"Supporters" You Can Do Without

In the lead up to the 2008 elections, candidate Barak Obama picked up many endorsements from notable political figures that helped him build the clout he needed within his party to claim victory (Bill Richardson, Ted Kennedy, among others). On the other hand, Obama also had to deal with a few endorsements that he wishes would go away, such Fidel Castro and Gaddafi. It turns out you can't control who claims to be on your side and ultimately some of your "supporters" hurt your cause far worse than your adversaries can.

For this reason, I avoid large public demonstrations in general, even for causes that I strongly support. While on the one hand, demonstrations attract media attention which generate political momentum for a cause, it doesn't take very many people to co-opt the group's message. An example of this happened outside the California Supreme Court while the fate of Prop 8 was being considered within. News reports about prop 8 supporters outside the court house frequently referred to a person carrying a sign that said "Dan White is a hero". For those unfamiliar with the story, Dan White killed San Francisco's first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk. In the most forgiving interpretation of events, Dan White was a very very sick man. In a more damning interpretation, he was a cold-blooded murderer. In either case, Dan White is no a hero. Neither Dan White's actions nor words of this prop 8 "supporter" should be allowed to stand as a representation of "Yes on 8" coalition. That sign is an offense to fair minded individuals on both sides of the debate. I hope in some small way this post serves to show that the mainstream of "Yes on 8" wants nothing to do with that sign's message.


*** Addendum ***

Recently, I came across an article thematically related to the post above. I always like to find somebody more articulate than me that espouses a point of view similar to mine. Orson Scott Card wrote a thoughtful piece: Letters better off not sent. It is a worthwhile read.

Tonight as I put my children to bed, they asked me to tell them as story about when I was little. Instead of telling them stories about me, I told them about my recollections of my great-grandfather. The kids listened with rapt attention and asked me many questions about how my great-grandfather had lassoed a deer . I told them about having family reunions up in the mountains in southern Utah where he had lived. I told them about a latch hook rug that he had made for me when I was only slightly older than them. I still have that rug. It connects me to my past, and one day I expect I will pass it on to one of them. I think how meaningful these stories are to me and how they connect me to my heritage. They help me understand who I am and where I came from.

When I started attending graduate school, I was surprised when I opened the school newspaper to see that there were advertisements recruiting sperm donors. Though I knew this existed, I still found it disconcerting to see parenthood so blatantly commercialized. It is difficult for me to understand how a person can separate the notion of donating sperm/eggs and the idea of selling one's own children for profit. In a sense, the term donor is a misnomer since a donation is usually not associated with remuneration.

The companies and individuals that do the recruiting go to great lengths to avoid linking the notion of parenthood with the act of selling sperm. The ads for sperm "donors" emphasize how easy it is to make a few dollars and sometimes even throw in incentives like movie tickets. Adjectives like "fun" and "easy" are used. The transaction is further facilitated by emphasizing that you are helping infertile couples become parents. Care is taken not to refer to "donors" as parents, even though in a biological sense that is what they being paid to become. The only mention of the "donor's" role as a parent that I can recall seeing in their literature is a document that must be signed relinquishing all parental rights... But what of the child's rights?

The rights of the child are left out the discussion. When I think of the cultural and material heritage that I have from being connected to my biological family , I cannot understand how the donors and prospective clients can unilaterally deprive their children of similar knowledge of who they are. The United Nations affirms this as a right in the Convention on the Rights of the Children.

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. [Bold Italics added]

...

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. [Bold Italics added]

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

Anonymous sperm donors deprive their children of not only the right to know their parents, but also their uncles, aunts, siblings, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. This is not trivial. I found an article called "In the Best Interests of Children?" which discusses the emotions that our first generation of donor-conceived children feel regarding their missing history. It is worth a read. (link)

Prop 8 Funding

Recently the Church came under attack in the media due to revised declarations of contributions to Prop 8. I was disappointed by the lack of thoroughness in the reporting. From my perspective, the LA Times coverage was deceptive and biased. The most recent article was posted on a blog at their website on February 11th, 2009. It mentions that the Church spent over $180,000 but neglects to mention that this was in-kind. No actual money was contributed. The total includes things like meals and flight expenses for church leaders traveling to meetings and the like.

An earlier report they filed on January 31, 2009 in the main newspaper (not a blog), represents the donation in such a way that it could be construed as violating law. They only use quotes by groups accusing the church of misrepresenting their contributions and not filing properly. No where in the article is mentioned that the Church had been filed several times since July 1st. No where was mentioned that the last day to file was January 31st so that the Church's contribution was actually submitted ahead of the deadline.

To get a more complete view of the church filings, I wish they would run an article to correct these glaring omissions. The information is available on church's website:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/media-reports-on-proposition-8-filing-uninformed

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports

Failure of the "Pledge"

The buzz over the last couple days has been about a study that concluded that virginity pledges don't seem to have an impact about whether teens-actually engage in pre-marital sex. This was a very sad result in and of itself but it is especially saddening that many are using this as ammunition to say since this method doesn't work, let's quit focusing on preventing teen-sex and restrict ourselves to teaching about birth control and sexual assault prevention.

I responded to a comment (seen below) along these lines that appeared in US News and World report.

The only "pledge" worth having or doing is this. It's for and done by the young boy to the young girl intimately, repeated over and over (perhaps with different girls) until marriage.

I love being intimate with you. I love hand-holding. I love kissing you. I love holding you. And I PROMISE I WILL NOT TRY TO TAKE OUR INTIMACY TO ANY LEVEL THAT WOULD HURT YOU, MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE OR MAKE YOU REGRETFUL OF WHAT WE DID. I PROMISE.

