Marriage Debate: Maggie Gallagher vs. Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign

How Maggie answers in this segment is a model for the argument for traditional marriage. She is calm, well-versed, and she has the power of truth on her side. It is worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM2MNdIGT7g

Tolerance?

I have mixed feelings about posting this but we might need to be aware of what we're up against.
I'll be praying for protection.

Subject: HEADS UP - NO ON 8 SUPPORTERS NOT TOLERANT
'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban'Burn their f---ing churches, then tax charred timbers'Posted: November 05, 200811:00 pm Eastern© 2008

WorldNetDaily
Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches."Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages "valid and recognized" in the state are those between one man and one woman.Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California votersadopted in 2000.On a blog website, "Tread" wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."A contributor identifying himself as "Joe" said, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning."Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, called the statements "hate crimes" for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs."This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they're not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity," he said. "The homosexual lobby is always calling for 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and 'hate.' Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians."On the "Queerty" website, "Stenar" asked, "Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.""I'm going to give them something to be f---ing scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done," wrote "Jonathan."Liberty Counsel's Barber said, "This is not free speech; these are 'hate crimes' under the existing definition. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news. Federal authorities should immediately investigate these threats and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law."On yet another site, "Americablog," "scottinsf" wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.""I hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil! BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM," wrote Angelo.One contributor went so far as to threaten to take out his frustrations on his own family."You want me to come back to Idaho for Christmas? Oh wait, my partner and I can't share the same bed? We can't show any affection or any outward sign of our love for each other? Well sorry family ... no Uncle Adam and all his expensive gifts and delicious cooking for you. Your childrens' presents will now be donations in their name to the equal rights organization of my choosing. As will their and your birthday presents, wedding presents, graduation presents, and everything else I give going forward."The writer continued, "Remember, I'm angry. And I'm strong from my years at the gym and really am ready to take my frustration out on someone or something."Barber said the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and "other leaders within the homosexual lobby" should call immediately for an end to such threats.There were suggestions of a different type of violence, too."Hope the gay waiters at their hotel p---ed in all the drinks they served these cretins," "Jake" wrote about protectors of traditional marriage."If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."Another even listed addresses of Mormon facilities. Mormon, Catholic and other religious groups were active in supporting the marriage definition."I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice," wrote Jeremy.

A Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

SALT LAKE CITY
5 November 2008
COMMENTARY
See Article on lds.org

Since Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in June of this year, the citizens of California have considered the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. After extensive debate between those of different persuasions, voters have chosen to amend the California State Constitution to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Voters in Arizona and Florida took the same course and amended their constitutions to establish that marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings.

Most likely, the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this country.

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

Even though the democratic process can be demanding and difficult, Latter-day Saints are profoundly grateful for and respect the ideals of a true democracy.

The Church expresses deep appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the many Latter-day Saints and others who supported the coalitions in efforts regarding these amendments.

November 4th 2008

Here's hoping for a great Election Day!

New Video Responds to Desperate No on 8 Commercials

I just received an email with a link to this video. I think it sums up what this campaign has been like for a lot of the supporters. They do a good job of telling our story. Check it out...

The Constitution and Religious Belief

"The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …

“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.”

“A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it”(M.J. Sobran, Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61, 58-59.)

Rally

Thursday many of us met in Laguna Niguel for a rally for teachers for PROP 8! We were responding to the CTA's decision to spend 1.25 million on the "no" campaign. It was a great experiance. So many wonderful people together. The story was covered by the OC Register. Check it out!

Article about our RALLY!

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/teachers-prop-union-2212836-cta-state

another cool article...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-prop-children-2213158-gay-society

No on 8 arguments deflect attention from the real issue

Many arguments against Proposition 8 make the issue very personal – stories of same-gender weddings, love stories, etc. They do so at the sacrifice of some very important principles relating to marriage.

One Prop 8 opponent argued that classifying her relationship as anything other than marriage would “cheapen [her] commitment”. Her implicit argument in that statement is that the purpose of marriage is to somehow legitimate the commitment made between two people. This is not true. Marriage is not simply a commitment between two adults, and the commitment between two adults who say they love each other does not require governmental sanction. As a matter of fact, the government is the last person I want to get involved in my marriage or family.

Governments throughout history have RECOGNIZED marriage because of the benefits it gives society – this recognition includes tax breaks and things like that. When marriage is strong, the society is strong, so it makes sense for the government to recognize marriage. The most fundamental benefit society receives from marriage involves the rearing of children (see the link on the sidebar of this blog "LA Times Blankenhorn Article" - I quote from it here:
"Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.").

But the statement I quoted from the Prop 8 opponent at the beginning brings to the front one of the most important reasons we have for voting YES ON 8: by seeking to gain SOCIAL legitimacy through the LEGAL recognition of marriage, the same-gender marriage movement is not seeking to expand the general liberty (something this person and many others fallaciously associate with same-gender marriage and any other issue where people attempt to overcome traditional mores and social restrictions) – it is seeking to force society to accept AS RIGHT something that most people do not think is right. Accepting individuals regardless of their behavior is one thing – seeking to force society to change its definition of right and wrong is something quite different. In this way, the same-gender marriage movement seeks to take away the most fundamental liberties in the founding of our country - the liberty to believe what one chooses to believe. Churches in Canada have been banned from preaching that homosexual behavior is wrong. This woman’s argument, one frequently made by opponents of Prop 8, claims that legalizing same-gender marriage is based on the separation of Church and State. Actually, for the reasons I have just outlined, same-gender marriage brings Church and State TOGETHER in conflict – something that is fundamentally contrary to the founding of our country. Furthermore, the argument fallaciously assumes that the separation of Church and State only refers to organized religion – it argues that it would be wrong to enact legislation based on the beliefs of an organized religion, but those making the argument don’t demonstrate any hesitancy when it comes to legislating their own belief-system regarding their own homosexuality.

For these reasons, this woman’s characterization of the controversy over same-gender marriage is improper and misleading. If you’re asking me to make same-gender sexual relationships OK, you’re asking for something I can’t give you. Right and wrong are defined by God. If you’re asking me to respect your human agency to make your own choices in your life, regardless of whether I believe they’re right or wrong, and to grant you the dignity due to you inherently as a human being, then you’ve got it. And I will do that while I continue to stand up against the encroachments of same-gender marriage into the sacred realm of the family.

1978 - A Prophetic Call to Discipleship

Elder Neal A. Maxwell, an Apostle, said this in 1978:

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.)

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage...

If we let come into being a secular church which is shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hour of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education aided in school systems which are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon and rely upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?

It may well be that as our time comes to “suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5:41), some of that special stress will grow out of that portion of discipleship which involves citizenship. Remember, as Nephi and Jacob said, we must learn to endure “the crosses of the world” and yet to despise “the shame of it” (2 Ne. 9: 18; Jacob 1:8). To go on clinging to the iron rod in spite of the mockery and scorn that flow at us from the multitudes in that great and spacious building seen by Father Lehi, which is the “pride of the world” (1 Ne. 11:36)—is to disregard the shame of the world. Parenthetically, why, really why, do the disbelievers who line that spacious building watch so intently what the believers are doing? (See 1 Ne. 8:33.) Surely there must be other things for the scorners to do. Unless deep within their seeming disinterest. … Unless. …

If the challenge of the secular church becomes very real, let us, as in all other relationships, be principled but pleasant. Let us be perceptive without being pompous. Let us have integrity and not write checks with our tongues which our conduct cannot cash.

Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel.

There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, “summer is nigh” (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat!

Entire article

wave that sign

Prop 8 Does Not Diminish Anyone's Rights

Here is a quote from an email I received from a thoughtful person who is weighing the issue of Prop 8. He makes a good point about the rights of homosexuals:

Allowing same sex couples to marry does not grant them additional rights, nor does the marriage amendment eliminate any rights they currently have. The Supreme Court's written decision acknowledged that same sex couples have all of the rights of married couples already. Their decision was not about granting further rights, it was about creating an expanded definition of marriage. Here is, in part, what their decision said:

"...California, which in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes
upon a married couple."

Also: "We note that although much of the academic literature discussing the legal recognition of same-sex relationships frequently uses the term domestic partnership to describe a legal status that accords only comparatively few legal rights or obligations to same-sex couples, the current California statutes grant same-sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." (Search "s147999" to find the full text.)

In this context, it is interesting to note that the Family Code in the state of California prohibits a man from entering a domestic partnership with a woman. In other words, the cohabitation of an unmarried man and a single woman would not qualify, legally, for the title of domestic partner in this state. Yet, no one calls this discrimination or bigotry. They don't, because it's not. There are characteristics that define marriage and characteristics that define domestic partnerships and they are different. Yet each definition provides the same rights as the other. So where is the discrimination?

