"Supporters" You Can Do Without

In the lead up to the 2008 elections, candidate Barak Obama picked up many endorsements from notable political figures that helped him build the clout he needed within his party to claim victory (Bill Richardson, Ted Kennedy, among others). On the other hand, Obama also had to deal with a few endorsements that he wishes would go away, such Fidel Castro and Gaddafi. It turns out you can't control who claims to be on your side and ultimately some of your "supporters" hurt your cause far worse than your adversaries can.

For this reason, I avoid large public demonstrations in general, even for causes that I strongly support. While on the one hand, demonstrations attract media attention which generate political momentum for a cause, it doesn't take very many people to co-opt the group's message. An example of this happened outside the California Supreme Court while the fate of Prop 8 was being considered within. News reports about prop 8 supporters outside the court house frequently referred to a person carrying a sign that said "Dan White is a hero". For those unfamiliar with the story, Dan White killed San Francisco's first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk. In the most forgiving interpretation of events, Dan White was a very very sick man. In a more damning interpretation, he was a cold-blooded murderer. In either case, Dan White is no a hero. Neither Dan White's actions nor words of this prop 8 "supporter" should be allowed to stand as a representation of "Yes on 8" coalition. That sign is an offense to fair minded individuals on both sides of the debate. I hope in some small way this post serves to show that the mainstream of "Yes on 8" wants nothing to do with that sign's message.


*** Addendum ***

Recently, I came across an article thematically related to the post above. I always like to find somebody more articulate than me that espouses a point of view similar to mine. Orson Scott Card wrote a thoughtful piece: Letters better off not sent. It is a worthwhile read.

Tonight as I put my children to bed, they asked me to tell them as story about when I was little. Instead of telling them stories about me, I told them about my recollections of my great-grandfather. The kids listened with rapt attention and asked me many questions about how my great-grandfather had lassoed a deer . I told them about having family reunions up in the mountains in southern Utah where he had lived. I told them about a latch hook rug that he had made for me when I was only slightly older than them. I still have that rug. It connects me to my past, and one day I expect I will pass it on to one of them. I think how meaningful these stories are to me and how they connect me to my heritage. They help me understand who I am and where I came from.

When I started attending graduate school, I was surprised when I opened the school newspaper to see that there were advertisements recruiting sperm donors. Though I knew this existed, I still found it disconcerting to see parenthood so blatantly commercialized. It is difficult for me to understand how a person can separate the notion of donating sperm/eggs and the idea of selling one's own children for profit. In a sense, the term donor is a misnomer since a donation is usually not associated with remuneration.

The companies and individuals that do the recruiting go to great lengths to avoid linking the notion of parenthood with the act of selling sperm. The ads for sperm "donors" emphasize how easy it is to make a few dollars and sometimes even throw in incentives like movie tickets. Adjectives like "fun" and "easy" are used. The transaction is further facilitated by emphasizing that you are helping infertile couples become parents. Care is taken not to refer to "donors" as parents, even though in a biological sense that is what they being paid to become. The only mention of the "donor's" role as a parent that I can recall seeing in their literature is a document that must be signed relinquishing all parental rights... But what of the child's rights?

The rights of the child are left out the discussion. When I think of the cultural and material heritage that I have from being connected to my biological family , I cannot understand how the donors and prospective clients can unilaterally deprive their children of similar knowledge of who they are. The United Nations affirms this as a right in the Convention on the Rights of the Children.

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. [Bold Italics added]

...

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. [Bold Italics added]

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

Anonymous sperm donors deprive their children of not only the right to know their parents, but also their uncles, aunts, siblings, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. This is not trivial. I found an article called "In the Best Interests of Children?" which discusses the emotions that our first generation of donor-conceived children feel regarding their missing history. It is worth a read. (link)

Prop 8 Funding

Recently the Church came under attack in the media due to revised declarations of contributions to Prop 8. I was disappointed by the lack of thoroughness in the reporting. From my perspective, the LA Times coverage was deceptive and biased. The most recent article was posted on a blog at their website on February 11th, 2009. It mentions that the Church spent over $180,000 but neglects to mention that this was in-kind. No actual money was contributed. The total includes things like meals and flight expenses for church leaders traveling to meetings and the like.

An earlier report they filed on January 31, 2009 in the main newspaper (not a blog), represents the donation in such a way that it could be construed as violating law. They only use quotes by groups accusing the church of misrepresenting their contributions and not filing properly. No where in the article is mentioned that the Church had been filed several times since July 1st. No where was mentioned that the last day to file was January 31st so that the Church's contribution was actually submitted ahead of the deadline.

To get a more complete view of the church filings, I wish they would run an article to correct these glaring omissions. The information is available on church's website:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/media-reports-on-proposition-8-filing-uninformed

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports