So the latest news: the state of California's fine Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has publically stated he will not defend prop 8 to the California Supreme Court.
Why?
...He and senior lawyers in his office have looked closely at the court's precendents and at the recent marriage ruling and concluded that they couldn't defend prop 8.
Excuse me? Did the people of California not vote twice to protect traditional marriage?
But in a lengthy filing late Friday, he argued that the measure was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty" in California's governing charter.
"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said.
"Extinguish fundamental constitutional rights"... um, I thought religious freedom and the freedom of speech were "fundamental constitutional rights". We've already seen those rights squashed, and the issue hasn't even been settled.
The court is reviewing lawsuits filed by gay and lesbian couples and by an array of local governments, led by San Francisco, that contend that ballot measure exceeded the legal limits on initiatives by destroying fundamental rights and stripping judges of their authority to protect a historically persecuted minority.
I think there are other minorities out there that have been persecuted a lot longer and a lot worse than same sex couples. And the more I've been researching this issue, the more I find that heterosexual couples and those that do not codone same sex marriage or that lifestyle are the ones being persecuted. Not to mention the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which there are less members of the Church in California than there are gay/lesbian people. So who's really the minority? And who's really being persecuted?
As the "chief law officer of the state," Brown said in his brief, he is "duty bound to uphold the whole of the Constitution" and not merely the power of the people to change the laws by initiative.
It was my understanding that the Attorney General's job description is to represent the wishes of the people. And the people have spoken twice. And what power do the people have if not to change the laws? This is our country. If the majority of the people want to uphold traditional marriage, then that is what should happen, whether the Attorney General (and other public leaders) agree or disagree.
A little FYI on Jerry Brown's position regarding the whole same sex issue, he is the brilliant one who changed the wording on the ballot to state "Eliminates the Rights of Same Sex Couples to Marry." So why is the media acting (emphasis on the word acting) so surprised that he would come out and say he's not going to uphold the will of the people?
Is this not a government of the people, by the people, for the people? Who are the people? Why do we vote if we can't even count on our leaders in the state capitol to uphold our wishes? Jerry Brown's job isn't hard... he walks into the Supreme Court and says, "The people of California have voted twice on this issue. This is what they want. We need to uphold their wishes." (I know it's not that simple, but you get the idea.)
Side note - I know of a governor in California not to long ago who was kicked out of office for doing far less than what Jerry Brown is doing. Hmmmm...
You can read the entire article at the SFGate.com
Friday, December 19, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
The First Step
This was forwarded to me via email from a friend. It fits perfectly with the theme of this blog. Please read, especially at the end.
The Daffodil Principle
One vote turned into over 6 million in the passing of proposition 8. You do make a difference.
The Daffodil Principle
Several times my daughter had telephoned to say, "Mother, you must come to see the daffodils before they are over." I wanted to go, but it was a two-hour drive from Laguna to Lake Arrowhead.
"I will come next Tuesday", I promised a little reluctantly on her third call. Next Tuesday dawned cold and rainy. Still, I had promised, and reluctantly I drove there. When I finally walked into Carolyn's house I was welcomed by the joyful sounds of happy children. I delightedly hugged and greeted my grandchildren.
"Forget the daffodils, Carolyn! The road is invisible in these clouds and fog, and there is nothing in the world except you and these children that I want to see badly enough to drive another inch!" My daughter smiled calmly and said, "We drive in this all the time, Mother."
"Well, you won't get me back on the road until it clears, and then I'm heading for home!" I assured her. "But first we're going to see the daffodils. It's just a few blocks," Carolyn said. "I'll drive. I'm used to this."
"Carolyn," I said sternly, "Please turn around."
"It's all right, Mother, I promise. You will never forgive yourself if you miss this experience." 
It looked as though someone had taken a great vat of gold and poured it over the mountain and its surrounding slopes. The flowers were planted in majestic, swirling patterns, great ribbons and swaths of deep orange, creamy white, lemon yellow, salmon pink, and saffron and butter yellow. Each different coloured variety was planted in large groups so that it swirled and flowed like its own river with its own unique hue. There were five acres of flowers.
"Who did this?" I asked Carolyn. "Just one woman," Carolyn answered. "She lives on the property. That's her home." Carolyn pointed to a well-kept small A-frame house, modestly sitting in the midst of all that glory.