-USN

The problem I see with the first comment on this page is that it only addresses part of the issue. I don't mean to be dismissive of it because it raises an important point but it is incomplete. It doesn't address the procreative aspect of sexuality or the broader impact private sexual decisions have on society at large. Most discussions about sex education programs only address the prevention of sexual assault, pregnancies and disease. These are important but not sufficient.

People who routinely engage in pre-marital sex with multiple partners have a harder time (in general) forming the kind of stable partnerships that are best environment for raising children. For example, studies show couples that cohabitate before marriage have dramatically higher divorce rates. Divorce has a huge impact on the emotional health, economic well-being and social development of children. Because society at large bears many of the consequences of failed marriages and single parenthood, we have a vested interest in promoting the institution of marriage and in doing all we can to encourage teens to wait until marriage for sexual intimacy . If this study is used to further the notion that it is impossible the diminish the percentage of teenagers that engage in teen-sex we are on a dangerous path. If pledges don't work then we should look at some of the points in this article and seriously consider what can be done. Disease and un-wanted pregnancy are not the only risks of pre-marital sex. The risk of extra-marital sex poses to the stability of family units is another factor to be taken into account.

A little levity

This protest received less media attention but a lot more laughs.

How I felt after the Proposition 8 passage.

I thought I was going to feel a lot better than I did. When prop 8 passed, there was a sense of relief but not the big catharsis I was expecting. I liked this blog post that closely mirrored my feelings at the time. (prop 8 aftermath) While I was relieved because I feared the legal and social repercussions of not passing prop 8, I felt sad for many people on the other side. As the protests began my feelings morphed into apprehension, frustration and unfortunately some anger.

The days after the proposition passed felt kind of tense. The helicopters covering the protests around the temple always made me feel uneasy and I had periods of insomnia off and on for a week. I got together with friends that had worked on prop 8 and it seemed like this wasn't uncommon.

I never saw the big protests but I went to a temple session on a week day and saw about 50 people waving signs. It wasn't a lot but it was disconcerting to see the "VILE MORMONS" sign next the signs saying "End Discrimination". Apparently the many people honking as they passed the protest didn't see the paradox. The temple gate was guarded and they checked every car that went in. I saw multiple police vehicles on the temple property. I can't say that I have felt like I was the target of persecution, unless you count non-specific derisive comments about prop-8 supporters in general. On the other hand, I do know people that have been targeting individual level. One person got the silent treatment at work for a day, despite never having brought up politics in work place. That didn't make the news but I also know the lady that was the target of the el coyote restaurant protests$100 donation. This was one was especially troubling because she is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. She is a former Relief Society president, which means she is the type of person that volunteers her time to clothing and feeding the poor. She is the last person you would accuse of being hateful.

As I read more articles of black listed Mormons, I kept asking myself at what point would people stop seeing this as a civil rights movement and more like McCarthyism. I took a look at one of those lists and saw the names of many people I knew. Those names I recognized were people that I highly admired. I can't understand why anyone that had actually met those people could hold them in anything but the highest regard.

I read an article in the LA times that expressed the frustration I have felt in the post-prop 8 backlash. This op-ed piece Jonah Goldberg titled "An ugly attack on Mormons" made all the points that I wanted to. I highly recommend it.

Part II: What to say

Here are some of the things that I keep in mind when I try to talk to people.

1. I don't have to defend the advertising for prop 8 in the same way that I have from the church's position on genderless marriage. Some people are upset on the no side over perceived inaccuaracies. For example, they might be upset that some Yes on 8 advertisements were "lies". I haven't seen any that I would say are lies but I can understand why some could be criticized as misleading. For example, one mailer prominently displayed Obama with a quote that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. The quote is completely accurate but might lead you to believe that Obama supported prop 8, which he did not. I didn't like every ad for yes on 8 but the No side also had their own misleading statements. I didn't feel too bad for them in the end. If you click on the link to FAIR LDS on the right side, the wiki has links to the ads if you really care. A separate post will address the advertising used in prop 8. If it is troubling to you that the church was somehow affiliated with deceptive advertising, you should take the time to research the background on each claim. I think you will find that they are all factually based. Additionally you should not suppose that the ads were somehow produced by the church or that they articulated the church's position in the same way they would if they had full control over the content.


2. People's main objections usually boil down to "Why should you care who marries who. It doesn't affect you". At the end of this video, there are some of the reasons that it affects you. This video really was produced by the church so it falls in a different category in my mind than the other prop 8 stuff. I like to make sure I strike a similar tone in my conversations.



For more details and additional resources regarding why the church got involved and what the wider impacts of genderless marriage are on other people. I recommend the website the church put up (www.preservingmarriage.org)

One of the nice features about moral relativism is that since it's main tenets is that you can't tell someone that they are wrong, all you really have to do is tell people what you believe and show how acting on your beliefs would me more challenging if same-sex marriage were permitted. Leave it up to the individual you are talking to to sort out the challenges. I like for people to remember that not all 7 judges voted to overturn proposition 22 (the original marriage law). I like to ask if they know why three supreme court judges did not think that prop 22 should be overturned. Presumably these judges were also well-versed in the constitution of California and the civil rights implications but came to a different conclusion than the other 4. Most people on either side really haven't taken much time to understand the other. If I can convince someone on the no side that they really have to study the issue beyond viewing the 30 second ads on TV then I feel like I have had success.