26 May 2009

Standing at the Top of the Slope

Much to my relief, Proposition 8 stands, and California's constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. So far, the attacks on LDS facilities I feared (based on the misconduct of gay "marriage" advocates back when 8 passed) have not materialized, but it's only been six hours as I type this. We shall see.

The excellent blog "Thinking in a Marrow Bone" has an article that I think makes some very valid points regarding what comes next if gay "marriage" becomes legal. I agree completely with the writer, and in fact am surprised that gay "marriage" advocates aren't also advocating polygamy, incestuous marriage, or pedophilia as "oppressed sexual minorities". They're only interested in getting what they want, like most immature types who can't bear the existence of rules against their wishes.

Please read carefully: I do NOT claim that homosexuals are pedophiles (with the exception of those creeps at NAMBLA and like-minded organizations that actively advocate adult/child sex). Pedophiles, however, claim they're an oppressed and persecuted sexual minority who were "born that way" (sound familiar?). I'm quite sure they'll start claiming that legal protection for gay adults that doesn't include them is in itself discriminatory, and in logical terms, they'd be right. To be consistent, gay "marriage" advocates would have to also want protection for other "alternative lifestyles".

Pardon me while I get my stomach under control.

Contrary to the claims of the gay crowd, I (a Temple-married LDS woman) do not hate them as people. I have a gay uncle with a partner who's been consistently in the picture for nearly my entire life (said partner is great, and I accord him honorary uncle status). I have gay neighbors I'm friendly with. Disagreeing with your lifestyle choices does not mean I hate you as a human being. It simply means I disagree with your decisions. I don't agree with any lifestyle choices outside God's laws of chastity and virtue. God's law on sexuality is simple: complete chastity before lawful marriage, complete fidelity during same. I understand that this can be a struggle, especially in an over-sexualized society (I am human), but God's not going to change His eternal laws to accord with mortal whim, and yes, you CAN control your sexual urges and channel them in morally appropriate ways.

I do hate some philosophies, such as the "no right and wrong, my feelings decide morality" that is so common in modern society. Simply put, whether you like it or not, God has given us moral laws for our benefit. You can certainly choose to disregard those laws, but you can't force everyone else to do so. Nor do you get to claim the sacred relation of marriage without living to be worthy of that eternal blessing. God will never decide that the sacred relation of marriage can exist between two men or two women, not when the family is the fundamental building block of our eternal destiny (not to mention our earthly society). See the Proclamation on the Family for the way it is, whether human "wisdom" concurs or not.

Assuming California is not destroyed by the riots that will probably result from Proposition 8 standing, one can hope other states will follow our lead and stand for the family and for God's laws.

[minor edit to correct a grammatical error about half an hour after original posting]

13 May 2009

Probably Going To Be Another Fifteen Years

As I posted last Wednesday evening, I was heading from Sacramento to the Oregon coast following my grandfather's death. DH was able to arrange to take his week of paid vacation on very short notice to come with me (otherwise, would have taken Amtrak). I was also able to arrange to have next-door neighbor pet-sit.

Well, after a 500-mile drive, turned out there was no service or memorial of any description for my grandfather (which I had not been told would be the case) and my mother found going shopping with someone she knows locally rather higher on the priority list than spending any time with a daughter she hadn't seen in person in fifteen years (in not quite 48 hours, about three hours of contact and I was apparently the only one capable of picking up a phone to find out if we were going to see each other at all), so on Saturday evening (after having arrived on Thursday evening), DH and I headed off to see an uncle of mine about an hour away. We were both getting bad cabin fever and I really resented how low I was on the priority list. Yes, I understand my mother works nights and that she does need to sleep. I do not understand her apparent inability to reschedule outings with local acquaintances or her apparent inability to pick up a phone (or drop e-mail, since I had my laptop along and she knew it) to advise me of her schedule.

Overnighted with uncle and his wife (lovely people, they're great), went to church Sunday morning, ran laundry at uncle & aunt's house, headed home. Arrived 1am-ish on Monday (this is not an outrageous time for a household that includes a swing-shift worker to be up at). After a day or two of recovery, including DH marathoning all six Star Wars movies, we got some errands run and he's back at work tomorrow.

Today was nice, except for a heat wave brewing. DH and I got in a Temple trip, remembered to replace his very beaten-up slippers, and are relaxing at home. I'm looking forward to getting back into my life's normal pattern.

Frankly, it may well be another fifteen years (if then) before I head north again, given how this trip went. By contrast, the last couple of times we've visited DH's family in Santa Barbara, we got a bit more family attention than I felt entirely comfortable with. Would be nice to be able to average the mothers together.

DMIL was evacuated for a few days, and is now back at her place, with the latest wildfire under control. Her gift was delayed until Monday, but I can't fault FedEx for that, since the evacuation got in the way. Pictures of the tote bag will be posted sometime soon.

06 May 2009

Glenn Orville Gardner, 19 June 1914 - 6 May 2009

My grandfather passed away this evening, at about 8:30pm Pacific time. He had been ill for some time, and had developed both congestive heart failure and end-stage renal failure.

The last time I saw him in person was in 1995, during my honeymoon. I hadn't been able to travel to see him since, and his health did not permit him to make the trip.

I'll write up a more detailed bio for him later. Right now, I'm trying to deal with travel arrangements. I'm not as bad off emotionally as my mother for several reasons: she lived near him so had more of a relationship to him, she was there when he died, and I have the comfort of the knowledge of the Plan of Salvation, and that this is only a temporary separation until I pass through the veil. She doesn't have that faith, so is having a harder time.

On top of this problem, DMIL is dealing with a wildfire in the Santa Barbara area. It's not TOO near her house - yet. Also, landlady is having to have the locks changed after she lost a keyring with keys to apartments. Think we could maybe spread the crises out next time?

04 May 2009

More Unrelated Stuff

This may be fairly normal around here, posts that include two or more topics that are on my mind at that time. :-)

1. So far, my "worry? me?" husband seems to be right that the swine/H1N1 flu outbreak has been rather exaggerated by the media and causing undue anxiety. At least at this stage. I happened across an article on CNN's site that suggests we're going to have a lot more cause to worry in a few months.

2. Can anyone explain to me how "hate crime" legislation is not:
a) creating a category of "crimethink", in which one receives criminal penalties for one's thoughts/motivations?
b) declaring some citizens more valuable than others, by imposing greater penalties for crimes against members of "protected" groups?
Just try to ask any PC type that question and brace yourself for venomous ranting about how even asking such questions "proves" you've been brainwashed by the "religious right". (Interesting phrase that. Does it mean that the religious ARE right? I certainly think so (grin).) Seems to me that George Orwell definitely saw this coming, with a) covered by 1984, and b) covered by Animal Farm ("some are more equal than others").
To my thinking, the same crime should be given the same punishment, regardless of the victim's race, sex, religion, age, choice of lifestyle, etc. Wouldn't that be actual justice, to treat all citizens as equally valued, thus the same crime yields the same punishment for the offender? As for adding to the punishment because the offender's motive is deemed "prejudiced", "bigoted", etc., for one thing, how do you prove what someone is thinking? Also, doesn't the Constitution protect freedom of thought, no matter how repugnant your thoughts might be to society as a whole?