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.