Calling any pro-life Michiganders who happen to be in my reading audience: Next Tuesday, be sure to go to the polls to vote no on Proposal 2. You can get the low-down on Proposal 2 here. The short version is, it would amend the Michigan state constitution so that early embryo-destroying research and experimentation must be allowed to take place in the state unhindered. In other words, if this were put in place, no state or local laws could be passed and enforced at a later time (apparently no laws presently exist) prohibiting, restricting, or even "discouraging" such research.
I was surprised to find one pro-life e-mail correspondent a few weeks ago, a Michigander from the Detroit area, who knew nothing about Proposal 2. So I flatter myself that I got two more votes (assuming I can count his wife as well) against it.
As a side note, there is also a ballot proposal (#1) on this year to legalize "medical marijuana" in Michigan. Vote no on that one, too. My own guess (though I've seen no poll numbers) is that it is slated to go down in flames, but I fear Proposal 2 may be a closer call, though I have there only the general statement that "the polls are close" received in an e-mail, not any hard data.
Here in Florida, we've got a #2 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I'll be interested in the results. But isn't the fact that states have to be voting on this kind of thing a sign of some kind of national illness?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. A sign of illness. But the battle must be fought. Is your proposal an amendment to the state constitution or does it just have the status of a law? I think we have both kinds of citizen initiatives here. In CA, they are trying _now_ to amend the constitution after their crazy state supreme court struck down a different citizen initiative that was a "mere" law.
ReplyDeleteWe are very lucky to have a good state supreme court in Michigan, though by a fairly slim majority.
It's sort of interesting to see how a writer like C.S. Lewis, though sound on the fundamental fact that same-sex attraction is objectively disordered, was writing from within such a profoundly different cultural context that he doesn't see the danger of homosexual activism. He speaks expressly of "fighting on two fronts"--one is "for the persecuted homo" while the other is "against the highbrow homosexuals who won't be nice to you if you aren't in their club." I don't care tuppence whether they are nice to me or not! I just want them to leave my laws and practices alone rather than demanding that they conform to the activists' distorted view of reality. And what sort of "persecution," anyway? But of course, in 1945 or whenever he wrote that, he couldn't possibly have foreseen people's being fined for refusing to take so-called "wedding photos" of homosexual "unions."
I think ours is a constitutional amendment.
ReplyDelete