

So, my conservative friends and family, have I exonerated myself yet?