Many that oppose Prop 8 don't realize or acknowledge this fact. Instead, they claim that those in favor of the measure are seeking to destroy the rights of gays and lesbians. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a good friend of mine pointed out, if that were the case, why weren't current Prop 8 supporters on a crusade when domestic partnerships were being granted the same rights as married couples?

...the issue at stake here is not one of rights. It is simply about the definition of the word marriage.

worth looking into

KNOW THE FACTS - Loss of rights to gay agenda...

A Lutheran school in Riverside county has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.christianitytoday.com%2Fct%2F2006%2Fseptember%2F6.20.html

See pro gay-marriage books such as King & King by Linda Dehaan and Stern Nijland (Tricycle Press, 2002), and King & King & Family (2004).California Legislature sent Gov. Schwarzenegger a bill establishing May 22 as Harvey Milk Day, after a slain gay leader, and requiring schools to honor him. He vetoed it. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.cnsnews.com%2Fpublic%2Fcontent%2Farticle.aspx%3Frsrcid%3D36740

Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business for the first time in 100 years because it will not place children with a homosexual couple.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.boston.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fmassachusetts%2Farticles%2F2006%2F03%2F10%2Fcatholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays%2F

In Ocean Grove, New Jersey, a Methodist group was stripped of part of its state real estate tax exemption for refusing to permit a civil union ceremony at the beachfront pavilion it owns. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.npr.org%2Ftemplates%2Fstory%2Fstory.php%3Fstoryid%3D91554986

In Colorado, Bill 200 allows transgender people to use whatever bathrooms they want.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.leg.state.co.us%2Fclics%2Fclics2008a%2Fcsl.nsf%2Ffsbillcont3%2Fbd7a295eb6f4460e872573f5005d0148%3Fopen%26file%3D200_enr.pdfhttp://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.humanevents.com%2Farticle.php%3Fid%3D26781

“Bride” and “groom” will return to California marriage license applications starting November 17 after couples complained of being forced to use “Party A” and “Party B.”http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.signonsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Fstate%2F20081006-1653-ca-gaymarriage-licenses.html

Freedom Of Speech ThreatenedOn May 8, 2008, a African American administrator named Crystal Dixon was fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio, for objecting to the comparison of racial discrimination to same-sex marriage.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.lifesitenews.com%2Fldn%2F2008%2Fmay%2F08050605.htmlhttp://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com%2Fstories08%2Fmay%2F0516082.htmhttp://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.toledofreepress.com%2F%3Fid%3D7609

A Catholic Priest is under criminal investigation under a “hate crimes” law for quoting from Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals during Canada’s same sex debate.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.wnd.com%2Findex.php%3Ffa%3Dpage.printable%26pageld%3D66247

Big prop 8 supporter will match Donations!

One of our most fervent supporters has agreed to match, dollar for dollar, whatever you and others can donate, up to a total of $1 million. That means that every dollar you give will buy two dollars in advertising time.

Click below to donate

https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/truth-web

Official Statement from the American College of Pediatricians

There has been a tendency of those who disagree with posts on this blog to make comments which downplay the seriousness of the issues discussed by asserting that "those are a bunch of lies" or "that didn't really happen, don't be so gullible", despite the fact that they offer no evidence but their own word that the said things are false (incidentally, it is much less valid to say that something didn't happen than to say that it did - saying it didn't happen is essentially asserting that you know everything, and that since the occurrence is not included in the catalog of your comprehensive knowledge, it must not be true).

Here is an article with plenty of citations. Article link here.

Parenting Issues
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

January 22, 2004

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is "to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being." We promote "a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly." The College further notes, "that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being."

Related Links:
Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not Best for Children

Homosexuality, Gender Disorders, and Children


ENDNOTES

1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.

2 Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.

3 P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.

4 J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.

5 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45

6 Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.

7 Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.

8 Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.

9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

11 D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.

12 Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.

13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.

15 David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.

16 M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

17 M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.

18 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

19 Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

20 A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.

21 "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.

22 Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]

23 J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

24 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.

25 Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."

26 Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244

27 R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.

28 Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.

29 Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

30 Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.

31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.

32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129

33 Ibid., pp. 127, 128.

34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.

35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.

36 D. Fergusson et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).

© 2004 American College of Pediatricians

What Same-Sex Marriage has done to MASS

Interesting and eye opening article however I will forewarn you it can be quite explicit. Something that we sadly know have to be ready to deal with. Also it is not pro-romney, i know alot of you really love Romney (i have no opinion really) so I don't want you to be blindsided. I highlighted some of my "favorite" parts for you not so avid readers (me included)

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts by Brian Camenker
Posted by: Dr. Richard Swier 10/21/2008 4:11 PM

Anyone who thinks that same-sex "marriage" is a benign eccentricity which won't affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It's become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex "marriage." Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools
The homosexual "marriage" onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
* At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex "marriage" in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be "marrying" their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage - how it is now a normal part of society - was handed out to the students.
* Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. "In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'" she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
* By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA - a parent of a kindergartner - strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
* Second graders at the same school were read a book, "King and King", about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
* In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is "legal", a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
* In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now "different kinds of families." School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered "inappropriate behavior."
* Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled "Courting Equality" into every school library in the state.
* It's become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex "spouses" and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are "married" to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.
* "Gay days" in schools are considered necessary to fight "intolerance" which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days". They "celebrate" homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating "homophobia" is now a top priority.Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Public health
* The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is "married" to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it's "wonderful being gay" and he wants to make sure there's enough HIV testing available for all of them.
* Since homosexual marriage became "legal" the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
* Citing "the right to marry" as one of the "important challenges" in a place where "it's a great time to be gay", the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives "tips" to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to "safely" have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Domestic violence
* Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.

Business
* All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex "married" couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
* Businesses must recognize same-sex "married" couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
* The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
* Businesses are often "tested" for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient "equality" -- now that homosexual marriage is "legal". In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".

Legal profession
* The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
* Issues regarding homosexual "families" are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual "married" couples
* Homosexual "married" couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
* In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men "married" to each other as their "Parents of the Year". The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby's birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.

Government mandates
* In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
* Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have "Party A and Party B" instead of "husband and wife." Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)
* Since homosexual relationships are now officially "normal", the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
* In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual "married" couples in the coverage.

The public square
* Since gay "marriage", annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane "Dyke March" through downtown Boston, and recently a "transgender" parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could "become" men. Governor Patrick even marched with his "out lesbian" 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a "leather" group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!

The media
* Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It's "equal", they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.
* A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly "married" homosexuals who march in the "gay pride" parades.

Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex "marriage" is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to "take such action as it may deem appropriate." Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans "judicial review" - a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so.

Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion
Homosexual "marriage" hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it's only just begun.It's pretty clear that the homosexual movement's obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and "marriage" as we know it isn't something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe's marriage section hasn't had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.
http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/10/what-same-sex-marriage-has-don/

Please also watch these videos, made over a decade ago, you will not believe what you are watching.
http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

True Principles

Many may have wondered, during this time of controversy, whether there are any true principles that can guide them in their exploration of the issues at stake here. Two groups feel strongly about an issue - who is right? I want to let those people know that the reason many of us who are going to vote YES on 8 are going to do so because we believe in these eternal principles outlined below. I know that these things are true. They have brought more happiness into my life than I can communicate. If you feel that they are true as well, you can learn more by visiting www.mormon.org.

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings — male and female — are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Don't Discriminate Against Me

I've been a victim of discrimination these past few months. I've been called a bigot, I've been flipped off, sworn at (usually "f-you"), and one stellar individual spit at me as he drove by in his car, (not symbolic spitting, he was really trying to reach me as I stood on the sidewalk). My friends have had eggs thrown at them. Another friend who was campaigning for Prop 8 was assaulted by a couple who yelled obscenities in his face and then started furiously yelling at his 7-year old daughter.

In the starkest living contradiction I have ever seen, one car pulled up to a stop-light where our group was campaigning for Prop 8 by holding up signs on the sidewalk. As soon as they stopped, 3 middle fingers emerged from the car, along with some foul language. The 3 men flipped us off for some time, and then they began chanting "No on hate".

This is a battle between right and wrong. Is it hard for anyone to see which is which?

Those who stand up for Prop 8 are standing up for what is right. We are on the defensive - this fight was brought into our homes, not the other way around. When other people try to enact legislation in a non-democratic way that is designed to undermine our values and our right to believe what we do fervently believe and have every right to believe, we will respond.

