Friday, October 31, 2008

"High-Fives" Do NOT Equal Salutations

Does anyone else have an annoyance for using the "high-five" as a salutation? I find that most use the "high-five" as a defense tactic to not knowing the social procedure in many different social settings. I have this friend that actually got a "high-five" as the good night gesture (hehe...I am guessing there wasn't a second date). My personal philosophy is when in doubt just wave if you aren't a "hugger" and you still feel a gesture is necessary in the situation. There are many acceptable times a "high-five" is in order such as (please note these are just a few examples):

  • During a sporting events and your team makes a great play.
  • You play a practical joke on a sibling with another sibling.
  • Playing flag football and someone makes a touchdown (this might call for a "ten" if it was a great play).
  • Playing "Too Slow Joe" with a toddler.
But please no "high-fiving" Jess as a salutation!

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Prop 8 Yes

Another friend voicing his position!


On election night, when other states tune-in to see the results of Proposition 8, how will they see California? How will California regard marriage and how will California define the family? What will the purpose of marriage be in California and to whom will California extend the “right” and privilege to marry?


First, who has the “right” to marry? To answer this question, we must differentiate a “right” from a “right” for which we must qualify. For example, everyone has the “right” and opportunity to become a lawyer. However, one must qualify to be a lawyer. There are standards, qualifications, and hurdles. It is the only way the integrity of the profession can be protected. Now, we must acknowledge that some people in our society, because of no fault or failure of their own, do not have the physical, mental, or emotional capability of completing law school, passing the bar examination, and receiving the necessary credentials. Is the requisite of completing law school and passing the bar exam then bigotry? Does it create inequality? Is it unfair? For some of these people, it is their lifelong dream and passion to be a lawyer. The formal certification would bring them great happiness and give meaning to their life, yet we are still enforcing difficult and challenging requirements that prevent them from attaining their desire. Are these standards discriminatory? Is this unnecessary? Is this wrong? Are we hung up on the definition of a word that has no real impact? Are we taking away “rights?” Are we limiting “liberties?” Are we keeping good people from achieving the “happiness” only some can obtain? We also know the system isn’t perfect as many in the profession already fall short of performing as competent and honest lawyers. So, why not qualify everyone who wants to be lawyer? What difference will it really make? Quickly, we see the red flags and understand the consequences of such an idea. The definition DOES matter and the qualification must be ensured.


Similarly, everyone has the “right,” “freedom,” and opportunity to marry. However, one must also qualify to marry. There is a standard, a qualification, and a hurdle. It is the only way the integrity of the institution can be protected. A constitutional amendment limiting the union of marriage between one man and one woman does not take away that “right” or “freedom” from anybody. No “inequality” or “injustice” is created. If one is predisposed to same sex-attraction, we are not taking away his “right” to marry. We are simply limiting and reserving marriage to only those who properly qualify to marry. The integrity of marriage must be upheld and strengthened! We know not all heterosexual marriages and parents uphold the integrity of the commitment they’ve made, but the answer lies not in qualifying all and any, but in further strengthening the institution as it is (and demanding more and better from those already married).


Next, the “right” to marry must be given only when marrying a member of the opposite sex because of marriage’s unique purpose. Marriage is to provide an opportunity for a man and a woman to support and love each other and their children. To the child, marriage provides a stable foundation for support and love. Marriage unites the three core dimensions of parenthood – biological, social, and legal into one pro-child form. The unique characteristics of both mothers and fathers are crucial to the emotional, physical, and mental development of a child. Many would like to focus the Proposition 8 debate on the “rights” and “freedoms” of independent adults to practice marriage in the way they desire. However, we must focus the debate on the “rights” and “freedoms” of dependent children. We DO NOT have the “right” to tell one child they get two moms, another child they get two dads, and another child they get a mom and a dad. Every child has the “right” to a mom and dad! From the child’s point of view, Proposition 8 could not be more “fair,” more “necessary,” or more “right.” Proposition 8 is what will guarantee “equality for all.” Homosexual couples are extremely capable, intelligent, and caring. But, gender matters! Children have a need for both a mother and a father – the sexes are not interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother CANNOT do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father CANNOT do. “Parents” DO NOT equal any two capable, loving adults. “Parents” equal a mom and a dad. We CANNOT equate that which is not equal.


