Why I haven't been "blogging"

As you are probably well aware our family has been very involved with prop 8 and it has consumed much of our time. I just have to say that we are recently seeing the fruits of our labor and it has been incouraging. Last week the polls started to show that for the first time since the polling begin on prop 8 yes votes out numbered no's 47% to 43% with 10% still undecided. I know we still have a long way to go and it will all be uphill but it will be worth the fight. I wish I had time to write all the stories and inspirational thoughts that I have had since I have been involved. Stories about knocking on doors. Stories about lesbians making out just to see what I would do. Stories about the one less yes vote because "he is no longer with us." Stories about sign experiments- Colby wanting to know how long it would take before someone would try to steal a yes on 8 sign. (About 2 hrs.) I have lots that I could tell you but more then anything I must say that I am so glad to have been a part of such a noble fight. A fight that has drawn me closer to my savior and with the people around me. I fight that has helped me to feel so many whispering of the spirit. A fight that has shown me how amazingly noble and brave the young adults and youth of our church are. I can't even begin to tell you how this proposition has changed my life. I can't even finish this without crying and having chills run up my arms. I am just so grateful for our Heavenly Father's Plan of Happiness. Since so many of you have read the comment made by Patrick I thought I should share with you the email I sent as a response. (For those of you who are wondering no I do not know who he is.) Dear Patrick, Thanks you for your comments and feelings on Prop 8. As you can tell I have not deleted your comments off my blog and welcome discussions on the matter. I do however think your use of the word tolerance is very one sided. Professor of Law, Richard Peterson, who appeared in the first commercial about the legal aspects of prop 8 has since received death threats and his school has received threats of law suits for hate-crimes and discrimination. That doesn't sound like a tolerant attitude from those who appose his political views and want tolerance themselves. There is a big difference between the words tolerance and acceptance. I can "tolerate" same-sex unions but I don't have to except limitations to my rights to prove that. 4 judges should not be able to over rule the 61% vote in favor of protecting the traditional definition of marriage. I have rights too, and without Prop 8 my rights and many others rights will be taken away. Prop 8 does not however take anything away from homosexuals except the right for their "union" to be called a marriage. Their benefits and their ability to have a union are not at stake. However my rights as a parent to decide when and how my children learn about same-sex relationships and how religions address the topic of same-sex marriage is in jeopardy. After Massachusetts the only other state in The United States of America (When I wrote this two weeks ago) legalized same-sex marriages children were taught in schools in grades as young as kindergarten about this type of marriage. Parents got upset that they were not notified about this type of teaching before hand and were not given the option to withdraw from these lessons. They were told that because same-sex marriages were recognized by the state there was no need to give parents notification that the topic was going to be discussed and that parents did not have the right to withdraw their children from discussions or activities of this nature. Parents took these cases to the state's supreme court and lost (see Fred A. Parker v. Toni J. Williams). (On Oct 6th The United States Supreme court sent out a meno saying they would not hear the case therefore the lower courts decision is now final.) Why should my right as a parent to teach my children about this issue at a time and place I see appropriate be taken away completely. Wasn't this country founded on the idea of religious freedom? Since this letter a California school second grade class went on a fiels trip to the San Fransisco court house to watch there teacher marry her partner. The children are making a video for their teacher about love and what it means to marry. Further, as stated above, religious organizations will be forced to change their beliefs or be sued for discrimination. For example: A preacher in Canada (a country that has legalized same-sex marriages) was found guilty of a hate-crime because he told his congregation that same-sex marriages were not of God. In this country we separate Church and State and having a judge tell a church that unless they change their beliefs they will be found guilty of discrimination far over steps their jurisdiction. Tell me that if you were being force to change your beliefs you would not be outraged? Case two: In Santa Barbara their are two cases pending in court right now because a preacher from a church that did not believe in same sex-marriages would not perform their marriages in his church. Why should he have to change his religious beliefs for them. They certainly are not "tolerating" him. Additionally, church's that do not recognize same sex marriages may lose their tax benefits. This means that much of the needed money to run a church will be paid in taxes, forcing many churches to close their doors. This is not a good future for America, religious and non religious alike, as so many churches provide vital social programs. There are consequences of the 4 judges actions. Under their idea that "traditional marriage" is discriminating against other forms of unions leaves the door wide open for other groups to follow suite. If we can no longer "discriminate " then why can't we have multiple marriage partners, incestuous relations, relations with older individuals and children . Shouldn't our "nondiscriminating" nature include all forms for relationships. It's a slippery slope. Do you see were our "tolerance" could take us. If the implications of redefining marriage were not such a huge risk to the rights of all Americans don't you think that even just one of the four political candidates running for office would be in favor of it. Yet all four Obama, Bidin, McCain and Palin are against the idea. Wendy Weaver