Where Were We When Life Needed Defended?

I’ve received a lot of feedback (both here and offline) on yesterday’s marriage vs abortion post. I drafted the following in an effort to address the majority of them at one time. It’s a bit long, but it builds to a heck of a punchline!

Politics is the art of community building. The making of laws is the art of community defining. There are two ways a community will define itself, empirically and subjectively. The first involves natural laws that can be tested, proven or refuted, and are until new evidence proves otherwise. The second is based on values, our own moral compass. It works only as long as a majority of people agree. It works well only if an overwhelming majority agrees and abides by it. Unfortunately, the subjective rule of law is inherently exclusive and will change as the population’s morals change. I certainly feel that we must develop laws that are based on broad, overarching values that most of us can agree on and will pass the test of time. This country was founded by a God who preserved it and directed its formation. Moving away from moral values will have damaging consequences, which is why we must identify the most generally shared values in our community and base our governance on those.

Once values enter the picture, we are faced with the questions, who’s values? Why? What makes their values more right than someone else’s? Subject governance based on might makes right is polarizing. It’s divisive. Instead of finding common ground and working together, we focus on our differences. We deplete our resources on the things that tear us down rather than build us up and ignore the larger issues we face. Certainly our decisions should be based on our values, however, when defining our community, we must support our beliefs with fact.

If you’ve ever bought something you didn’t really need, you’ve seen this principle in action. Think of the last time you bought a car with more features than you needed, a pair of jeans that was more expensive than another, or had desert after a good dinner. Our buying decisions are based on emotions (I want it. I want it. I want it.), and we defend the decision with logic (I need it. I need it. I need it.). Buyer’s remorse is the lack of sound logic to support the emotion that led to the decision. Community defining works the same way. Since our values change in both the short and long term, subjective governance is a volatile way to define our community.

The people of United States define our community in an interesting way. All of our rights are stated in the negative. We have a right until the people use the government to take it away, and our laws are designed to prevent government from usurping our most precious rights. The act of granting rights by a government because of some special status moves us to a strange realm where we are dependent on another to tell us what we can and cannot do, which is decisively un-American. Certainly we restrict rights (e.g., voting, drinking, driving, etc.), however, in each of those cases either there is empirical data to support the values-based decision or our values were shaped by the evidence.

A majority of Americans seem to believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Why? What does “marriage” mean? Is it a legal status used to define that sharing of rights? Is it a moral commitment to another person? Is it a tradition? And why is a priority? Love? Companionship? Convenience? Security? Chemistry? No one person can answer these questions for all of us. These are personal questions. There is no empirical data that shows that homosexual couples benefit less from the marriage than heterosexual couples. And the overwhelming majority of homosexuals choose not to get married. We ought to be amazed that any two people can meet, decide to be in love, commit to supporting each other as helpmeets, and actually stick with it!

If marriage is a civil agreement between two consenting adults, then religion may not set policy. If marriage is a moral commitment between two adults who vow to love, honor, and cherish one another, then the state has no involvement except to record rights and responsibilities. But if you believe that marriage is a religious ceremony, you must also believe that everyone has the right to practice their religion according to their own dictates. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then you may believe that God has set agency as a fundamental principle of His gospel, perhaps it is the most important principle. You may further believe that “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the [God], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”

As for my own beliefs, I agree with The Family: A Proclamation to the World issued by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My religious beliefs lead me to support the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Never-the-less, that is a religious distinction, and all attempts to support this definition empirically don’t hold water. I supported the ban in Oregon out of a sense of obligation to the people I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and the President of the Church who I believe is God’s representative her on the Earth today. (Comparable to an Abraham, Noah, or Elijah.) But for that, I can think of no reason to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

My objection to the grossly disproportionate attention given to 18,000 married homosexual couples in California over the nearly 100,000 babies that will be aborted this year is completely independent on my views of marriage. The Coalition on Marriage took up the easy victory. Ironically enough, if it hadn’t been for the black and Latino vote that came to support Mr. Obama, Prop 8 may have well failed.

Active supporters of Proposition 8 addressed the lower hanging fruit and may have been motivated by revenge against a “liberal” court overturning their 2000 victory. This wasn’t about reaffirming the will of the people. 9% fewer California’s voted for Prop 8 then voted for Proposition 22 in 2000, in spite of the . This was about a religious crusade against a politically weak minority pushed forward on fear of a condemning, angry God, images of little old boys holding hands on the playground, and grown men kissing. This was a campaign of propaganda and when the moral winds shift, it will be repealed.

The amazing amount or resources committed to this one issue will prove to have been misappropriated. If you’re afraid of being condemned for not standing up for the “traditional definition of marriage” and telling two consenting adults that you will not acknowledge their behavior, I ask you to consider the implications of ignoring Proposition 4 and every other piece of legislation like it. Tens of millions of babies have been killed in the United States before they had the chance to take a breath. Tens of thousands of babies will be killed this year in California because we have failed to move the pro-life cause forward in any meaningful way. Minors can’t drive without their parent’s permission. If their outside past curfew, they can be detained. Parents and responsible adults protect children from harm and are involved, especially in their times of dire need. Failing to pass Prop 4 failed to protect our children. It failed by nearly the exact margin by which Prop 8 passed. $2.7 million was spent advocating for parental notification. $6.3 million was spent opposing it. Our grossly negligent absence in this issue puts the blood of those babies partially on our hands.

Marriage and the family are worthwhile causes and worth defending. I do not agree with how our resources were allocated and believe that we sacrificed parental notification for control over homosexuals.