We walked up to the house. On the patio, we saw a poster. "Answers to the Questions I Know You Are Asking", was the headline. The first answer was a simple one. "50,000 bulbs," it read. The second answer was, "One at a time, by one woman. Two hands, two feet, and one brain." The third answer was, "Began in 1958."
For me, that moment was a life-changing experience. I thought of this woman whom I had never met, who, almost fifty years before, had begun, one bulb at a time, to bring her vision of beauty and joy to an obscure mountaintop. Planting one bulb at a time, year after year, this unknown woman had forever changed the world in which she lived. One day at a time, she had created something of extraordinary magnificence, beauty, and inspiration. The principle her daffodil garden taught is one of the greatest principles of celebration.
That is, learning to move toward our goals and desires one step at a time, often just one baby step at a time and learning to love the doing, learning to use the accumulation of time. When we multiply tiny pieces of time with small increments of daily effort, we too will find we can accomplish magnificent things. We can change the world.
Are you inspired after reading this story? I know I definitely was.
I'm going to make taking your first step VERY easy... click on the link below:
Join the Digital Network Army!
What is DNA? The DNA is an incredible, grassroots political movement made up of normal individuals just like you - throughout the US and beyond - who believe that traditional values are worth fighting for!
Does your email make a difference? Does your comment on a post or news article make a difference? Does your blog make a difference? Think of the daffodils, planted one at a time.
One vote turned into over 6 million in the passing of proposition 8. You do make a difference.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Time to Make YOUR Vote Count
This petition was forwarded to me from friends at United Families California. I've heard differing opinions regarding online petitions. However, I do think the message is important and we do need to write to our state legislators and the governor. The people of California have voted twice now. It is not acceptable that our voices not be heard.
Opponents Try to Overturn Prop 8
Sign the Petition To Help Stop Them!
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." ~Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
What would President Lincoln think if he saw the state of California'spolitics? Do our elected officials represent the people any longer? Consider their record with regard to family law.
In 2000, the people of California petitioned to put Proposition 22 onthe ballot that affirmed that marriage would continue to be defined in traditional terms, as being between one man and one woman. The people voted and by a margin of 61/39% passed this proposition. In political terms that is an overwhelming mandate.
First, our State Supreme Court ignored our voice and by May of 2008 overstepped their governing limits and created a new law - homosexual marriage. (Blog Author side note here... the Supreme Court did not create a new law, they said that prop 22 was not consitutional because it was not presented as a constitutional amendment. Same-sex couples had no more or no less rights than they did before the Supreme Court ruling.)
Next, the people answered that insult and petitioned to vote on the issue of marriage law. This November after an expensive and tiring campaign the majority of the people of California again voted and passed Prop 8, a State Constitutional Amendment that reaffirms traditional marriage. The voice of the people has clearly stated, twice, that we want marriage to be defined as the union of a man and awoman.
However, this has not stopped our governing officials from speakingout and trying to impose their own will on the people. Since the passage of Prop 8 our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone on record calling for the State Supreme Court to overturn that vote.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1403231.html
And now, our state senate and assembly have drafted resolutions blatantly fighting against Prop 8. "On Tuesday, the second day of the2009-10 legislative session, Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman TomAmmiano (both D-San Francisco) launched senate resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution." Politicker CA, December 2, 2008
Opponents of Proposition 8 are working hard to overturn Proposition 8 in our legislature before the case is heard in the Supreme Court. This weekend picketers were on street corners asking for support for SR 7 and HR 5. Petitions are being circulated in hopes of gaining 1,000,000 signatures to show support of this attempt to overrule ourvote.
We must answer this attempt to silence our vote.
Please quickly do the following things:
Opponents Try to Overturn Prop 8
Sign the Petition To Help Stop Them!
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." ~Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
What would President Lincoln think if he saw the state of California'spolitics? Do our elected officials represent the people any longer? Consider their record with regard to family law.
In 2000, the people of California petitioned to put Proposition 22 onthe ballot that affirmed that marriage would continue to be defined in traditional terms, as being between one man and one woman. The people voted and by a margin of 61/39% passed this proposition. In political terms that is an overwhelming mandate.