We encourage honest and good people to join us and vote YES on PROP 8.

TV Ad: Truth

Letter Writing

More letter writing activities!

A sea of YELLOW!

Just took a drive with the kids along PCH to see a spectacular sea of YELLOW! Wish I could have been there with you but it was such a wonderful sight. From Cliff to Crown Valley the YES on 8 was everywhere! We enjoined honking our horn and showing our support. Can wait to hear from those who participated!
Good job guys!!!
YES on 8!

"Coming Out Day" Coming This Week to California Elementary Schools

I joined a few Facebook groups in support of Prop 8 and one of them sends me regular updates. The following is an email I received this morning and I would like to share it with everyone:

David R. Schmidt sent a message to the members of iSupportMarriage.com Yes on 8 High ACTION Team.

Subject: "Coming Out Day" Coming This Week to California Elementary Schools

Hayward, CA – Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in kindergarten.

The parents were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" will be celebrated at the school this coming Thursday, October 23. The school, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, chose not to tell parents ahead of time, but it is in the midst of celebrating "Ally Week," a pro-homosexual push typically aimed at high school students. When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, "We're learning to be allies." The mother also learned that her daughter's kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.

Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk."

These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."

Any other parents whose elementary-age children have been subjected to pro-homosexual propaganda should contact Pacific Justice Institute for counsel and possible representation.

If you are able to support PJI, please click here to contribute now or visit http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.pji.org%2Fgetinvolved.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.pacificjustice.org%2Fresources%2Fnews%2Ffocusdetails.cfm%3FID%3DPR081022a

. . . . .

In my opinion, this crosses way over the line. And it's so frustrating to watch the No on 8 commercials say that Prop 8 doesn't have anything to do with schools:

Well, obviously it does. And it will only get worse if Prop 8 doesn't pass. The opposition (wrongfully) talks about Prop 8 taking away gay rights. But what about our rights? I don't want anyone forcing anything on me or my (future) children. Prop 8 NEEDS to pass. I'm afraid to find out what will happen if it doesn't.

A Moral Imperative

I've been thinking about the Prop 8 issue a lot for the last few months. I've struggled with feelings of compassion for those who feel attacked by Proposition 8. I know that many people feel that Prop 8 is about closed-mindedness and intolerance.

I read a book called In Quiet Desperation that was written a few years ago about the issue of homosexuality and the teachings of the Gospel in the LDS Church. I was actually roommates at one point with one of the authors of the book, a young man who says in the book that he has never felt attracted to a woman in his life. The book starts out with the story of another person, however, named Stuart Matis, another person who felt same-gender attraction very strongly. Without ever acting on those feelings, Stuart lived the very best he could. He served a mission, went to BYU, graduated, and started working for a consulting firm while living at home in San Francisco on the weekends when he was in town. A personal acquaintance of mine was Stuart's roommate at BYU. He said Stuart was one of the most amazing people he had ever met - he was dialed in on every level. He had always believed that if he lived righteously enough, he would be changed. He ultimately gave in to despair and committed suicide outside of his stake-center (an LDS church building).

Stuart's story is written in this book by his mother, who knew of his struggles and of the suicidal tendencies he was developing during the last part of his life. Her perspective is so powerful. While she pleads for less closed-mindedness and greater understanding on the issue of homosexuality, her conviction about the true standards of morality never waiver. Throughout her account of her painful experiences, which I believe are equal to almost anybody's, she doesn't ever question the moral truth that is at the center of this debate - the truth that homosexual behavior is not right. Neither Stuart nor his mother doubted this truth. The author of the second part of the book makes it clear that homosexual behavior is not right. He bears a powerful conviction that what he feels in his body and what he knows to be true in his heart can be at odds with each other, and that he can legitimately choose what is right over what his body feels.

The fact that people struggle with a certain moral principle doesn't mean that we need to change the principle. It means that we need to teach it more powerfully. It does call for compassion and understanding, but not for a softening of the values that uphold personal happiness and social stability. There are many other struggles people have, which, like homosexuality, seem to be a combination of physical and developmental processes. Some examples are alcoholism or drug abuse. Some children are born addicted to cocaine. This evokes compassion in all of us. However, we don't enact legislation to change our stance on whether the behavior is right or wrong. To do so is a mistake of epic proportions.

We don't have to agree with the behavior of homosexuals to accept them and to have compassion for them. We should not take away the legal right of individuals in our society to disagree with their behavior. The moral principles God gave to us are now and have always been right. To depart from them can only bring negative consequences.

This may or may not be a good approach

Just wanted to get your opinion on an idea that may or may not be a good approach. I have heard about people searching for proposition 8 in google and then clicking on the "yes on prop 8" or "no on prop8" paid ad links that appear at the top of the search results in google. Each time someone clicks on these links it is costing that campaign money. I guess clicking on the "no on prop 8" ad is costing Hollywood stars like Ellen money they donated to the no on 8 campaign. I imagine if you were to break out the donations made to each campaign that the yes on 8 campaign's donations have been made by at least twice as many people as the amount of people contributing to the "no on 8 campaign". The majority of donations made to the "no on 8" campaign have been made by Hollywood starts like Brad Pitt, Ellen Degeneres, and Steven Spielberg. Don't forget the CTA, is it a bad idea for people who feel betrayed by the $1.2 million donation made by the CTA to fight back by clicking on the "no on prop 8" paid search link multiple times each day? What do you think......

support prop 8

I was thinking it is such a shame I don't have a yard to display a YES on 8 yard sign. I think many of us are in the same boat, apartments, condos, etc. I thought it might be a good idea to "adopt a corner" if each of us adopted a corner to "man" a sign we could have them all over. When I say man I mean just make sure your corner always has a sign, since the no campaign has had a bit of a history of stealing, destroying or vandalizing our signs.
(Also I will throw in a friendly reminder to never touch a no sign. Really let's not stoop to that level.)

Also I would urge you all to wear your support, you can go totally grass roots and make a shirt (which i did) or you can buy a totally awesome one here. Andy if you want to link this to the side of the blog its www.whatisprop8.com/shirts.html They are selling them at cost (including shipping) and want to get them out as fast as possible.We have less than 2 weeks left now!

Since the no campaign has been making serious dinero lately I also wanted to post a link for donations here. Donate as much or as little as you can, it will all help. Think of the magic number 8! We are down to the wire in this campaign and it's imperative we keep up the momentum!
link this one to Andy! https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/schools There is probably a better way for me to tell you this but this way i link it more, that's good right?!?! I'll do it again here! I think i got the magic number 8 links in this post, may be over kill...

Well in true Lisa fashion I got pics for you!

Here are the proud men and women braving the elements and waving there signs. These events are gaining so much momentum. Each time I go there are more and more people. Great job guys you are amazing!

Will same sex marriage really hurt anyone else?

"...children's needs, rather than adults' rights, should be the fundamental orienting principle of public policy regarding marriage..."

I'm posting here some quotes from a scholarly compilation entitled What's the Harm: Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Family, or Society? by Lynn J. Wardle, published this year by University Press of America, Lahnam MD. These quotes are from chapter 3, written by Jason S. Carroll and David C. Dollahite, Ph.Ds from Brigham Young University.

Before I quote the book, I want to share my conviction that marriage and family (in their traditional, God-given meanings) are the greatest blessing we can give the children we bring into this world. Wishing otherwise will not compensate the children we bring into this world for the loss of this most precious blessing. I think that deep down, everyone knows that this is true. What more mature and selfless thing could someone who was not privileged with this gift in their own childhood do than to determine to give the gift they didn't have to the next generation? My father was raised by an abusive alcoholic father who drank himself to death before I was born. I am so grateful to my Dad for not doing what so many who propose a redefinition of marriage because they were not blessed with an ideal family in their own childhood are trying to do - to make it so that no one else can have what they didn't have. My dad often apologized for not "knowing how to be a good father," due to the lack of any type of example in his own childhood. But he promised to try his best and to never give up, and succeeded dazzlingly. He was faithful to my mom, he was loving and concerned with all of his children, and his influence continues to bless each of our lives today. This is what we need more of at this time in our society.

"...children's needs, rather than adults' rights, should be the fundamental orienting principle of public policy regarding marriage, parenting, and father-child relationships" (52).

"Doherty and colleagues concluded, "the research strongly indicates that substantial barriers exist for men's fathering outside of a caring, commited,
collaborative marriage and that the promotion of these kinds of enduring marital partnerships may be the most important contribution to responsible fathering in our
society" (55).

