I'm an Arizona Girl. I can't say that I don't love the Mountains of Utah or Colorado, or that I don't miss the perfect white beaches of Northern Florida, but the desert is a different kind of beautiful that I never want to leave. Blog Purpose: to keep our friends updated on our life and to share ideas as my ward's Primary Chorister
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Women
If you read my review section on the left side of my blog you will see I very much enjoyed this movie. It is a chic flick movie and unless a guy really enjoys a well written drama they will have no interest. I heard a lot of negative reviews of this films- most saying how it degrades women and all that we are trying to be. I am sure those same reviewers (mostly women) would say the same thing about the 1939 version. Those women who think that are the type of women who think that no success in the home could ever compensate for failure in the workplace. The message that this play and both movie versions teaches is that a women have a place in the home. Not a dominated one, but a role that no other figure can fill, and that as women stretch ourselves too thin trying to do everything our home life will suffer, and new problems will develop. The other part of the message is that love is the most important thing that can help our relationships. We can do those other things but women need to keep balances in their life. There is so much that as women we can accomplish, we just cannot allow the things that are not as important to cause us to forget what really matters in life. I love the message and the modern take on this film.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
AZ Prop 102, Saving Marriage, and what else I think should change
Those of you who have lived in the Arizona a few years now, will remember the complicated wording and confusion that surrounded the last proposition that was brought to voters about the official recognition of marriage in the state of Arizona.
This time the wording has been simplified so that anyone will understand its uncomplicated meaning.
Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.
Many other states have passes similar amendments to their state constitutions. Those who wish to call a union between a gay couple marriage argue that, Arizona, and those other states, already outlaw same-sex marriages, so why do we need an amendment? Laws can be outlawed and overturned much easier than constitutional amendments. An amendment to the constitution cannot be ruled as unconstitutional. Please remember that this law is not going to take away any benefits or take away status of individuals to receive benefits, it is only to change the state constitution so save the word "Marriage" for one man and one woman. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to confuse the issue all over again. We believe marriage to be sacred and ordained of God. To call anything else a "marriage" is a mockery of all that is sacred, and what we hold true. There may come a time where we are forced to recognize 'unions' but part of making it in our state constitution or in our Federal constitution (if we are ever so blessed) would be to save that sacred word for only between a man and woman. As a side note most Senators stated their reason for not supporting the Marriage Amendment to our Federal Constitution was that it is a state right- SO LET US MAKE IT A STATE RIGHT. Without saving this word, they might as well stop recognizing any marriages at all. We could go to a society that only churches recognize marriages and everything else looks at it as nothing. I would rather go to this society than see the sacred word of “Marriage” be desiccated by being applied to a same-sex couple. But I can give reasons why that will not happen for a long time 1- Money, states make money to sell marriage licenses, they would lose money. 2-If a marriage is not going to make money then companies are going to start losing money because less people would be getting married, there is a lot of money in the business of weddings. 3-Most of our society recognized that the family unit of a marriage of a man and woman with their children that are born under that marriage is the foundation of our country. As that basic unit gets diminished and disregarded, our society has more and more problems that call be linked back to its failing families and marriages. To save a Marriage is to save a family and to save a family is to solve social problems.
Please help us save our society one marriage at a time by voting yes on Prop 102.
I am now going to take this argument to a new level I wish to discuss how this proposition is not about benefits to elderly or to life partners or is it changing anyone’s status ability to receive benefits or insurance. Now this is one topic where some, especially in my own social circles would consider my views as liberal thinking.
What is the advantage given to a couple, by being recognized as marriage by the government?
Taxes- Being able to file jointly
Insurance- being able to have spousal benefits and dependant benefits, Life and Health
Social Security Benefits/ Survivor/Pension-
Homeownership
Adoption and Child Custody
1- Taxes: I believe our tax system needs to be changed, I think that it would be a benefit to the IRS to allow any two adults who want to combine their finances and financial be recognized as one unit to file jointly. They would have to go through a legal pathway to get this recognition. And the same would apply to undo this process. This could apply to life partners, marriages, business partners, siblings, mother and child. The catch would be only TWO adults could become joint in finances.
2- Insurance: who doesn’t think it needs to be changed
Health- I think that Insurance companies who recognize a spouse should change their way of how they recognize who they cover. It should be changed to that each policy will recognize the primary policy holder and one other adult plus any children (either adopted or biological of either adult on the policy).
Life- You should be able to name whoever you want in a policy as the beneficiary. Problem solved.
