Saturday, February 11, 2006

Family Values? Or Homophobic?

To Idaho Senate Committee on State Affairs,

As Idaho's government considers putting a ban on same-sex marriage, I hope that we also consider other laws which will also be needed to protect our "family values" in Idaho.

What is the current status of laws against adultery? How many are arrested each year and what is the average prison sentence? If we started throwing adulterers in jail, perhaps they would think twice about cheating next time and we'd have fewer divorces, fewer single parent families, etc. That would be GOOD FOR IDAHO'S FAMILIES!

We also need to beef up the laws which are designed to enforce the payment of child support because we all know that many noncustodial parents are not current with their support. We should develop a registry of delinquent parents and have their pictures printed in the newspapers. If we started punishing those who do not support their children, then maybe the rest would either make their payments or maybe even stay married! That would be GOOD FOR IDAHO'S FAMILIES! (We need to also SEVERELY punish the employers who "pay under the table" so the State can't catch them.)

We should also start punishing all individuals who conceive babies out of wedlock. Oh, and also, according to the Bible, divorce is prohibited unless it is based upon immorality--so let's repeal any laws allowing no-contest divorces. Jesus said that,
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
(Mark 10) So we've got a lot of Idaho men and women we need to prosecute as well. That would be GOOD FOR IDAHO FAMILIES!

Let's close our bars because drunkenness is not in the best interest of our families either. No more Playboy magazines and porno channels via our satellite... let's make it against the law to have any sexual references on our local channels as well. Let's clean up Idaho and make it a FAMILY VALUE state!! That would be GOOD FOR IDAHO FAMILIES!

Obviously, you know I'm being sarcastic... but if Idahoans are not truly just being "homophobic" but REALLY want to have our laws protect our "family values", then let's at least be consistent!!


{Internet favorite, originally "written" to Dr. Laura, altered to fit Idaho's legislature.}

Dear Idaho:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

A proud Idahoan,
"Spud"

3 comments:

Diana Rowe Pauls said...

I received a response from:

Brent Hill , Republican
District 34, Rexburg
1010 S. 2nd E., Rexburg, 83440
Home (208) 356-7495
Bus (208) 356-3677
FAX (208) 356-3689
Accounting Firm CEO

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Hill" Friday, February 10, 2006 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: Being CONSISTENT for FAMILY VALUES in Idaho


Thank you for your email expressing your opposition to HJR2 that would allow the citizens of Idaho to vote for or against a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I do understand your conerns over the resolution, but I am commited to let the people of Idaho make a decision as important as this one.

I will be supporting HJR2 when it comes up for a vote in the Senate. I am sorry this is offensive to you, but I, too, am compelled to do what I feel is right.

Sincerely,
Senator Brent Hill

Diana Rowe Pauls said...

Dear Senator Hill,

Thank you for your reply. I understand the desire to put this in the hands of Idahoans for their decision, but the point that I was trying to make is that we need to be consistent with legislating "family values". Any initiatives with that goal should address multiple "assaults" upon "family values", which I suggested in the previous e-mail. If the initiative is strictly addressing same-sex marriage, then that is blatantly segregating that population rather than addressing the many other challenges (and in my opinion, much more damaging) that Idaho families have to face in their daily lives. If we are going to legislate issues related to marriage in the name of "family values", then we should be prepared to protect families by legislating against adultery (or at least enforcing current laws) and ALL sex outside of marriage (again, at least enforcing any current laws). We should also take a much stricter stance against noncustodial parents (and their employers) who avoid paying child support. If we do not address those issues as well, then any initiative or vote from Idahoans is hypocritical and based upon "hate" rather than sincere efforts to support "family values".

Of course, I don't think it is realistic to legislate sexual behaviors (adultery or pre-marital sex) but I really do wish that I didn't see so many families who are unable to receive child support due to the loopholes in our laws as well as the frustrating bureaucracy which was supposedly designed to assist them. I'm mostly just frustrated with the hypocrisy that I see in our government, in our citizens, and from America's so-called "Christians" who are willing to "talk the talk" but not willing to "walk the walk".

Again, thank you for your reply. I do appreciate your service for our state, even if we are unable to agree on certain issues.
Sincerely,
Diana Rowe Pauls

Diana Rowe Pauls said...

Not everyone agrees with Hill (thank God!).

I would like to share a response to my letter from Senator Edgar J. Malepeai:

Dear Diana,

Thank you for your letter. I appreciate your input and your position. I am opposed to House Joint Resolution 002 that recommends that the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

I feel that passing this bill would be discriminatory and unconstitutional. I also feel it is taking valuable legislative time that could be used to consider important issues like property taxes and Idaho education.

Thank you again for your letter and please feel free to contact me again regarding this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Senator Edgar J. Malepeai
District 30
585 So. 19th
Pocatello, Idaho 83201