"After years of research in the area, Daly and Wilson concluded that having a stepparent is the most powerful risk factor for severe child mistreatment. Also a review of studies on child sexual abuse found that two of the leading risk factors for children reporting that they have experienced abuse during their childhood were thatthe child lived without one of his or her biological parents and the child reported having a stepfather" (57).

To make sure that the reader gleans the obvious from this last quote, a same-gender couple raising a child must by nature consist of at least 1 step-parent.

"As a social institution, marriage has traditionally been defined so as to provide a natural mechanism for the widely held cultural ideal that children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be raised by the father and mother who gave them life. This persistent core value of kin altruism is at the center of our society's definition of marriage and parenthood" (58-59).

"...legal adoption permits the possibility of legal paternity between men and children who are not biologically related. However, to date, this mechanism exists legally and socially to address the needs of children who due to unintentional circumstances are separated from their biological parents. Providing for the relatively small number of children who are with us and by no fault of their own are separated from their biological parents is quite different from providing legal and social encouragement for establishing ambiguous parent-child relationships from the start. Providing legal standing to same-sex partnerships will deepen and give legal sanction to the existing cultural trends we have seen with all the attendant harm to children that social science research has demonstrated" (62).

"Altering the legal definition of marriage would further erode the societal recognition that fathers matter to children. As this occurs, two primary mechanisms will increase the ambiguity of fatherhood for children, men and society. First, the rise of a 'self-defined parenting paradigm' that equates single mothers and lesbian couples with two biological parents in meeting the developmental needs of children threatens to further disenfranchise men from family life and weakens social norms discouraging divorce and non-marital childbearing" (63).

"A second way that the legalization of same-sex partnerships would further the rise of ambiguous fatherhood is that it would support a retreat from fatherhood altogether among some American men. One aspect of a self-defined parenting ideology in society is the option of not being a parent at all. If father is not a cultural ideal, the potential exists for an increase in men who live outside marriage and parenting altogether. Given the data on the negative social consequences of communities that have a large number of unmarried men (e.g., higher rates of crime and other anti-social behavior), we should resist movement toward a parenting culture that would suggest that men can be viewed as 'sperm donors' whose only essential 'parenting role' is conception and then women can do it alone, either as single parents or as a lesbian couple" (63).

Table 3.2 - Levels of Ambiguous Fatherhood - pg. 63

Children - "Whose my Daddy?"
-At risk developmental setting
-Ambiguous relations with father & other men
Men - "Am I the Daddy?"
-Less paternal responsibility in ambiguous fatherhood or non-generative lifestyles
-Fewer men receiving the benefits of marriage
Couples - "Who's the Daddy?"
-Within-couple ambiguity about who the child's father is
-Within-couple inequality in the event of dissolution of partnership
Society - "What's a Daddy?"
-Lack of clear social norms for men and fathers
-Increased involvement of the legal system in family life; attempts to legally clarify family boundaries.

"We conclude with a metaphor that we believe captures the dilemma we now face. In several ways generative fathering can be viewed, both individually and collectively, as a protective tent in children's lives. The nurturing presence of a father shelters children from a host of risk factors and social threats. Within the protection of this tent, children find the environment that is most likely to promote healthy outcomes and optimal development ... At a social level, the tent of generative fathering serves as a sort of social institution that assists in socializing the rising generation, regulating men's sexual behaviors, and protecting both men and their children from anti-social and even criminal lifestyles" (64).

Boycott School Tomorrow

There is an organized movement by many parents in California tomorrow to keep their kids home from school to protest the California Teachers' Association involvement in the anti-Prop 8 campaign. This is a really effective way to tell the teachers and schools that you don't support them in their efforts to indoctrinate your children with homosexuality. Ironically, that 1.25 million dollar contribution from teachers is probably going to pay for TV adds that call Prop 8 supporters' claims that children will taught homosexuality in schools "lies" and "scare tactics".

Many parents are choosing to fight back against the CTA for
donating over $1.25 million to the No on 8 campaign by excusing their
children from school tomorrow, October 21st. If you feel it is
appropriate, tell the school administrator that you will spend the day
teaching your child about the political process, democracy, and how
citizens standing up together can make a substantial difference in our
State’s governance against organizations like the CTA who try to
impose homosexuality upon the school system. Also, please donate
$35, $50, or $100 on that day to Protectmarriage.com with the letters
“CTA” in the referral box – to send a clear message that the harder
the CTA pushes the harder they fall. Spread the word around to other
families in California! We have less than 24 hours to get the word
out. Go, go go!

Similarly, if you are a teacher, go to
http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expenses
to find out how to get a refund for your portion of the union dues
spent towards supporting No on 8. (if 3,333 teachers do this, it will
make the CTA donation completely null and void!)

Signs for Prop 8

Pictures from a sign waving event for Prop 8!

Broadcast: all faiths supporting Prop 8

We may have missed this but if anyone found out about it will you please post?!?!

BROADCAST at 5:00 TONIGHT FOR Prop 8 SUPPORTING CONGREGATIONS OF ALL FAITHS
There is BOUND to be a location near you; you can find a list of sites here:
http://www.%20ccnonline.%20net/protectmarriage/hostsitelist.%20htm
SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
*photographer who was sued for refusing to photograph a gay couple's wedding
*father in Massachusetts that was arrested for speaking up about his 5 year old son's education about gay marriage
*leader of a church who lost tax-exemption status for refusing to marry a gay couple
*Chuck Norris

WOMEN TOGETHER WRITING LETTERS FOR PROP 8

This thursday night women came together to write letters to undecided voters urging them to vote Yes on Prop 8 to protect traditional marriage. It was such a wonderful experiance to be with these amazing women working together this important goal! Women are so powerful and together we are unstoppable! The house was full and women were coming in and out. Really a success.
Something I think this blog is in serious need of is some pictures. I think we need to see some of the faces of those who are working so hard to get prop 8 passed. If you want to get involved there is plenty to do. Letter writing, phone calls, sign holding and even just a bumper sticker on your car. Leave a comment with your email address and we will get in contact with you. Join us Protecting Marriage. You can also visit www.protectmarriage.com to find events in your area, donate, etc.

A Post from "Make My Vote Count"

Heather from the "Make My Vote Count" blog has a trenchant post about the same-gender marriage agenda. It was so good I decided to quote it here. The blog is available in the links list on this page. The URL for this specific post is:

http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com/2008/10/from-other-side.html

Heather says:

I came across this article on a blog I was visiting. I thought his argument was very well stated. It comes from the point of view of a gay talk show host, who addresses the very issues that those against prop 8 bring up. I have put a couple of paragraphs in this post that I want to make sure everyone from both sides read.

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage
Al Rantel

"While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence."

"And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?"

Need I say more? There it is, in black and white, from a gay person's perspective. Read my post about the minority ruling. Allowing gays to marry isn't even something that all gay people want. And for those against prop 8, it's not about "marriage". It's about social acceptance.

I strongly encourage you to read the entire article.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml

My letter to California Teachers Association about 1.25 million contribution

To the CTA and Pres. David Sanchez,

As a father, I was extremely disappointed this morning to read that the CTA has donated a million dollars to the vote no on Prop. 8. Thus, bringing the total to $1,250,000. In doing the research, this accounts for nearly 10% of all campaign contribution dollars on the “no” vote. It is shocking to me that this association which educates our children would not have educated themselves before deciding on which way to recommend their members to vote on Proposition 8. Let alone spending a ghastly amount of money when it would have been better directed elsewhere with a much deeper effect for the children as well as teachers. At times, I have wondered why our education system here in California was so flawed and behind other states. I no longer do. With choices such as these, it is no wonder why as a society we have lost our morals and therefore are starting to pay for the ignorance of leaders in this state.

To me the number one objective of the CTA should be what is best for the children. Without children, teachers would not have the job they do, much less an association. Ironically, children are unable to vote in this election and so it is imperative that we study this issue and understand what is really at risk so that the rights of the children will be heard. Is it really the rights of gay/lesbian couples who are at risk? No. Proposition 8 simply defines marriage as between a man and a woman as legal in the state of California. No rights, privileges or positions would be negated or revoked for others. They will continue to have all the civil rights granted them through domestic partnership. If passed, Prop 8 will RESTORE to the citizens of California the mandate (61%) of the people as voted in 2000, to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Is it the rights of our children who are at risk? Yes

So the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Throughout the history of the world society has defined marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage at its core is virtually universal, it has existed in nearly all cultures since pre-history. Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. It is clear, that the optimum mode for a child to be raised is with a father and mother in the home. Studies bear this out. Children with a father and mother in the home have higher academic performance and higher levels of attainment. They are also much more likely to avoid crime and other self-destructive behavior such as drug abuse and high-risk sexual conduct.
By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children? Is it really wise to instruct our children that hetero and homosexual relationships are the same? It would have to be taught this way in school in the name of equality. Do we really want our children to be taught that their sexual orientation is kind of like trying new vegetables? You don’t really know until you try it to find out which orientation you are. This is how it was described by a child at school in Massachusetts.
In countries where same-sex marriages are legal studies bear out important facts about this radical experiment. What happens in these countries is that the institution of marriage is devalued and in essence deinstitutionalized. Rendering marriage unimportant because now anyone can get married. Marriage rates steadily decline. Out of wedlock birth rises causing more children to be raised in a home where there is not both a mother and a father raising them. This takes away the Child’s Bonding Right. Every child has the right to know and be brought up by his/her biological mother and father. Internationally, this is known as the Child’s Bonding Right. In nature, it is the only way a child can be born in this world through a relationship between a man and a woman. If Proposition 8 were to fail we would be taking away the Child’s Bonding Right. Who wants to take away their rights? Better yet, who is even thinking of their rights?
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

CTA claims that all people should be guaranteed the same freedoms and rights. No one group should have their rights taken away. But what if one’s group rights start to affect the rights of others. For example, rights of children, rights of freedom of religion (oh by the way a 1st ammendment in our constitution), etc. That needs to be taken into account. And what about the right to give blood. I believe everyone should have the right and freedom to give blood. I recently went to give blood and found that some groups were excluded from their right to give blood. One such group were males that have had, even one, sexual contact with another male. How come male same-sex couples aren’t fighting for this right? Maybe it is because the Red Cross and FDA know that the activities they engage in are spreading infection and do not want others affected or infected. It is for the good of society. So why should we think that this behavior should be taught in school. They have lost the right by the activity they are engaged in. Yes, there are consequences to our choices. Even when we think our choices don’t affect other people. This group of people does not have the right to give blood because they don’t have the right to infect and harm another individual. Please see below for Red Cross Eligibility guidelines.
BLOOD DONATION ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES
Note to users: This list is not complete. Specially trained technical staff are available at each blood collection center and details of each donor's health and activities are discussed in a confidential setting prior to blood donation. The majority of donor eligibility rules are specified by the Food and Drug Administration for every collection center in the country. Other rules are determined by the medical professionals at specific blood centers, or with other regulatory bodies. Therefore, these rules may differ between programs. Donor eligibility rules are intended to protect the health and safety of the donor as well as the patient who will receive the transfusion. The criteria listed below are provided as guidelines to assist you in determining whether you may be eligible to be a blood donor. The final determination of eligibility is made at the time of donation. The guidelines listed below were last revised on 5/08/08. There may have been some changes to these criteria since the last revision date. The most up to date eligibility information can be obtained by contacting the American Red Cross blood center nearest you.
HIV, AIDS You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:
are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977

CTA claims that supporters of Prop. 8 know they are purposely trying to “deceive the public” when supporters say it will affect teaching in our schools. That no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school according to California Law. That a California Superior Court Judge (we all know how great the judges are in California, especially after they overturn the voice of 61% of Californians) has already ruled that this claim by Prop. 8 proponents is “false and misleading”. Thankfully we have the state of Massachusetts to prove to CTA and this “Superior Court Judge” that they are in fact the ones who are deceiving the public as well as misleading. You see, schools won’t have to ask for parents permission to teach same-sex education. How will they get around it? Well what the opponents of Prop. 8 don’t tell you is that they can simply teach it under the title that same-sex is a law in California and that they are required to teach it. Because it is not a health or family issue and is simply a legal matter of the state of California, no parental notification is required. If you don’t think it can happen and actually believe CTA’s “claim” that education won’t be directly affected please see this link. It is eye-opening. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

Could you please tell me who is trying to deceive the public and mislead?

In fact if Proposition 8 fails, what happens to the teacher’s rights who say they do not want to teach that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same? Many teachers will lose their rights and be forced to teach something they may not believe. It may force many to stop teaching entirely and discourage others from teaching. This will lead to fewer teachers in our state; thus, less qualified teachers will have to replace them. How will this help our already challenged school system? I already know of doctors who are being sued because they are not providing in-vitro fertilization to lesbian couples. These doctors are giving up their practices either due to law suits or no longer wanting to be in the medical field because it goes against their beliefs and convictions.

So before you decide to vote “no” on Proposition 8, you might want to consider the rights of the children, the rights of the teachers, and the rights of the parents. Remember that everything starts in the home. If you have strong families, you have strong communities, strong communities lead to strong states, strong states lead to a strong nation. Isn’t this what we want? We should be more concerned about what is most ideal and right and less concerned about what is equal and fair.

Please gather all of the correct information you can and support me in voting “Yes” on Proposition 8.

Regards from a very concerned parent,

Matthew Miller

Truth in Advertising

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign's claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an "opt out" for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Further, their assurance that parents can always "opt-out" of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts' parental opt-out provision should not be permitted

"These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters," said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. "On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools."

Lying…who's really lying?

The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, "King and King." This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, "They're using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie." (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at www.noonprop8.com)

In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 "Lies" television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a "teachable moment."

It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that "Newsom called the (Yes on 8) ad 'classic distraction' and misleading." Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.

"Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of 'diversity,' taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age," Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its "diversity education" to five year old children in kindergarten.

According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of "diversity," and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.

The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:

"In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents." [p 5]

"Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students' formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." [p 3]

Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:

"There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment's free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one's children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system." [pp1-2]

"In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families." [p 9]

"Lexington's selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society." [p 13]

(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book…King and King." [p 9]

"This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]

"First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas'' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students." [pp 22-23]

(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)

These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – 'whether you like it or not.'

To make sure Californians know the truth, we need you to do three things right now:

1. Forward this email to your friends and family right now, and ask them to forward it to their friends. Every California voter needs to know about this.

2. Watch the truthful ads the No on 8 campaign doesn't want you to see, and donate to keep them on the air.

3. Please volunteer today, and we'll put you out in the field talking to voters directly -- as thousands are already doing. Thank you for all that you do. Please spread the word and make sure your neighbors know the truth before they vote!

Sincerely,
Frank Schubert
Campaign Manager
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8

To Those on the Fence

One thing that has been made very clear to me as I have weighed the arguments for both sides of the same-gender marriage issue is the fact that there is no neutral ground in this debate (other than to not vote, an option I hope nobody chooses). Those in support of legalizing same-gender marriage erroneously argue that the issue is simply about getting society off the backs of a minority group -- they argue that those who oppose same-gender marriage are meddling in an issue which has nothing to do with them. That is not true.

As has been documented in earlier posts on this blog, a no vote on Prop 8 will curtail the freedoms of anyone who opposes same-gender marriage. Right now, only 7 months after the supreme court legalized same-gender marriage in California, churches that disagree with same-gender marriage here have already been forced by courts to perform same-gender marriages. Photographers who do not believe in same-gender marriages have been forced to take photographs same gender marriages. In Canada, where same-gender marriage has been legal a little bit longer, a law has been passed that makes it illegal for church leaders to teach the doctrine that homosexual behavior is wrong, labeling such teaching as "hate speech."

Those who oppose Prop 8 claim that it deprives a group of people of the right to marry. Those who support Prop 8 claim that legalizing same-gender marriage deprives them of some of the most fundamental rights provided in the American constitution.

Two groups claim that their rights are being violated. Either way you vote, you're going to offend someone. The question is, which rights are more important?

Do we value freedom of sexuality more than we value freedom of religion? If so, what's next? Whose sexuality can we legislate after homosexuality? What about a mother and her son who have a sexual relationship and want to get married? Should we discriminate against them and deny them the right to get married? What about two 12 year old children who are very mature for their age and say that it's not fair that they aren't allowed to be married? Isn't that discrimination? Who says it's not right for them to get married? How would you like a court to force YOUR church to perform that marriage?

If you vote no on Prop 8, how will you answer these questions? You will have voted in a way that curtails the elements of society that keep everybody in line - you will have voted to silence the moral authorities in our society that define what is right and what is wrong. Without being able to say "We can't legalize that because it is wrong", what will you say?

Will you turn to scientific studies about whether or not such behavior is harmful? Why would you, when you had previously rejected the abundance of scientific evidence that suggests that same-gender marriage will cause a GREAT deal of harm to our children, especially those who are raised in same-gender households?

The problem with our modern concept of "civil rights" is that we have separated it from its most fundamental principle - RIGHT. We need to stand up for what is right this November. Please understand that a no vote on Prop 8 is not a vote to stay out of peoples' business. You're not sitting on the fence by voting no on Prop 8. Please understand the issues, and vote YES on Prop 8 on November 4th.