Finally, we have inherited (and are fighting to maintain) the “right” to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ These "inalienable rights" often define what it means to be an American. However, we forget these freedoms are NOT without limitations. We must make and enforce laws to protect and preserve citizens from bringing undue harm upon themselves and/or others to protect the very “freedoms” and “rights” we enjoy. In that light, we must protect the “inalienable right” given to a child to have both a mom and a dad. And, we must protect the institution of marriage and uphold the most important and fundamental societal unit -- the family.


On election night, other states will see the results of Proposition 8 and California will say what our former President and Governor once said: “We will be as a city upon a hill!” California will be the example. California will stand up for marriage. California will support the family. California will give children both a mom and a dad. California will vote YES on Proposition 8!

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Why One Friend is Voting Yes on Prop 8

I am sure that many of you are wondering how it is even possible that a Stanford student could vote Yes on proposition 8. Let me explain. My personal belief is that marriage is not a contract between two people. It is not right. Marriage is a vital institution that shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood and affects and shapes society in profound ways in regard to how parents view the obligation of parenthood and their rights and responsibilities as fathers and mothers.

Why would society even control and regulate a relationship? Why would we let the government intervene into such a personal aspect in our lives? It is because society has a deep vested interest in marriage. It channels the sexual attraction between man and woman, which could lead to procreation, in a socially desirable way; that of a family unit where they are bound to provide and protect for the offspring which result from their sexual union. It was not created as a contract between two people to devote themselves to each other, rather society has created the institution of marriage so that a man and a woman set aside their personal objectives and goals to produce a family which they protect and are bound to the offspring that they create.

Society has a vested interest in marriage because it is in that union between man and woman in which children are created and brought into the world and we should be very concerned about how the children in this world are raised, taught, and cared for. The UN charter on children's rights states that all children have a right to be raised by the parents who brought them into the world; Marriage ensures that this is the case and holds parents responsible for how their children are raised and taught.

The genderless marriage paradigm is radically different in its aims and teachings and the two cannot exist concomitantly, for it would define marriage as a union between two people lacking the power of mutual procreation, thus stripping marriage of its function of regulating how we are bringing children into the world and forming their identity. The adoption of a marriage paradigm in which its primary concern is the two married partners is one I cannot support.

I love my gay friends and family. It is horrible how much persecution and discrimination homosexuals have suffered. I do agree that one benefit of allowing same-sex couples to marry would be a reduction in this persecution and discrimination. I believe that homosexual and heterosexual couples should be afforded the same rights as everyone. I empathize and understand that it is a rational and reasonable thing for same-sex couples to want the status that marriage affords. I believe, though, that the costs of redefining marriage are too great. I fear a society in which people think marriage is a way to pursue happiness, fulfillment, and selfish pursuits and dodge their parental and spousal obligations; Sadly this is already too often the case, but if we break the link between marriage and procreation this second best scenario will be institutionalized.

“The man-woman marriage institution is:

1. Society’s best and perhaps only effective means to secure the right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents (with exceptions justified only when they are in the best interests of the child).

2. The most effective means yet developed to maximize the private welfare provided to children.

3. The indispensable foundation for that child-rearing mode that correlates with the optimal outcomes deemed crucial for a child’s, and therefore society’s, well-being.

4. Society’s primary and most effective means of bridging the male-female divide.

5. Society’s only means of transforming a male into husband-father and female into wife-mother, statuses and identities particularly beneficial to society.”

(from Stewart, Monte Neil, Marriage Facts, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, [Vol. 31 No. 1] pp. 321-322, http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org/mlf/publications/harvard%20facts.pdf)

Finally, I know that marriage is sacred, ordained of God, and gives to fathers and mothers, not rights, freedoms, and privileges as some would believe that marriage accords, but rather the solemn and powerful responsibility of “rear[ing] their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.”