3- When it comes to ALL of those other retirement and other benefits, as with the Life insurance you should be able to name anyone to receive those benefits. There should be a legal process, just as with the joint finances, to name someone your beneficiary of retirement and upon death benefits. And as with benefits that are split between multiple past spouses, those benefits with be divided between all past legal beneficiaries. Yes all of this is more paperwork and legal stuff, but it would solve so many other problems without changing recognized marriage.
4- Homeownership: If banks are now forced to recognize legal joint finances and legal beneficiaries than they will recognize whoever you want to put on your home loan and have to be divided legally if the two parties decided to dissolve this legal binding.
5- I very rarely hear the argument that adoption is a right that same-sex couples are arguing for, when it comes to being recognized as a marriage. I can’t pretend that I support the idea of children being raise by same-sex couples. Just as with a single parent there will always be something missing in the child’s upbringing. When it comes to a child custody of a child who was born under a traditional marriage and then one of the parents chose to leave it, I think that if that a good person is not hurting the child physically or emotionally they should be have contact and be a presents in that child’s life. It takes a man and a women to raise a child, both have unique abilities necessary to the healthy development of a child. It is a tragedy when a child has to be raised without one or the other. We should not be legally sanctioning tragedy for the sake of convenience. It is my belief that most advocates of same-sex marriage are concerned with adoption rights. To those who are, I can only tell you that I respectfully and strenuously disagree that same-sex couples have the same capacity to raise a child as a traditional marriage.
My argument for the advocating these changes have not factors that I am trying to support ‘gay rights’. Instead they are formed from a series of problems that I have seen in the few short years of my life. If it then benefits same-sex couples then so be it, especially if they stop trying to infringe on Sacred Marriage. I think that two sisters who are not married, who live together, should be able to take advantage of these changes. Same with two widows who want to share those benefits.
I think that the government should be encouraging people to share living quarters, not for any reason of sexual benefit, but for the economic, social, and environmental benefits. It saves money to share household expenses, it is proven that people feel happier and connected social when they live in the household with someone (ie someone to see when you get home), and last of all there have been a number of studies that show that a household of one and a household of two create use the same number of utilities and therefore produce the same number of greenhouse gasses. With this way to slow down global warming I am surprised that the environmental enthusiasts aren’t pushing the “help the environment, get a roommate” slogan. The green house emissions increase by a small percentage, when individuals are added to a household.
Again my point is not to advocate ‘gay rights’ not is it to preach the effects of global warming. But it is to enlighten our nation to looking at things differently. We can save Marriage, and still respect that not everyone has the same needs. We can look at two people living together was living in sin, or recognize that everyone needs a roommate, and that I can’t force them to have the roommate that I want them to.
Please help pass Proposition 102 in November. Please vote Yes, please support families and help solve social problems.
This time the wording has been simplified so that anyone will understand its uncomplicated meaning.
Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.
Many other states have passes similar amendments to their state constitutions. Those who wish to call a union between a gay couple marriage argue that, Arizona, and those other states, already outlaw same-sex marriages, so why do we need an amendment? Laws can be outlawed and overturned much easier than constitutional amendments. An amendment to the constitution cannot be ruled as unconstitutional. Please remember that this law is not going to take away any benefits or take away status of individuals to receive benefits, it is only to change the state constitution so save the word "Marriage" for one man and one woman. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to confuse the issue all over again. We believe marriage to be sacred and ordained of God. To call anything else a "marriage" is a mockery of all that is sacred, and what we hold true. There may come a time where we are forced to recognize 'unions' but part of making it in our state constitution or in our Federal constitution (if we are ever so blessed) would be to save that sacred word for only between a man and woman. As a side note most Senators stated their reason for not supporting the Marriage Amendment to our Federal Constitution was that it is a state right- SO LET US MAKE IT A STATE RIGHT. Without saving this word, they might as well stop recognizing any marriages at all. We could go to a society that only churches recognize marriages and everything else looks at it as nothing. I would rather go to this society than see the sacred word of “Marriage” be desiccated by being applied to a same-sex couple. But I can give reasons why that will not happen for a long time 1- Money, states make money to sell marriage licenses, they would lose money. 2-If a marriage is not going to make money then companies are going to start losing money because less people would be getting married, there is a lot of money in the business of weddings. 3-Most of our society recognized that the family unit of a marriage of a man and woman with their children that are born under that marriage is the foundation of our country. As that basic unit gets diminished and disregarded, our society has more and more problems that call be linked back to its failing families and marriages. To save a Marriage is to save a family and to save a family is to solve social problems.
Please help us save our society one marriage at a time by voting yes on Prop 102.
I am now going to take this argument to a new level I wish to discuss how this proposition is not about benefits to elderly or to life partners or is it changing anyone’s status ability to receive benefits or insurance. Now this is one topic where some, especially in my own social circles would consider my views as liberal thinking.