A letter by D.Lew of Laguna Beach

I read this article from the oc register today and it really spoke to me. I think the author really explained the YES on Prop 8 view very well. One of these days I really need to write a post of my own but when people speak it so well it's like i don't need to!

This is by D. Lew of Laguna Beach:

"I believe in human rights. I believe in civil liberty. I believe that no government or law of man has the right to compel anyone or any entity to perform any act or service contrary to his own beliefs as long as his beliefs does not constitute harm to others. This is the reason why I will vote yes on Prop. 8.

Prop. 8 will reaffirm the voice of the people in California that marriage is between a man and a woman. And those four activist judges in San Francisco cannot and should not be the voice of the populous overwhelmingly passed what was then Prop. 22 in the year 2000. Preserving the definition of traditional marriage is important for California and good for our society.

I am not prejudice. I respect individual rights and the freedom of choice. I have neighbors who are gay. They are good and decent people. I respect their rights to choose. I accept them as what they are. I don't impose my values on them and they don't impose their values on me. But if Prop. 8 does not pass, the law will demand their values be imposed on me. All businesses, all entities and all of us will be compelled by law to treat all marriages without distinction. The schools in California will be compelled to teach children and that children must accept that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Any child does not accept all marriages are same would be construed as breaking the law. Churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if that is contrary to the church's position. Churches would not be able to use their doctrinal beliefs to defend their positions.

The opponents viewed this as another scare tactic. I wish this is only a scare tactic but it is the truth. It is happening in states such as Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legalized. Passing of Prop. 8 will protect individual liberty, protect our schools from mandatory teaching same-sex marriage to our children and protect our churches from performing marriages contrary to their doctrine."

Let your voice be heard, write a letter to the ocregister:
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com. Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published). Letters of about 200 words will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

http://preservingmarriage.blogspot.com/ another great YES on 8 blog- andy we have to add them!

I found this video on my sister-in-law's blog and I thought it was excellent. I really don't think I have to say anything more!

Children WILL be indoctrinated about same-sex marriage

If prop 8 fails on November 4th all Public School Children will be affected. The Opponents of proposition 8 want you to believe that allowing gay marriage will not affect anyone but the individuals practicing it. THAT JUST IS NOT TRUE! Please watch the video below of what is already happening in Massachusetts. A father was jailed for protesting that he had a right to object to same-sex material being taught to HIS KINDERGARTENER! At this age it is too young to be teaching kids about heterosexual behavior let alone homosexual behavior. If anyone is on the fence about the possibility of homosexual marriage being taught in public schools you should know that the CTA (California Teachers Association) is against propostion 8 and has already donated $250,000 to the no on 8 campaign. Follow this link CTA votes no on prop. 8 to read what they said about. It will happen, please look at the long term effects of this bill not passing and what our country will be like in ten years. PLEASE do everything you can to help make family members and friends aware of the main issues at stake here (e.g. losing religious freedom and children being taught same-sex marraige is acceptable)

YES on Prop 8: ads and videos

Over the past couple months, I've seen quite a few commercials opposing Prop 8, but none in support of it. I was curious to see them so I went on YouTube and found a couple. They also have other videos in support of Prop 8 (which aren't shown on TV) that I think are really great. Politics aren't my strong point, so I really like ones that are plain, simple and to the point.

Like this one:

I may not understand all the legal aspects that go along with Prop 8, but I do know that I don't want my future children being taught that same sex marriage is okay. We need Prop 8 to pass in order to protect our children.

I really don't want this to happen:

Here is another TV ad in support of Prop 8:

And I really like this video:

"The Best Gift"

The story of a Prop 8 Supporter, Jose Nunez

I apologise for monopolizing the blog today but I found this article in the Wall Street Journal and I thought it was worth sharing. The words of others really seem to say it better than I ever could most of the time.
Let me also say that while these kinds of articles can be disturbing and may give us a reason to be quieter about our support of prop 8 it should in fact do the opposite. I think it only points out that our YES vote and giving up of our time, talents and energy is needed more than ever. we can be the peaceful voice that speaks loud. (that may have been very chessy...sorry!!)

I highlighted my favorite parts of the article and I hope it touches those reading it has it did me.

Prop. 8 Supporter Violently Attacked for Distributing Lawn Signs
Last update: 6:42 p.m. EDT Oct. 13, 2008

MODESTO, Calif., Oct 13, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- In a violent display of intolerance, an opponent of Proposition 8 attacked and seriously injured a man who was volunteering on Sunday for the initiative to define marriage as between and a man and a woman.

Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while waiting to distribute yard signs to other supporters of the initiative after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.
The assailant grabbed about 75 signs and yelled at Nunez accusingly, "What do you have against gays!" Although Nunez replied that he had nothing against gays, he was attacked anyway. The assailant punched Nunez in the left eye and ran off with the signs.

Nunez, his eye dripping with blood, walked into a building on church grounds where a fellow parishioner called 911. Police and paramedics responded to the scene.

Nunez, who suffered a bloody eye, serious wounds to his face, and a scratch to his knee, was rushed by ambulance to a local hospital where he received 16 stitches under his eye.
According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the attack shows that their opponents are not as tolerant and open-minded as they would like voters to believe.

"It's outrageous that the No campaign calls themselves the voice of tolerance and moderation and wants people to feel bad for supporting Prop. 8. There was nothing tolerant or moderate about beating up Jose," said ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 press secretary Chip White. "Clearly the man who attacked Jose is intolerant of those who support traditional marriage," White added.

Ironically, Nunez, a native of Mexico, became an American citizen two months ago and plans to vote for the first time in November. Nunez, who is recovering and in good spirits, said the attack only strengthens his resolve to help ensure that Prop. 8 passes.

"The other side wants to intimidate us, but we can't stop standing up for traditional marriage. I may be bloody and bruised, but I'm not giving up. Protecting traditional marriage is just too important for our kids," said Nunez, the father of three children, ages 9, 5, and 3. "I don't want my kids taught in public school that same sex-marriage is the same as traditional marriage," Nunez added.

Nunez has been forced to take time off work to recover. It was not immediately clear how much Nunez will suffer in medical expenses and lost wages.

Anyone who is interested in contributing funds toward Nunez's medical expenses or lost wages may contact the campaign at info@protectmarriage.com.

The campaign asks those who have been attacked, threatened, or had yard signs stolen to file a police report and to email the campaign.
SOURCE ProtectMarriage.com

An Encounter

Last night as I left my car in my parking lot after work, I was approached by a man who asked me why I had a Prop 8 sticker on my car. This man was homosexual, was in a relationship with another man, and said that he hoped at some point to get married. He said it offended him to see a sticker that promoted a measure designed to defend traditional marriage. He asked me "How does it effect you?"

Over the course of about 20 minutes, this man and I had a cordial and respectful conversation about some of the issues we both feel are at stake in this decision. I spoke to him about many of the reasons I support Prop 8, including things that have been written in this blog, such as the way religious freedoms are curtailed by the legalization of same-gender marriage, the need of children to have a stable family relationship with their two biological parents, and the unacceptable and un-democratic back-door-ing used by homosexual activists to legislate their agenda. I was surprised that my friend was completely unaware of most of these issues.

My friend basically had only one point, which was the question he asked me in the beginning: "Why can't you tolerate my lifestyle? Why do you want to deny me my rights? Why are you attacking me by voting this way?" As the conversation progressed, I found it increasingly clear that there was a fundamental disconnect between us. Although he logically conceded to each point I made about why the legalization of same-gender marriage was wrong, he couldn't reconcile my points with what he had been taught about the lifestyle he has chosen: that it doesn't hurt anybody else.

While that may be true in a very limited scope (I say may because it very well may hurt people close to him or people close to his partner), and while I respect his right to choose his lifestyle without being a subject of prejudice, I reject the argument that legislating that lifestyle into mainstream society will not affect anybody. For reasons well-documented in this blog, the legalization of same sex-marriage is extremely harmful to everyone in our society. I claim the right to feel that way about the issue. I claim the right to voice my feelings on the issue. The legalization of same-sex marriage is determined to deny me those rights (see posts below about religious clergy being thrown in jail in Canada for preaching that homosexuality is immoral, and about the man in Massachusetts being thrown in jail for objecting to his child being indoctrinated with homosexual teachings in classroom at school without the parents being informed).

