Our family trip to New Zealand this May was fantastic. I was able to see my family, Evan and Lena were able to meet their family, we tripped around, saw some sights, ate awesome food, watched rugby games, ate more food... it was great. But it seems that our trip was good for one more reason: it made me eligible to vote in the upcoming NZ general elections!
Since turning eighteen I have only been able to vote once. I voted for the Conservative Party in the last UK general elections in 2005. Sadly, Labour got in again, no thanks to Scotland, which meant that the world was subjected to Tony Blair again. (Thank goodness that ended early, but what an even sadder day for humanity when Gordon Brown took over. UGH!) Then the following year I got married, moved here permanently, and relinquished my voting rights. Now, this doesn't both me so much right now... even if I could vote in three weeks I don't know that I would: I am incredibly underwhelmed by both Obama and McCain. I think both are horrendously under-qualified and both will be a disaster. And I do not believe that either one is the lesser of two evils. I think Obama is a moderately eloquent public speaker (but that is about it), and I think McCain is just a nasty old man who only wants to be president to satisfy his own ego. (And, I swear, if McCain says "my friends" once more I am going to vomit. Anyone else being reminded of the Soviet Era "comrades" speak when he says that??)
However, I feel quite differently about the situation in New Zealand. I have spent the majority of my life living outside of NZ, but I was raised as a dyed-in-the-wool Kiwi, and have an emotional investment in my country. I personally feel that the party that is currently running NZ has been awful (Labour, again... notice a pattern?). They have allowed political correctness to run rampant, and I feel that they have given a disproportionate voice to minority groups - and I say that being part of one of those minority groups. They are eroding away at the things that make NZ, NZ, and it was quite sad for me to see that in all of its awfulness, and ridiculousness, on our trip. Needless to say, it was a welcome surprise for me to find out last week that I was eligible to vote, and have a voice for change in a place that I care so much about. With any luck, things will get cleaned up, and our kids might thank us some day for electing to give them dual citizenship.
And, since we are talking about voting... I just have a few things to say about Proposition 8 in California. Today we received and email from our Stake Presidency via our Bishopric reminding all the CA residents to register as an absentee and vote yes on Prop. 8. (As a bit of background info, Evan took an American Heritage class this summer, and one of the essays he chose to write about was about same-sex marriage. I helped out with research, and, needless to say, I feel reasonably well-read on both sides of the subject now.) If I could vote here, I would probably vote for Proposition 8. I am more for it than against it, and if we want to get technical, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and, therefore, is not
technically a right. However, it is a bit of a gray area for me... I wish there was an in between vote. I am opposed to same-sex
marriage, but I am of the opinion that an amendment to any constitution that specifies marriage is wrong. As I understand it, marriage is primarily a religious institution, and a privilege that just so happens to have social and state benefits attached to it. It can remain an "exclusive club" that has prerequisites to it because it isn't technically a civil right. As I also understand it, the constitution, any constitution, cannot discriminate against any individual or group of individuals. Now here are my (probably flawed, for those of you who are going to get on my case about it) problems with Proposition 8. By making marriage a part of the constitution through an amendment it makes marriage a civil right, just by virtue of the fact that it is mentioned. It no longer becomes the privilege with qualifying criteria that it should be. Issue #1. Issue #2 is that by stating that marriage is between a man and a woman it excludes same-sex couples, and all other 'non-typical' relationships, from the now civil right that they should now technically be entitled to. Which leaves me in a difficult spot, because whilst I do believe same-sex marriage is wrong, I also do not agree with the way that either side has gone about proposing their solutions. Just as well I can't vote, huh?
Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier... I don't know that I am terribly comfortable with the role that the Church has been playing in all of this. Once again, I agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman, I am just very much of the opinion that religious institutions should not telling people which way they should vote. The email we received today, I am sure, was well intentioned, but nevertheless, it left me feeling more than a little irritated that it was more of an instruction than a kind reminder of the values of the church, the sanctity of marriage, and unbiased information on the proposition so we could make up our own minds. (And for goodness sake, we are college students, not Neanderthals, and should be capable of thinking for ourselves and making educated decisions). Not only that, but frankly, we are in Utah, not California. I don't believe it is the responsibility of our
local stake presidency to bring to attention issues in another state. If you are a CA resident at BYU there is a high probability that you have family members and friends and LDS contacts in CA. It is
their responsibility to remind you to register to vote, and to pass along information. Not only that, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with the Church's public support of an amendment that I think is unconstitutional. I am uncomfortable with our Church's public support of any political issue, for that matter. It would have been one thing to bring out a public statement reminding people of the position we hold as Latter-Day Saints with regards to marriage, which has been done, but I personally feel it is not the responsibility of the Church to align themselves with one side or another.
Anyway, like I said, it is probably a good thing I can't vote here. But I am glad that my voice will be heard somewhere.
(Disclaimer: As these pictures were all taken post-dumpum, some pictures may have been deliberately misrepresented with regards to the overall timeline of events.)
(Disclaimer: As these pictures were all taken post-dumpum, some pictures may have been deliberately misrepresented with regards to the overall timeline of events.)
