Monumental Lie of the Yes on 8 Campaign
In living color. These misguided people somehow think handing the state a strict definition of marriage guarantees their constitutional freedoms? Don’t they realize the consequences of abrogating what the church has been free to define themselves to the state?
See, they want you to think that somehow churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages. Of course, that’s simply not true. But they think their argument works.
To the Yes on 8 folks: I really hope I don’t hear wailing and gnashing of teeth in your churches about how you can’t reach young people. Because this campaign, more than any other, has alienated those you most hoped to reach.
Very sad.
Yes on 8 Bus Tour: Impressions at an Exhibition
I don’t know exactly how to tell the story of my attendance at the media bus tour rally for Proposition 8 in Camarillo today. If told in a linear fashion, I doubt you’d make it to the end. Ultimately, it may be best to tell it in vignettes, not necessarily in time sequence, but as more of an impressionistic landscape of conversation, observance, and ultimately, sad conclusion.
- The No on 8 representatives were a very small contingent, maybe 10 or 12, a handful at best. As one of them explained to me, they did not seek a confrontation or wish to disrupt. They were there to represent, no more, no less. The most poignant pair were the couple (a man and a woman) holding up a sign reminding us to remember Lawrence King and what his murder represented. They were silent. I never heard them say a word. As they struggled to get around the Yes supporters trying to block visibility, they said nothing. As if they were reading each other’s mind, they crossed the street together and stood on the opposite corner, unblocked, serious, respectful, and silent, standing with the sun in their eyes, facing the group on the other side with their tragic reminder of what happens when hate transforms to action.
- The little girl and the big girl As I crossed the street to come closer to the rally itself, a girl of about sixteen handed a small girl of about five or six a sign that read “Yes on 8=Parental Rights” and told her to stand on the corner closest to the driveway. I asked the little girl what that sign said. She didn’t know. I asked her what it meant for her to be holding it. She was quiet. The older girl, in a somewhat hostile tone, asked me why I was asking such questions of a little girl. I said I was curious to understand what little kids were thinking about holding signs and being part of the political process. Her response: “She doesn’t have a clue.” Mine: “I guess that’s my point.” She looked at me quizzically and turned away.
- The preteen boys, especially the one with the Bad Religion shirt on. Two boys, around 12 or 13 stood on the north side of the rally holding Yes on 8 signs, squinting into the sun. As a car drove by honking madly for the Yes on 8 folks, they cheered like they were at a soccer game. I asked them why they were cheering.
Boy in the Bad Religion shirt: “Because if this doesn’t pass, we’ll have to let gay kindergarten kids hold hands, and that grosses me out.” His friend nodded vigorously. I asked him whether he had ever seen such a thing. “Well, no”. What made him think it would happen if Prop 8 were defeated? “The guy over there (on the podium) says so.” What else made him want Yes on 8? “Well, we’ll have to learn about gays marrying, which is totally disgusting. And my religion says it’s bad, and I’m like, totally religious.”
In my mind, I’m trying to reconcile the Bad Religion shirt with being “totally religious.” I thought about asking. Thought better of it, decided on a different approach. Repeating my earlier question, I ask them whether they’ve learned about gays marrying in school yet. “No, but they say we will.” I remind him that nothing changes if Prop 8 doesn’t pass. Changes only happen if it does pass. At that point, the man
in the suitholding a sign a ways down intervenes, asserting rather strongly that state law requires it. (Note: This is false. All family and health education is opt-in, as any parent knows who has a child in the public school system) - The man
in the suit and tiein the jeans and polo shirt (see comments for correction). This was the only time that I felt even a little afraid. He was a bit intimidating, and shouted across to me, asking who I was “with”. I said I wasn’t ‘with’ any organization; I was a blogger. Next question: Who did I blog for? Answer: Myself. Next: What site? I gave him my site URL. Question: Which way does it lean? Answer: Proudly liberal. and Christian.He turned and walked away. I said, rather loudly, that Jesus was more of a liberal than anything else, to which he turned and rather furiously shouted back that Jesus was certainly not a liberal.
Later, one of the observers of that exchange admonished me as he was leaving to “tell the truth”. I reassured him that I absolutely intended to do exactly that. The truth as I understood it, as fairly as I can tell it.
- The speakers on the podium. I’m not sure who they were, but they stuck to the talking points. It’s a strange thing to see Baptists allied with Mormons. In any other context, the Baptists would be furiously decrying the Mormons as a cult. Yet, they were up there on the podium cheering each other on and adding exclamation points to the points. I was having difficulty reconciling the cognitive disconnect. Everyone dressed in their Sunday Best, suits, ties, Easter dresses, children properly cleaned up and strategically placed, while hearing talking points that made no sense, yet everyone was cheering as though they’d been hypnotized.
- The talking points. First point, repeated many times: This is a campaign of love. The first time it was repeated with no explanation for how that could be true. Several repeats later, I heard this phrase: “This is a campaign of love that should not be subject to the tyranny of the minority.” I also heard this: “They’ve got it all. Don’t let them have this, too.” The term “they” referred to gays. “This” referred to marriage. When I heard that, I immediately wondered what they meant by “got it all”. I also wondered how they were reconciling that statement with the idea of it being a campaign of love. Could it be that they were limiting the concept of love to the religious, the heterosexual, the married heterosexuals? Was that kind of intellectual dishonesty truly possible? It reminded me of the kind of love that abusive parents administer. They hold you close and hug you before knocking you across the room with one backhand to the face. That kind of love.
- The cheerleading The final, and presumably key speaker could preach like a revival preacher in the Deep South. Lots of amens and calls to preach it from the crowd. At the end of his speech, he drove up the passions by calling for them to shout out “I do!” to each talking point. The first point was to affirm marriage as only being between a man and a woman. With rising pitch, he would ask the crowd “Do you swear to….(insert talking point here)”, and the crowd would rise and shout as if lifted by God Himself, “I DO!!!”. Each successive call for affirmation was louder and louder. All I could think of was the children who had no clue what the fever was all about, but would go along because they were in an exciting and energized group of people, driven by emotion and inspiration.
- The men who didn’t know who Lawrence King was or why he should be remembered. Two men overheard as I was about to cross the street to leave, upon observing the couple with the “Remember Lawrence King” sign crossing the street: “Who is Lawrence King? Do you know?” “No, I don’t.” Barely able to contain myself, I turned with a smile and said “Lawrence King was murdered in cold blood in his homeroom class in Port Hueneme last February. In front of 40 eighth-graders. By a kid taught to be afraid of and hate gays.” I turned on my heel and left. This was front-page news here, and ultimately made the national news as well. It wasn’t a secret. Yet here were two full-grown men who had no clue who that poor boy was. Lawrence King was a resident at Casa Pacifica, a resident facility for troubled teens. It’s always struck me as ironic that, despite being part of a so-called traditional family, those traditional family values failed him. His killer is a troubled boy as well. I certainly don’t see where the ever-sanctified family was an asset to him either, other than to make sure a gun was accessible so he could put two bullets into Larry King’s head at point-blank range in front of his classmates.
I was glad they couldn’t see the tears welling up in my eyes at the affront.
- The priest and the parishioner. Among the handful of people standing in opposition to Proposition 8, the one who most stood out was the gentle-looking man in the priest’s collar. He was involved in a respectful, intense conversation with another man who was arguing respectfully, but passionately, that homosexuality was a perversion. There was no question that the conversation was pointed and intense, but not confrontational. At one point, one of the Yes on 8 people brought a bottle of cold water to the priest. He accepted and said “I think I’ve just seen the face of Jesus today.”, as a way of thanking the water-bringer. What a generous and clear-headed spirit that priest had. I think I saw the face of Jesus, too. But it was on the priest, not the parishioner.
I have other fragmented, less clear impressions. Impressions of people, well-intentioned, sincere people, who somehow had been duped into thinking that somehow allowing same-sex marriage threatened their own heterosexual marriages. Impressions of children, happy to be at a big party, with no clue what the party was celebrating. Children being misled and taught falsehoods about what being gay was and what it wasn’t. Children being raised to be afraid, to not speak their minds or their hearts. The quiet determination of the two people on the corner. The TV cameraman who asked me which side I was on, and applauded my answer: That I was a Christian on the side of love and inclusion, strongly opposed to the idea of excluding anyone from entering into a marriage contract and a lifelong loving relationship.
Impressions of middle schoolers, anxious to be included in the event, but young enough to be distracted by the idea of tossing a baseball against the gargatuan Yes on 8 sign on the side of the truck. Impressions of a crowd stirred by the charismatic words and delivery of the preachers in the pulpit, fiercely guarding their right to be married to their loving spouse on the other side, believing in their deepest heart that they were somehow threatened.