Legalization of same-gender marriage WILL have these and many other detrimental effects on society. If you value the family; if you believe that the family plays an essential role in the health of our society, then you must vote YES on Prop 8. Don't be deceived by the pseudo-morality that has become so rampant among people of good conscience in our society, which says that the greatest good you can do is to not disagree with the choices of others. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and if people of good conscience do not take a stand for the right, then the others whose choices we refuse to disagree with will take our rights from us.

I feel a great deal of compassion for my friend in the parking lot. He and others like him are not the ones driving the agenda to legalize same-gender marriage. He and others like him do not understand the true intentions of those driving that agenda (as is evidenced by his unawareness of most of the issues that I brought up in our conversation); unfortunately, he and others like him have been unkindly placed at the center of this controversy by those driving the agenda. Those driving the agenda have not told my friend and others like him what they're really about. A YES vote on Prop 8 is not an attack on my friend and others like him, who is being used as a sort of human-shield in this battle by those driving the same-gender agenda; a YES vote on Prop 8 is a rejection of that agenda. We can accept and respect my friend and others like him without letting those behind the same-gender agenda achieve their malicious ends.

Dennis Prager, speaking about the very obvious and well-documented negative effects on children in a same-gender family, says this about unwillingness to take a stand on this important issue:

"And what about the heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage? They ignore the issue of its effects on children because they either do not want to confront the issue or because they are so intimidated by the liberation trinity — "equality," "rights" and "tolerance" — that even children's welfare becomes a non-issue."

Six Consequences if Propsition 8 fails

Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public.Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government.It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.
6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits.Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time.
Where will it end?It's your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.Lets work together to protect them.Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.

Promoting a Restraint

I read an interesting comment about marriage the other day in the newspaper I thought was worth repeating. The person noted that many are referring to marriage as a right. In contrast, wrote the commentator, marriage is actually a restraint on men to stay with one woman. He continued to articulate that governement adopted this institution because of the many social ills that are prevented by restraining men to one woman. Men natually want to be with as many other partners as they can. He went on to list the many ways in which this arrangement served the society as a whole.

There is a great diference between tolerating and promoting. We can't and shouldn't force men to be with one woman. Or force man to be with a woman for that matter. Man is free to be with whomever he chooses. And we shouldn't have laws that unfairly restrict those who choose a non-traditional lifestyle (i.e. civil union and partnership laws bring these folks up to speed with regards to thier rights). We need a laws that tolerate this non-traditional behavior. However, laws can and should be in place to promote ideal relationships. Meaning, that those who choose to make personal sacrifices which benefit the society on the whole, should be rewarded. One example is having your charitable contributions tax-deductable. No one is forced to do this but the government promotes it. The restraint of staying with one woman is one of these behavioral choices that goes against the natural desire of man but serves all parties involved (the woman, the man, the children they have, and the society they live in) and should therefore be promoted.

Having laws that promote traditional marriage on the one hand and tolerate every other kind of relationship on the other, is what would serve America best. This is one of the reasons I am voting Yes on Prop. 8.

YES ON 8

YES ON PROPOSITION 8 in California
You've been tagged. PLEASE READ THIS no matter what state you live in.

Failure to pass Proposition 8 will hurt children. If gay marriage remains legal, public schools will put it on equal footing with traditional marriage. Children will likely receive “age appropriate” information about sexual relations within heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

Failure to pass Proposition 8 will hurt churches. The court’s decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty and free speech rights. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family. Over time, greater acceptance of nontraditional marriage will be demanded of all people. This could impact the ability of any religion to teach and practice its beliefs. Including adoption agencies.A YES vote will not hurt gays. In California, the law provides for marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Proposition 8 does not diminish these benefits.

For your information:On Friday, October 10th, 2008 a first-grade class took a field trip to witness a lesbian wedding in California. Click Here for the article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

A father in Massachusetts was frustrated when his kindergartner was taught about homosexuality at school by the teachers. He insisted he be notified in the future before such things were discussed so he could pull his boy out of school.He was taken to jail. Click Here for the story.

A Catholic adoption agency In the UK closed their doors because of the Government's new homosexual equality laws. The Equality Act forbids discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation. The law was forced through Parliament last year despite past Prime Minister Tony Blair's recommendation that Catholic adoption agencies be exempted from the rules. Click Here for more info.

Earlier this month judges in Conneticut overturned the state law (just as the judges in California did) to legalized gay marriage. This is not just an issue in California. We voted years ago to keep traditional marriage as the only marriage recognized in the state of California, 4 judges overturned our vote…and we need to fight back. That is what this Proposition is about. This is happening everywhere and the leaders of the church and others have warned that the outcome of California’s vote will affect the way the other states vote.

So PLEASE…even if you don’t live in California, put this on your blog or email this on. The internet knows no state line. You know contacts in California that I don’t…and so do your friends. Please pass this on as it could eventually have an effect on everyone!

"Occasionally discouragement may darken our pathway; frustration may be a constant companion. In our ears there may sound the sophistry of Satan as he whispers, "You cannot save the world; your small efforts are meaningless. You haven't time to be concerned for others." Trusting in the Lord, let us turn our heads from such falsehoods and make certain our feet are firmly planted in the path of service andour hearts and souls dedicated to follow the example of the Lord." --Thomas S. Monson

Click Here for excerpts from the Broadcast given by Elders M. Russell Ballard, Quentin L. Cook and L. Whitney Clayton.
A good resource mentioned in the broadcast: http://www.preservingmarriage.org/

October 20th: Last day to apply for an absentee ballot if voting out of state. Click Here to get one.
October 27th: Last day to apply for “Vote by Mail” Click Here for info.
November 4th: Election day. Polls close at 8:00pm. Vote by mail must be received by this time and can be hand delivered if necessary.

Hate Speech

Recently, I have had two friends who had placed "Yes on Prop 8" stickers on their cars receive surprisingly caustic messages from anonymous (of course) people. The first one had a swastica drawn on his license plate frame with permanent marker. The second received a note on her windshield comparing her to a Nazi and telling her to not start another holocaust.

Are you serious?

Have you noticed how Prop 8 supporters have been villified in this way by those who oppose Prop 8? Arguments supporting Prop 8 has been called hate speech; those who support Prop 8 have been called bigots (see the first comment to the Blankenhorn article, linked on the right side of this blog); and now, for standing up for what has been one of the core values in ALL societies in this earth's history, they are being called 'Nazis' and their political movement is being compared to the most horrific event in modern history.

I would submit to you that the hate speech is coming not from the group of people who defend traditional marriage, but from the other side. In using this kind of speech, Prop 8 opponents attempt to evoke strong emotions such as fear and paranoia among voters who don't know the issues. I have never seen an argument for Prop 8 that uses this kind of speech. Instead, I have heard people expressing their firm beliefs, their values, and their faith-based and reason-based arguments about why Prop 8 is necessary for our future.

I would further submit that, as it has been in the past (including in World War II, where we defeated the Nazis), the evils of the future will be most effectively combated by the healthy and strong individuals whose upbringing has been the kind that every child deserves: where the biological father and mother are married and contribute lovingly to the child's upbringing. I have a conviction that the family (the traditional family) is the most important force for good in our society. I know that our future well-being is dependent upon the defense we make now, when it is in its worst danger.

What is Proposition 8

Proposition 8 is "The California Marriage Protection Amendment" being voted on November 4th in California. On Wednesday Oct. 8th Elder Ballard and other General Authorities of the LDS Church aired a broadcast to LDS members in California urging them to support and vote for Proposition 8. The First Presidency of the LDS Church also sent a letter to members in California asking them to do all that they can to support this proposed amendment <http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage>

I rarely get too excited about politics but feel a moral obligation to support this proposition and want to tell everyone why I feel this way. I am somewhat apprehensive to promote this publicly as the last thing I want to do is offend anybody. However, I feel I can be tolerant without condoning gay marriage, and should be able to maintain my standards and beliefs while still loving individuals who are gay. If gay marriage remains legal TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. There is a very real chance of this happening as it has already happened in Massachusetts.

My desire to pass proposition 8 has nothing to do with judging, hating , or trying to take rights away. In fact, the law in California already provides marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. So why is there a need to force everyone to except this lifestyle? There is also a real threat of religious liberties being taken away as was the case in Massachusetts when a Catholic adoption agency was forced to shut down because they would not allow same-sex couples to adopt children from their agency <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_/ai_n16119113>

California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, legalizing same-sex marriage. This is the same proposed amendment but this time it will be written in the CalIfornia Constitution. Please help us pass proposition 8 to protect the sanctity of marriage as well as the rights of our children.