Abortions without parental notification

Presidential politics has dominated so much of the public attention lately, it’s almost hard to believe anything else has been happening. But while the world was focused on America’s historical, albeit, racist presidential campaign, Washington wasn’t the only place where hypocrisy reared its cruel head.

After all the votes were counted, it appeared that the country was still relatively conservative, especially on social issues. Nebraska voted to end affirmative action in state hiring practices. Arkansas voted to ban unmarried couples from adopting. California, Florida, and Arizona voters chose to ban same-sex marriage, making 30 states that ban same-sex marriage. Only two states allow same-sex marriage and a handful recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The hottest race of the season was on this very question of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, a court in California overturned an initiative from 2000 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Immediately, a campaign was organized, a Constitutional amendment was written, signatures were gathered, volunteers made calls, sent letters, blogged, and went door to door to gather support for Proposition 8, Prop 8 would succeed where its predecessor had failed.

Followthemoney.org reported that $73 Million was spent on this one campaign, making it the single largest race after the presidential campaign, and more than twice what was spent on Prop 8 than in the 24 states that voted on the issue in 2004. As of 10:08 p.m., November 9th, California’s Secretary of State wrote that the measure to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry was passing with 52.3% of the vote. There are still about 2.7 million votes to be counted, but observers are confident that the measure will pass.

Preventing gays from marrying and adopting may be a great success. The gays were stopped cold before they could erode the social fabric that holds Western civilization together. But wait, efforts to restrict abortion failed in South Dakota, Colorado, and California, and to say that Mr. Obama is pro-choice is kind of like saying the Pope is a kinda religious. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are no friends of the fetus either.

So, how can we celebrate the victory of stopping 18,000 consenting, adult couples from entering into a private, social contract with one another, when 94,602 unborn babies were aborted in California in 2005?


Another social issue was placed on the California ballot this year. Proposition 4 would have prevented physicians from performing abortions on girls under 18 until 48 hours after the parents had been notified. Most states require some sort of parental involvement before an abortion on a minor can be performed. California is not one of them. Prop 4 was the third time in four years that Californians were asked if parents should be involved when a minor gets an abortion. The measure was defeated 52.1 to 47.9.

Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks. Roughly 19% are done for minors. In the first 56 days, RU-486 can be used. RU-486 is a drug that blocks progesterone and the embryo starves as the nutrient lining disintegrates. When drugs will not work, surgery is used and involves taking a long piece of metal with a knife-sharp loop, inserting it in to the woman’s uterus, and “dismembering the fetus.” The remains of the fetus, placenta, and uterine lining are then vacuumed out.

Supporters of Prop 8 included a “broad based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life.” Their web site states that, “Passing Proposition 8 protects our children…”

And to protect our children, an amazing $2.6 million was raised in support of Proposition 4; almost half of what those in opposition raised and less than 1/10 of what was raised for Prop 8. One of the flyers for Prop 8 says, “Secures parental rights to teach children about relationships according to their own values and beliefs.” It talks about a “stable, flourishing, and loving society.” “The sanctity of marriage is worth defending and protecting.” “Proposition 8 protects our children.”

The NY Times wrote that,

The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor in Florida, said many religious conservatives felt more urgency about stopping same-sex marriage than about abortion, another hotly contested issue long locked in a stalemate.

“There is enough of the population that is alarmed at the general breakdown of the family, that has been so inundated with images of homosexual relationships in all of the media,” said Mr. Hunter, who gave the benediction at the Democratic National Convention this year, yet supported the same-sex marriage ban in his state. “It’s almost like it’s obligatory these days to have a homosexual couple in every TV show or every movie.”

Are they serious? What is more fundamental to protecting the family than protecting life? How can we protect our children if we don’t know that they’re having sex, let alone an abortion? How can we be appalled that at tiny-tiny minority wants to have the same rights, obligations, and recognition as the rest of us and then idly sit by as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd promote abortion as fancy birth control and a abuse a woman’s right to choose. What happened to a person’s right to choose – not to have sex?

According to a January 2008 report from the Guttmacher Institute,

At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 57% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 60% have one or more children; 86% are unmarried; 57% are economically disadvantaged; 88% live in a metropolitan area; and 78% report a religious affiliation [emphasis added]. No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority: 41% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 32% are black non-Hispanic, 20% are Hispanic and 7% are of other racial backgrounds.

In 2005, California experienced an abortion rate nearly 40% higher than the national average. And yet, people went door-to-door, raised tons of money, and acted in a bigoted and ignorant way towards others who simply wanted to be acknowledged.

Whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not, we have to prioritize our efforts. Gay marriage is an issue our culture is addressing right now, but we fired an entire political party over the deaths of several thousand soldiers in a conflict to bring stability to a volatile corner of the planet. How can we not rise up in revolution over the main stream acceptance of allowing a minor to abort her baby without parental involvement? How can we not scream from the tops of the roofs at the hypocrisy of protecting our children by teaching them bigotry and then not being there when they have surgery or take drugs? Prop 4 neither accepted nor rejected abortion. It said, young lady, this is a big decision, and your doctor must give your parents notification before performing this serious medical procedure.

Prop 8 is an empty victory.

Supporters of Proposition 8 did not defend the family or strengthen the social fabric of the nation. They chose the easy victory and failed to take adequate steps to try to defend life. And one of the most culpable groups for the failure of Prop 4 was the religious organizations that gave so generously to keep their definition of marriage sacred while being dramatically absent on Prop 4. Where were the letters from the pulpit urging their congregations to give generously of their time, their money, and their efforts? Where were their efforts to secures parental rights to teach children according to their own values and beliefs, to promote stable, flourishing, and loving society, and to protect our children?