And there is this: the impression that Christianity has been somehow twisted into an exclusive club where an entire segment of the population is to be toughloved out of the mainstream into the fringe. A sense of deep disappointment, of loss, grief that people could be led in such a way and in turn lead their children. Disappointment that there was not one mention of what Jesus did for those on the fringe, the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the unwanted and the unwashed. For Jesus, it was all about them. And us.
As I reached my car, I smiled at the woman across the street who had told the Yes on 8 people they couldn’t park in front of her house. I got in the car, turned around, and cried all the way home. I remember sitting in front of my own house wondering how such ignorance, such venom, could be celebrated by a church. I will never forget the tone and manner with which the line “Don’t let them have this, too.” was delivered. That tone will haunt me for the rest of my life, as will the image of Lawrence King’s sweet face.
I printed his picture. I put it in my wallet. I will carry it with me to the polls on November 4th, and when I draw my line across the arrow on my ballot pointing to “No” next to Proposition 8, I will say a prayer that he is up in Heaven sending love our way.
This question of marriage is about love. Allowing everyone to celebrate and express it. Allowing each individual the basic human right to fall in love, and make a public commitment to remain true to one another, and that commitment is as valid for same-sex marriages as it is for heterosexual marriages. In a world where there are true threats to our well-being — disease, poverty, hunger, abuse, abandoned, unloved children — we should celebrate those who want to affirm commitment and a pledge of love to one another, not condemn it.
I don’t pretend to be objective. I’m not. I truly in my heart believe that excluding a group from something as good as marriage is wrong. Teaching children to be afraid of, or ridicule those different from them is wrong. Please, instead of making it an us versus them thing, vote No on Proposition 8 and make it only an US thing. Because we are all US. Aren’t we?
Yes on 8 Group Schools Kids Out of School
[Disclosure: I am a Christian, and I oppose Proposition 8. I support education, tolerance, and inclusion. See Mark 12:31]
The other day, my daughter told me that one of her friends wasn’t in school because she was joining her parents at a Yes on 8 rally. I was amazed. And outraged. As the mom of three kids (one in college, one veteran), I know how important it is for my kids to be in school, learning. For the past week, I have watched the Yes on 8 folks tell the public outright lies about our education system and civil rights, and now I’m seeing them using their kids as attention pawns in the middle of a school day.
I can’t remain silent, and I can’t remain objective. What they are doing is wrong, it’s unChristian, and it’s downright hateful. Over the past week, I’ve heard stories of young children, sometimes not even school age, standing on street corners with their parents, and even their pastors!.
What are their parents telling them? Based on their literature, I can only imagine. “Honey, you need to stand here and hold this sign so you won’t have to learn about ladies loving ladies, men loving men, and the perverted things they do to each other.” Seriously? “The evil liberals want to take away your right to marry a man (or a woman)?” “The gay folks want to end the human race?”
When a parent teaches their child to be afraid of people that are different from them, they plant the seeds of hate. When a parent enlists those same children as pawns in a political cause of exclusion, they teach them that it’s okay to speak that intolerance in public without regard for the feeling of true human beings on the other side of the issue, they teach them to live a life of division and intolerance.
When they teach their children lies, they teach their children to lie.
When they teach their children to be afraid of others who are different, they undermine their own cause. Christianity is a religion of inclusion, not exclusion. It is a religion based upon caring for others, not condemnation. Above all, there is nowhere in biblical foundations for Christians to be involved in an effort to promote discrimination, fear and hate.
Right now, there is no provision in the California state constitution that addresses marriage. When the Yes on 8 folks claim that it forces schools to teach young children about gay marriage, they lie. Second graders are not taught these things in public schools today and nothing will be different on November 5th. Unless it passes. Then some children will be taught that there are groups in our society we should regard as lower than others. That is what the Yes on 8 people are trying to shove down Californians throats, and they’re willing to sacrifice their children’s education to do it. What hypocrisy!
Here’s an irony: By using their children as pawns in the Proposition 8 propaganda campaign, they are teaching their children more about gay marriage than they’d ever learn in public school. Unfortunately, they’re also teaching them to fear, hate and be intolerant of gays. Now for perspective, know that the Mormons are the ones spearheading much of the effort. The same church that spawned people who think it’s okay to waterboard employees as a training exercise. While there are some Mormons who are more tolerant than others, the official position of the church is hard-line and militant with respect to gays and gay marriage.