(from The Proclamation to the World, by Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html)

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!

Or be like Julie and get it done early!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

North Face Twins: Practically KT

To truly be genuine in my post I decided to post even our "ridiculous" photos because let's be honest KT and JB together almost always equals some amount of ridiculous behavior. ;) KT and I without even knowing got matching North Face jackets, complete with thumb or "monkey" holes. This is just one more piece of evidence that I am "practically" KT and KT is "practically" JB. Side note: This is my favorite jacket EVER!
North Face Ninjas!
Someone (namely me) forgot that Ninjas hold their fingers together....my bad! ;)

Never realized how tall and short we are till now!
I heart KT! What an awesome friend and a stalwart sprinter! ;)

Winner of the Brooke Trout PJ Party

Jess Deputy is all her glory! Congratulations, we bow down to the PJ master!

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

My Position

Facebook Note From Kimball again...affirming his position!

Of the many ways humans can relate to one other, the physical, emotional and even spiritual intimacy between a man and a woman privately and publicly committed to each other is the most sacred of all.

I used the word 'sacred' because I am spiritual. If you are not religious, try 'special' or 'separate' instead. I heard somewhere that 'sacred' in Hebrew means something like 'separate' anyway.

I don't have any studies or conclusive clinical studies to support this statement, I just feel the truth of it in my heart. I can't think of too many possible amendments or changes to this statement that don't result in something that feels a little less true. I'm sure it has something to do with biology. I'm sure it has something to do with physiology. I'm sure it has something to do with how our species is perpetuated. I'm sure it has something to do with feelings and tenderness and hopefully love. But each of these factors on their own surely contribute, but do not entirely account for this truth to me.

That said, I believe in, value and revere friendship in all its kinds and degrees. I believe in, value and revere companionship in all its kinds and degrees. I believe in, value, and revere commitment in all its kinds and degrees. But this greater truth readily and easily coexists with, and is even the culmination of, all these beliefs and values for me.

It's my belief that marriage as an institution reflects, affirms, and reinforces this truth. I believe that people fail marriage, I don't believe that marriage fails people.

The Opposition

Facebook Note from my friend, Kimball:

I came across this quote in my non-comprehensive research on the subject of gay rights:

"For the lesbian and gay movement, then, cultural goals include (but are not limited to) challenging dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity, homophobia, and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family (heteronormativity). Political goals include changing laws and policies in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights#cite_note-1

Insofar as this quote correctly characterizes opposition to Proposition 8, I support Proposition 8. I believe that gender, masculinity and femininity are important and essential to individuals, family and society. As to what 'dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity' refer to, I am not sure. I readily concede that there exist many cultural norms concerning masculinity and femininity that are unimportant at best and extremely damaging at worst. But at the end of the day, every person alive is the product of one man masculine enough and one woman feminine enough to get together, however briefly or committed to each other. (Indeed, anyone who is such a product deserves our individual and collective respect as a member of the human family. If people ever start resulting from some other way, I will revise my opinion accordingly, but until then, gender is critical to society in my view.)

Consequently, I am against homophobia, insomuch as it entails the devaluing or diminishing of anyone's humanity anywhere. I also do support anyone in their right to an aversion to unwelcome sexual advances.

I am in support of the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family.

The phrase, "new rights" did not escape me, and I think the relaxing of the concept of marriage in this case is an instance of an attempt to gain a right heretofore nonexistent. I also support any law that protects all people from harm. This is all I will say concerning the opposition to Proposition 8.

Most concerning to me is the implicit notion that the opposition hopes for no less than for society to assign the same sanctity to same-gender sex as to opposite-gender sex, which to me is offensive.

Whether or not this quote is overstating the intent of the opposition to Proposition 8 is another matter, but I suspect it is not. But I do respectfully and strongly disagree with the opposition to Proposition 8 (including many of you whom I care about) on these terms.

Kimball Bighorse
30 August 2008

Baby talks Prop 8 adoption & Gavin Newsom