oh, by the way, did i mention that my son is only 7 years old??? we aren’t talking middle school or high school here, folks!

they should be ashamed of themselves.

Obviously this piece was copied from someplace and the anti-Mormon bigotry is apparent.

What the Yes on 8 campaign didn’t mention, was that Robb and Robin Wirthlin are devout Mormons who have been on their LDS mission. You see, Robb is the grandson of LDS elder Joseph B. Wirthlin and the couple had moved into the progressive Lexington school district knowing that district had an anti-bias curriculum called “Windows and Mirrors.” That curriculum was intended to allow every child to see their family model and to see every other child’s family model. It is meant to help children of single parents, divorced, dual household children, children of interracial couples, Jewish and Muslim children and yes, children of same-sex couples, see themselves as equal.

Second graders talk about and draw or paint their homes and families constantly. In fact, Joey Wirthlin already knew a girl in class with two mommies, Jessica Soens. This book was nothing new to him. ‘

But the Wirthlins asked the court only to allow images and material of traditional two parent, heterosexual family models to be presented. That’s fine for their son, but it’s not okay for other children. The Wirthlins have never thought about the welfare of other children, and that’s why the Federal and recently the U.S. Supreme Court called the case “frivolous.”

Most telling, when asked if she had a message for California’s 52,000 children of same-sex couples, Robin shrugged her shoulders and even seemed to snarl as she said, “No.”

That’s right, Robin, who the Yes on 8 campaign produced as their best embodiment of a loving parent, has no message for the 52,000* children of same-sex couples or the 140,000* California children of a gay or lesbian parent, or the countless teens coming of age, realizing they might be gay or lesbian and needing positive, loving role models. These children are the ones proposition 8 will hurt. These are the children to consider when casting your vote.

The Wirthlins, like their Mormon brethren, have no affirming message for those who are not of their ideal family, or their ideal child. “We do not offer our children the freedom to live outside the teachings of the church,” stated the Wirthlin and Parker’s website. In fact, gay and lesbian Mormons are routinely kicked out of the church and out of their families.

The love these Mormon parents have for their children is not unconditional.

It seems the Norman Rockwell portrait of the Wirthlins is a facade as thin as the canvas of a real Rockwell portrait. The difference is these one-dimensional caricatures are trying to get you to cast your vote for hate and bigotry.

Do you really want to adopt the vision of the Mormons on issues concerning marriage?

Please, find empathy for the non-traditional families who will be hurt by this discriminatory proposition. Please respect the intellect of our conservative state supreme court. And don’t legislate away the rights of fellow citizens simply because you can or because your personal religious beliefs aren’t theirs.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8. Not just because prop 8 is discrimination. Not because it’s unjust, unnecessary, or because it legislates away the rights of your neighbors. Vote no for the children of California. Those Children Robin Wirthlin has no message for. Send them your message of hope with your vote supporting their rights.

(The number of California children with either a gay or lesbian parent and those with same-sex couple parents is attributed to a 2006 Stanford University study which used the U.S. 2000 Census for its calculations.)

From a strictly legal standpoint, recognition of same-sex marriages would open the door for a whole variety of other combinations that would clamor for equal status. A prime example is polygamy/polyandry. Right behind would be things like people marrying animals, or wanting the state to recognize marriages between animals. Once a legal term has been opened to allow something other than its traditional meaning, it’s hard to put the genie back in the lamp.

I am something close to 100% certain the founders of this nation did not contemplate the constitution being amended for things such as this. That’s why the amendment process is burdensome, to assure that only those changes truly deserving adoption could make it. For those of us solidly in the hetero camp, it is hard to understand how anyone could be attracted to their same sex. However, it obviously happens and no one fully understands how. Some will argue that it is “natural” and that “God made me this way, so it must be okay.” Those are lame arguments and could be equally applied to any sexual or moral “perversion” such as child molestation, wife beating, bank robbing or driving a Hummer.
As our society declines morally and as people are more willing to define almost any kind of behavior as “normal” and acceptable, those behaviors become more common. The difficult question is, given our beliefs in the moral agency of man (by your choices and works, you define your eternal destiny as a Christian), what is the proper role of government in such matters.