First Graders Taken to San Francisco City Hall for Gay Wedding

ProtectMarriage.com, has TV ads out claiming that if Prop 8 fails our children will be taught about same-sex marriage at an early age in school. Many have decried these claims as “based on fear” and unrealistic. Well, they aren’t. And in fact, it is already happening, just this past week a group of first graders in San Francisco were taken from class to City Hall to watch their Gay teacher get married. Below is the write-up in the San Francisco Chronicle!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&hw=lesbian+wedding+field+trip&sn=001&sc=1000.

Register to Vote

Lisa here: just wanted to post a link for voter registration online: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm
You can't vote if your not registered!
Also I think its so wonderful that so many bloggers are speaking out about their support of Prop 8. I found this blog tonight and wanted to share it with all of you.

Libertarian Thoughts

I had a friend tell me that he was still looking into Proposition 8, but that he thought the more "libertarian" position might be to vote against the proposition. I shot him back the following quick response that convinced him to vote YES on Proposition 8. I am sure that I could have developed my arguments more and raised many other points, but hopefully this will at least be a starting point for some libertarians to think about.

Destroying marriage is not libertarian. There is nothing libertarian about forcing people/society to accept a moral position that they don't agree with. Taking away a doctor's license because he refuses to inseminate a lesbian couple is not libertarian. Forcing a photographer to take pictures at a lesbian wedding is not libertarian. Forcing Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to choose between placing children with gay and lesbian couples or lose its license is not libertarian – by the way, it gave up its license rather than betray its religious beliefs. From the perspective of the law there is no difference between the rights of civil unions and marriage. It is not libertarian to allow the California Supreme Court on a 4 - 3 vote to overturn what 61% of Californians approved as marriage -- one man, one woman. Empirically, this will do nothing but further erode the value of marriage and cripple the government's ability to encourage traditional families as the best environment for kids. You really need to look into this. Who wins the presidency pales in comparison to the importance of this issue and the effect that it will have on society -- even you [a single guy].

Protecting marriage to protect children

This is the full text of an article written by David Blankenhorn and published on September 19, 2008 in the LA Times. The link to the article is available on the right of this page in the "Links" section.

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."

Addressing arguments about equality

As I have knocked on doors in my area and talked to people about Proposition 8, I have found that those who have investigated the subject of same-gender marriage the least generally think of it as an issue of equality. This is a result of the platform carefully crafted by homosexual activists. This platform obscures the issues that are truly at stake. I will address this argument here with 3 main premises, which I will use to draw the conclusion that the controversy over same-gender marriage is not an issue of equality:

1. Marriage does not belong to the government.
2. The government gives equal recognition to same-gender couples as it does to heterosexual couples.
3. Most homosexuals do not want to marry.

1. Marriage does not belong to the government.
Marriage existed before government. Since the beginning of this world, men and women have married and started families. Throughout history, governments have recognized marriage because of the benefits that marriage provides for society - benefits like stability, the proper and safe channeling of male sexual energy, and the transmission of wholesome values to the rising generation. Governments did not create marriage. They did not define marriage in the beginning, and they are not the authority to receive appeals for a re-definition of marriage now.

The argument for same-gender marriage treats marriage as if it is the creation of the government, and as if the government alone is authorized to bestow or deny marriage to citizens. This argument is, therefore, based on a faulty premise.

2. The government gives equal recognition to same-gender couples as it does to heterosexual couples.
In reality, the government already recognizes the union of same-gender couples in California. It also recognizes the union of heterosexual couples. Under the domestic partnership laws, these couples can live together and receive all of the governmental benefits that married couples receive.

Heterosexuals, participating in an institution called marriage, which existed before the government was ever formed, are recognized as "married". This is something that goes far beyond two people of whatever sexual inclination, deciding to live together for what may be a short or an extended period of time. It does not need governmental recognition. And whether marriage is recognized by the government or not, it is a bulwark of a strong society. It has its foundations in religious laws given by God Himself, and the principles and values that surround this institution of marriage are the most essential part of it. These principles and values are what have given marriage its value in societies throughout history, not the fact that governments have recognized that institution.

3. Most homosexuals do not want to marry.
At the risk of saying something that will sound incredibly un-PC, I will state what I believe to be an accurate and important truth: most homosexuals do not want to enter into a same-gender marriage. While they may feel resentment towards those who oppose same-gender marriage, in reality they do not plan on settling down and living the type of domestic union that marriage suggests. This fact is manifest in the surprisingly small number of same-gender couples who have taken the plunge in states or countries where same-gender marriage has been legalized. Those who have entered into 'marriage' seem to have done so with a very different vision than heterosexuals of what that relationship is supposed to be like. For example, Jonathan Yarbrough, who, with his partner Cody Rogahn, was the first in line for a marriage license in Provincetown, MA in 2004, was quoted by the Boston Herald as saying:

"I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner ... in our case we have an 'open marriage'" (Boston Herald, May 17, 2004).

Jonathan Yarbrough and his partner Cody are going to get married and continue to have sex with other people, presumably at the same rate they did before "marriage". Is there a good purpose for this "marriage"?

The question arises, then: if governments did not create marriage, and if the government already gives equal recognition to same-gender relationships as heterosexual relationships, and if most homosexuals do not want to get married, what is this argument really all about? My answer is that the push for the government to re-define marriage to include same-gender unions is about forcing society to accept and condone a lifestyle that is largely not accepted or condoned. Since society will not accept and condone it, these activists want to make that acceptance mandatory by getting government involved. We are not talking about tolerance here - most people already tolerate homosexual individuals and allow them to live the lifestyle of their choice without prejudice. We are talking about members of society being forced to acknowledge that homosexuality is right and good and acceptable. The first group of people to feel this force will be our children, who will be taught in schools as a mandatory part of the curriculum that there is no moral difference between same-gender marriage and traditional marriage. This undertaking has been mis-labeled as a pursuit of "equality". But "equality" has never meant that one person be denied the right to object to another person's choices or lifestyle. To define equality in that way would be to put the concept of equality in direct opposition to the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience. That is not what the word means.

The Democratic Process

"In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters."

This quote, from a party that supports Proposition 8, describes the democratic environment surrounding Proposition 8. I believe that this type of contextualization is important for a clear understanding of the issue. I know of homosexual people that actually support Proposition 8 for the reasons that I will discuss here.

The original vote in March of 2000 was "overwhelmingly" in favor of defining marriage in its traditional sense - a man and a woman. Over 4 million Californians voted in favor of this traditional definition. Contrast that to the 4 people who overturned that decision in March of this year. Clearly, our democratic rights have been undermined. A vote for Proposition 8 will send a clear message that we demand the right to decide on important issues in our society, rather than allow those who think they know better than the rest of us to decide for us. The way of the activist judges is not democratic. It is almost monarchical in its condescending treatment of California voters.

Political activists who seek to overturn the moral balance in society recognize that most people do not believe in legalizing same-gender marriage. For this reason, they have historically promoted their agenda using tactics that seek to circumvent the democratic process. The decision by the 4 activist judges is just one example. Another example has occurred since the introduction of Proposition 8, when the attorney general of California, an opponent of Proposition 8, changed the words of the description that accompanies the Proposition from what its framers had originally written. This change casts the proposition in a negative light, focusing on the denial of marriage to same-gender couples, rather than focusing on what the proposition is really about - protecting an institution that is vital for the future of our families and our society. You can see this change in the election literature that all registered voters have begun to receive by mail.

A July 30th San Francisco Chronicle article said this about Brown's change:
"Attorney General Jerry Brown is trying to stack the deck against a November ballot measure barring same-sex marriage by declaring in his formal ballot description that it 'eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry'".

True to their non-democratic strategy, opponents of Proposition 8 everywhere rejoiced at this news, celebrating the fact that the people behind the proposition were denied the right to represent their own points of view to the California voters. The wording chosen by the authors of Proposition 8 does not refer to any denial of rights, for that is not what Proposition 8 is about. Rather, it is about protecting an institution that a majority of California voters have already voted to protect.

Why this blog?

With less than a month until the big day when we'll decide the future of the family in California and set a precedent for the rest of the country and the world, I wanted to do something that would have some kind of impact. I've started this blog to provide a forum for those who want to express their feelings about supporting Proposition 8 and why this is an important measure to protect our future.

For those who have not heard of Proposition 8, it is a proposed amendment to the California constitution that seeks to overturn the decision by 4 activist supreme-court judges who made same-gender marriage legal in California earlier this year. Proposition 8 will ensure that traditional marriage is the only marriage that is recognized by the state of California. We will vote on this proposition in November during the general election. For those who are not registered to vote, I encourage you to register quickly. The deadline for registration is October 20th.