Why I'm Voting No on Prop 8

I've been avoiding this blog for a while, but I did want to get it up before the election on Tuesday. Yes, I'm not following my own people on this one. I think its important for me to put this down on "paper."

Here are some of the short reasons:

1. I don't generally vote for propositions, especially any budget appropriations. That's the legislature's job, not the people. I'm only voting for the Parental Notification proposition - Prop 4.

2. Barack Obama is going to do worse to this nation than Gays marrying. Nuff said about this one.

3. Your views on Homosexuality changes when you actaully have homosexual friends. As a Christian, I can't bring myself to vote for this.

4. As much as I would like to legislate my Christian values, the government is not inherently Christian. You can not pass legislation that will cause people to live as Christians. What's next, laws that outlaw Islam?

There's only one reason in my mind to vote for Prop 8 and that's to counter act maverick judges who think they can create laws from the bench. It's not the judges job or the people's job to create laws, that's why we elect senators, govenors and assemblymen to do that. This is a republic, people.

Back to voting no. I'm not going to get into theology at this time, but I'm not convinced that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. In the Old Testament, it definitely does. But it also prohibits each shellfish and pork. It also has harsh words to say about women experiencing their monthly cycles and "spilling your seed."

Now that Christ has fulfilled the law, why is the aforementioned list acceptable and not homosexuality? In fact, homosexuality and "spilling" was forbidden, because God needed to grow his nation, "Israel". The fulfillment of that law has been met in Christ.

Let's assume though that Homosexuality is wrong. Why have Christians drawn the line in the sand and created and "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to gays? The only "us vs. them" is Believers and Non-Believers. Our job is not to win the war against Non-Believers, but to compel them to Believe. The actual belief is the Holy Spirit's job.

The church is losing the battle to bringing Homosexuals to Christ because we are presenting a militant picture of Christ that wants to keep them from marrying and having children. I believe that Jesus would walk down the streets of West Hollywood and win souls based on his ability to show love and die for anyone. But that's an image we don't want to see, drag queens following Christ.

What's the difference between two people of the same sex wanting to get married and two teenagers getting married because the girl is pregnant? The difference is the same sex couple actually want to get married. My point here is that there are plenty of heterosexual couples that should not get married because they are just bringing children into this world to live in unhappy and sometimes violent home.

My wife's parents never should have gotten married, let along have children. But the state of California let them get married. My wife was born, thank God. But hardly to a loving and safe household.

The state didn't ask them if they got counseling, or if they had what it took to love each other and love their children. No, the state made them fill out an application and take a blood test. In fact, there's not much the state could to do to prevent them from getting married, except if they were of the same sex.

Yes, gays have domestic partnerships to give them legal rights. It's really not the same. Partly because those legal rights only extend to the borders of California (which is the greatest state in the union...with the exception of the Bay Area...never mind I'm getting off track). Your still telling a person that we will treat you differently because you chose to live a lifestyle out of the norm (Note: please do not get hung up on my use of the word "choice" at this time). What we are really saying is that we'll let homosexuals have the legal right to live as committed partners, but please don't taint the word, "Marriage." Sorry, but we heterosexual have already tainted the word.

Finally, I want to address the idea of "legislating morality." My dream is that we would live in a Christian nation, meaning everyone in this nation knew Christ as their personal savior and lived a Christ-like life. I hate to break it to you, fellow believers, we do not live in that nation. We haven't lived in that nation for a long time. At the same time we can't create a Christian nation through laws. If you really want to create a Christian nation, bring more people to Christ.

I see this issue the same as abortion, which I would outlaw (with the exception of rape, incest and life-threatening) if I could. The best way to stop an abortion is not to outlaw it, but to convince the mother that she has a life in her womb (with fingernails). I would also convince her that there are enough child-less parents out there who would love a chance to raise that child.


I will not stop Homosexuals from getting married, just as I will not stop being the best example of Christ that I can possibly be.

In spite of everything I said, I'm voting for McCain. And my long standing policy of never voting for a Democrat stands.

Obama Lies in Another Attack Ad

Barack is at it again. This time instead of putting other people's words in his own mouth, he decides to place other people's words in John McCain's.

This Obama-Approved ad and to continue to polarize the nation using the abortion issue, Barack states that John McCain accused Barack Obama "of letting infants die."

Let's look at the facts. The first one is the most glaring, John McCain never said those words. Those words were said by the Pro-Life organization "BornAliveTruth.org." It was the groups effort get Obama to support Illinois legislation to protect babies born alive during botched abortions.

You'll see this tactic all the time by liberals in the media, they will take extreme quotes made by extremist groups and attribute them to people who are part of the same line of thinking. No wonder it was so easy for Barack to think McCain would attack him that way.

Here's the ad.

Attack Ad Makes Me Want To Vote for McCain

Here's an ad attacking Sarah Palin by the Defenders of Wild Life. The funny this is that the ad is 100% true and when you look at the history behind the ad, you really have a special admiration for our future Vice President.



Here are the facts:

1. The state of Alaska, under Sarah Palin's leadership, did sanction the hunting of alaskian wolves. Unlike the rest of the nation Alaska has a serious wolf over-population problem ranging for 7,000 to 11,000 across the state. They are predators endangering the moose and caribou population. The hunting is an effort on control the population.
2. Sarah Palin did offer a $150 "bounty" for the left leg of hunted wolves, which the state court overturned due to perceived cruelty. What wasn't mentioned was that the legs were going to be donated to State biologist for researching the wolf population.
3. In 2007, Alaska needed to "thin out" the wolf population by 300-600 wolves. The regular hunting season killed only 200 wolves that year and the $150 incentive was proposed to meet the needed 100 wolves. Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game

Again, I weep for the feelings of bleeding heart environmentalist liberals.

Commander in Chief Obama?

Interesting facts brought out by Sarah Palin in last nights debate.  She quoted Joe Biden as saying, “You said that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief.”

Biden did actually say that. In August 2007 during the Democratic hopefuls debate, George Stephanopoulos asked if Biden stood by a statement he said that Obama was “not ready” to be president. Biden said he stood by that statement.

Of course, when he lost the nomination, he said of Obama that “He’s learned a hell of a lot.”

So I guess anyone can learn to be president. So why are we so worried about the inexperience of Sarah Palin?