What is the advantage given to a couple, by being recognized as marriage by the government?
Taxes- Being able to file jointly
Insurance- being able to have spousal benefits and dependant benefits, Life and Health
Social Security Benefits/ Survivor/Pension-
Homeownership
Adoption and Child Custody
1- Taxes: I believe our tax system needs to be changed, I think that it would be a benefit to the IRS to allow any two adults who want to combine their finances and financial be recognized as one unit to file jointly. They would have to go through a legal pathway to get this recognition. And the same would apply to undo this process. This could apply to life partners, marriages, business partners, siblings, mother and child. The catch would be only TWO adults could become joint in finances.
2- Insurance: who doesn’t think it needs to be changed
Health- I think that Insurance companies who recognize a spouse should change their way of how they recognize who they cover. It should be changed to that each policy will recognize the primary policy holder and one other adult plus any children (either adopted or biological of either adult on the policy).
Life- You should be able to name whoever you want in a policy as the beneficiary. Problem solved.
3- When it comes to ALL of those other retirement and other benefits, as with the Life insurance you should be able to name anyone to receive those benefits. There should be a legal process, just as with the joint finances, to name someone your beneficiary of retirement and upon death benefits. And as with benefits that are split between multiple past spouses, those benefits with be divided between all past legal beneficiaries. Yes all of this is more paperwork and legal stuff, but it would solve so many other problems without changing recognized marriage.
4- Homeownership: If banks are now forced to recognize legal joint finances and legal beneficiaries than they will recognize whoever you want to put on your home loan and have to be divided legally if the two parties decided to dissolve this legal binding.
5- I very rarely hear the argument that adoption is a right that same-sex couples are arguing for, when it comes to being recognized as a marriage. I can’t pretend that I support the idea of children being raise by same-sex couples. Just as with a single parent there will always be something missing in the child’s upbringing. When it comes to a child custody of a child who was born under a traditional marriage and then one of the parents chose to leave it, I think that if that a good person is not hurting the child physically or emotionally they should be have contact and be a presents in that child’s life. It takes a man and a women to raise a child, both have unique abilities necessary to the healthy development of a child. It is a tragedy when a child has to be raised without one or the other. We should not be legally sanctioning tragedy for the sake of convenience. It is my belief that most advocates of same-sex marriage are concerned with adoption rights. To those who are, I can only tell you that I respectfully and strenuously disagree that same-sex couples have the same capacity to raise a child as a traditional marriage.
My argument for the advocating these changes have not factors that I am trying to support ‘gay rights’. Instead they are formed from a series of problems that I have seen in the few short years of my life. If it then benefits same-sex couples then so be it, especially if they stop trying to infringe on Sacred Marriage. I think that two sisters who are not married, who live together, should be able to take advantage of these changes. Same with two widows who want to share those benefits.
I think that the government should be encouraging people to share living quarters, not for any reason of sexual benefit, but for the economic, social, and environmental benefits. It saves money to share household expenses, it is proven that people feel happier and connected social when they live in the household with someone (ie someone to see when you get home), and last of all there have been a number of studies that show that a household of one and a household of two create use the same number of utilities and therefore produce the same number of greenhouse gasses. With this way to slow down global warming I am surprised that the environmental enthusiasts aren’t pushing the “help the environment, get a roommate” slogan. The green house emissions increase by a small percentage, when individuals are added to a household.
Again my point is not to advocate ‘gay rights’ not is it to preach the effects of global warming. But it is to enlighten our nation to looking at things differently. We can save Marriage, and still respect that not everyone has the same needs. We can look at two people living together was living in sin, or recognize that everyone needs a roommate, and that I can’t force them to have the roommate that I want them to.
Please help pass Proposition 102 in November. Please vote Yes, please support families and help solve social problems.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Primary Chorister Ideas
>
Flower and Petals
I made a flower out of construction paper. Each petal was about 2 inches wide and 4 inches tall. I also had a stem that held all the petals. It was just stuck on with a touch of glue stick glue. The glue tore off easy and clean. Then in between the two primaries, I re-glued the petals to the stem.
Watermelon seeds
I love to create out of construction paper. I tried to make it as large as possible. I created it out of two sides of red papers. Then used some green to line the bottom of the red. I made the seeds as large as I could without them looking ridiculous for the watermelon. They were about an inch wide. Each seed had a magnate and a number on the back. I put some magnates on the back of the watermelon too.
Rising Balloon
The string was looped all the way around the board, pull the string down on the back, the balloons rise on the front. Really simple to make. I created a background on my board with construction paper, but you really don’t have to. Also you don’t have to make cut out balloons, anything that goes up: balloons, birds, clouds, airplane.
