California soon votes on a proposition that changes the definition of marriage in some way I don’t understand. Honestly, I don’t intend to understand it. I do not live in California, nor do I join facebook groups that support or fight political movements. (if there were a facebook group that was “people who think things they read in email forwards are true are idiots” then I might join it. Obama-is-a-muslim/antichrist/terrorist people, I’m looking in your direction.)
I don’t feel bad about not taking time to understand it. While it could have ramifications which could stretch to my own life in the future, there’s little I can do about it now but encourage those who can vote to vote.
So vote. There. I’ve done my part.
What is interesting is a little debate on facebook between a few of my very conservative and very liberal relatives.
Person a says: the LDS Church, headquartered in Utah, should not try to influence it’s membership to vote one way or another. The Church has to keep it’s nose out of state businesses.
Person b says: the LDS Church has an interest in it’s California and worldwide membership and has an obligation to encourage them to protect the standards they endorse.
I’d have never guessed that a California proposition could reach me here in lowly southern utah. What’s interesting is that the debate on facebook (between my relatives) is not about the substance of the proposition – which, as I mentioned, I have never read – it’s about who should and should not share opinion and how opinion should be shared.
Is sharing political stance an obligation? If it is, I’ve been lacking in my obligations. While I frequently write my thoughts out online, I try to write both sides. (this is what prevents me from having a high traffic site – I don’t write like an extremist.) Should I be telling people what I think whether they want to hear it or not?
Here’s to the endless battle between conflicting freedoms.