I ask this question directly to them: Are you willing to accept the responsibility for 14-year old Brandon McInerney’s cold-blooded murder of Lawrence King last year? McInerney’s attitudes came from fear, intolerance, and what he’d learned from his parents. Are you willing to accept your hypocrisy for claiming to be teaching biblical principles while denying outright the acts of love that Christ modeled?
Directly to those undecided about Proposition 8, I ask you this: What credibility should you give to people who pimp their kids for the sake of a cause founded on fear, lies and hate? Are these the children you want looking after you when you can’t work, are disabled, sick or in need? If so, you’d better be sure you fall into the category of those who are acceptable in their eyes, because they have been schooled in the business of judgment and exclusion.
As for me and my house, two of my children are now registered voters and will be voting No on Proposition 8. The third isn’t old enough to vote, but she’s old enough to understand that voting for Proposition 8 is voting for hate, exclusion and intolerance. She is the same age as Larry King. His school was two miles from hers. She cried at the news of his shooting as though she had known him. For the first time in her young life, she felt and understood the price of intolerance: one too high to pay.
This is the message she speaks to those who use their children to promote exclusion:
Leave it alone. Don’t teach your kids to be afraid. Kids have enough to deal with. They don’t need to worry about stuff that is mean.
Photo Credit (Top Right): Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times
Will Democrats Kill Your 401k?
The short answer is NO. But if you follow news about 401k plans, you might find some pretty scary headlines like this one or this one, where the writers contend that the Democrats want to take away the tax incentive out of 401k plans and force a mandatory pension savings of 5% on employees.
Let’s put this in perspective. Testimony was given to the House Education and Labor Committee by Professor Teresa Ghilarducci. And it was dramatic testimony, no doubt. She proposed to eliminate all tax incentives for 401k plans and shift to a universal government-sponsored program with mandatory minimum savings rates per worker of 5% with a government-subsidized match of $600/year for lower-income workers. (As an aside, this time of year is generally when House Committees hear testimony on pension and tax reform, so it’s not unusual to have such testimony given).
Drastic. And it will not happen in this way, in this form. I cannot stress this strongly enough. This is certainly one proposal presented in testimony, and I suspect it got the press play because it is also the most drastic testimony I have heard about. However, others have testified, proposing milder and far more necessary reforms.
401k plans are flawed. They have been flawed from the beginning, and some changes have reduced the flaws while other have highlighted them. The biggest fallacy of the 401k is the idea that it should be the single vehicle to fund our retirement. If you haven’t figured out why by now, here’s an example:
Jenny Worker enrolls in her company 401k Plan and socks away 3,000 per year. Her company contributes a $750 matching contribution. Jenny starts her 401k contributions at age 25 and has them invested in a moderate portfolio mix of stocks, bonds and cash. Her average rate of return over the past ten years has been 8%. On 12/31/2007 Jenny is now 35 and her 401K balance is $54,325.
Against her better judgment, Jenny checks her 401k statement on October 15, 2008 and discovers that her balance is now $35,200 based on a 35% or so loss on her investments. Jenny’s retirement fund, adjusted for inflation and future rates of return, will not meet her targets for retirement income or security, even if the markets recover most of their values over the next ten years.
This is the danger that everyone who works with 401K plans warns against. But even those of us who are professionals never, ever expected or anticipated a simultaneous crash of the bond AND stock markets at the same time, where money market funds even found themselves at risk. Certainly if we had plotted models based upon this kind of contingency when markets were moving at a growth rate of 10% or so per year, we would have been viewed as nutcases without legs to stand on.
And yet, here we are. The primary flaw in the 401k model is that it is clearly subject to the whims of the market, and there are never ANY guarantees in the markets, no matter how stable they may appear. Add employees’ lack of education about investing or the markets, and it paints a stunning picture where the one with everything to lose is the employee, while the employer bears no burden or obligation for those employees’ retirement security.
What reforms make sense?
- Keep the tax incentives, but require some sort of minimum investment in Treasury Bonds with a guaranteed rate of return of 3%. Sell it as patriotic, even — a way to pull our country out of the crisis and debt to foreign countries. I’d rather have the US owe ME than have China own the US. To those of you who cringe at anything earning 3%, I challenge you to look at your 401K portfolio rate of return today if 25% of it were invested in guaranteed treasury bonds. Somehow that 3% looks a whole lot better than a 35% loss.
- Require fee transparency and simplicity. It’s true. There are many hidden fees in 401k investments right now that eat into that rate of return. Those fees may be acceptable, but you as the participant should have the absolute right to know what they represent and who receives them.
- Give incentives for entry-level employees to save One of the biggest issues Congress has with 401k plans is that it benefits mid-level and highly-paid employees quite well, while leaving the entry-level employees in the cold. Barack Obama’s plan has a tax incentive for any worker who saves through a 401k plan to encourage them to save from the beginning.
There is another factor that I haven’t addressed here, and that is the “guaranteed pension” that used to be the mainstay of every employee’s retirement. I am not addressing it here because I’m not sure how, in our current economy, that burden can be placed upon corporations with any expectation for economic growth. However, I do think that a blended approach, where participants in 401k plans are guaranteed a minimum retirement benefit by the employer which is funded by 401k and employer contributions, would be a good approach to the problem.
Don’t be fooled by the hysterical GOP headlines. It’s a play for votes, no more, no less. At the same time, I’d encourage everyone to stay engaged and aware of the proposals swirling around 401k plans and make sure any action Congress takes next year is responsible and actually benefits YOU.
Update: Actual summary of the hearing
CA: Key Propositions Losing, Voter Confidence Lagging
This is excellent news. According to a statewide survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, Propositions 4 (Parental notification before a minor can have an abortion) and Proposition 8 (Same sex marriage ban) are below the 50% threshold. Among likely voters, Proposition 8 is losing 52%-44%.
The study also found that the economy is the issue first and foremost among voters (Hear that, Senator McCain? No one wants to hear your smears, they want to hear what you’re going to do about this mess!). 55% of likely voters weight the economy as the top issue. That’s a 21-point jump since a similar poll done in August.
Some other interesting findings: Only 9% of Californians think the initiative process is working, the majority thinks reforms are necessary. (Count me in that 91% who think the entire initiative process is a joke that makes bad law and worse situations - I think they should be abolished.)
The item that most concerned me: Only 51% of likely voters have a great deal or a lot of confidence in the nation’s voting system. I’ll have more to say on that in a different post.
You can read the entire survey here.
No on Proposition 8: Preserve Religious Freedoms
I’m sure the title of this post will have many churchgoers aghast, but I am deadly serious about it. Proposition 8 does far more harm to churches than it does any other institution, including marriage.
Despite the fact that this proposition made it to the ballot via petitions circulated among churches and heavily sponsored by the conservative church movements in this state (including the Mormon church), the truth of the matter is that the one single institution with the most to lose is the church itself.
In purely legal terms, marriage is a contract entered into by two parties. By applying for and receiving a marriage license and going through either a civil or church ceremony, that contract is sealed. Right now, churches have the absolute right to define the terms under which their clergy will perform a marriage ceremony.
But if Proposition 8 passes, Pandora’s box is flung open, as the barrier between church and state is shattered. Here is what Proposition 8 does: It sends a state mandate to churches telling them exactly what criteria they may consider in order to administer marriage. It clearly dictates doctrine on the question of marriage to the church.
Forget everything you’ve seen on TV; forget the red herring arguments (lies) about teaching children about gay marriage in second grade. Stand back and consider Proposition 8 from a distance.
Here is the authority the church will cede to the state if Proposition 8 passes:
- Who it can marry
- Who it can ordain
- Who may attend church-sponsored schools and what those schools must teach
- How tithes and offerings are spent
Don’t cluck your teeth and assume I’m the prophet of doom here. I’m not. If churches open the door for the state to dictate doctrine, churches also open the door for the state to dictate to them.
Think about that. As Steveaudio says:
In other words, the wall protects both sides. Did you forget that? Water flows both ways, and so does power. If you think you can control the Government, the Government can control you and your churches.
Oh, and in case you’re reading this and see the words I’ve written as those of a typical California liberal (which I am), let me share the thoughts of some Republicans who oppose Proposition 8:
Whether you are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist, Proposition 8 is bad for people, for religion, and for the state. Don’t let a narrow-minded bunch of homophobes knock down the wall between church and state.
Just vote no.
And visit NoOnProp8.com. Consider a donation. To protect your church’s right to make it’s own decisions, because that is really the bottom line.
(though I believe it’s also a mean-spirited and stupid idea to ban anyone from marrying…that’s my opinion. FACT is that churches put way too much at risk with this proposition)