First, our State Supreme Court ignored our voice and by May of 2008 overstepped their governing limits and created a new law - homosexual marriage. (Blog Author side note here... the Supreme Court did not create a new law, they said that prop 22 was not consitutional because it was not presented as a constitutional amendment. Same-sex couples had no more or no less rights than they did before the Supreme Court ruling.)
Next, the people answered that insult and petitioned to vote on the issue of marriage law. This November after an expensive and tiring campaign the majority of the people of California again voted and passed Prop 8, a State Constitutional Amendment that reaffirms traditional marriage. The voice of the people has clearly stated, twice, that we want marriage to be defined as the union of a man and awoman.
However, this has not stopped our governing officials from speakingout and trying to impose their own will on the people. Since the passage of Prop 8 our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone on record calling for the State Supreme Court to overturn that vote.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1403231.html
And now, our state senate and assembly have drafted resolutions blatantly fighting against Prop 8. "On Tuesday, the second day of the2009-10 legislative session, Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman TomAmmiano (both D-San Francisco) launched senate resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution." Politicker CA, December 2, 2008
Opponents of Proposition 8 are working hard to overturn Proposition 8 in our legislature before the case is heard in the Supreme Court. This weekend picketers were on street corners asking for support for SR 7 and HR 5. Petitions are being circulated in hopes of gaining 1,000,000 signatures to show support of this attempt to overrule ourvote.
We must answer this attempt to silence our vote.
Please quickly do the following things:
- Sign the petition to let our legislators know that they representyour vote and that they must uphold the law.
- Write to your State Senator and State Assemblymen and let them know that they areaccountable to the people who voted for them.
- Alert your friends. The opposition is trying to collect 1,000,000 signatures to show their support. We must continue to show that the majority of Californians stand by their recent vote. Please forward this email to all your friends and to those who worked with you on the Prop 8 campaign.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Where Did the Money Really Come From?
So there have been a lot of attacks on the "Mormon" church with respect to their involvement in the passage of prop 8. There has also been allegations of more money coming from out-of-state than in state. The analytical part of my brain doesn't take what people say as fact... I want to see the numbers/evidence. Here are the hard numbers:
The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.
For Proposition 8
In-State Donations $25,388,955
Out-of-State Donations $10,733,582
Total Donations $36,122,538
Against Proposition 8
In-State Donations $26,464,589
Out-of-State Donations $11,968,285
Total Donations $38,432,873
Totals
In-State Donations $51,853,544
Out-of-State Donations $22,701,867
Total Donations $74,555,411
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times
Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.
There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.
You can read the entire article here.
The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.
For Proposition 8
In-State Donations $25,388,955
Out-of-State Donations $10,733,582
Total Donations $36,122,538
Against Proposition 8
In-State Donations $26,464,589
Out-of-State Donations $11,968,285
Total Donations $38,432,873
Totals
In-State Donations $51,853,544
Out-of-State Donations $22,701,867
Total Donations $74,555,411
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times
Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.
There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.
You can read the entire article here.
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Need to Keep Our Voices Heard
This afternoon I received the agenda for my local town council meeting to be held tonight and on it was a speaker against proposition 8. Okay, two thoughts popped into my head: 1) Prop 8 has already been voted on; 2) How is this an issue that the town council needs to address?
I could not attend due to prior commitments, but my mom did attend. Two people spoke, one was a lesbian who voiced her troubles in getting child support after separating from her partner 10 years ago; the second was a bisexual lawyer who felt that if you love someone, you should be able to marry him/her.
The woman said that all of the ads in favor of prop 8 were lies and it made her sick to her stomach to see all of the signs in favor of prop 8.
When it was time for questions, someone asked if domestic partnerships don't allow the same rights as marriages. The woman said a domestic partnership is for second-class citizens. The lawyer said that domestic partnerships provide for the same benefits as marriage but domestic partnerships are only recognized in California and not in other states.
A side note, this was the lowest attended town council meeting in a very long time, with only 20-25 people in the audience.
I felt this is important to post because I think it is important that we are aware of what is going on in our local communities. The question was raised, "How did we let it get this far." By not knowing what is being said at our town council meetings, by not telling our city council people our thoughts, by not voting because we think our vote doesn't matter.
Here is what we need to do NOW:
Voice our opinions in our local communities.
Reach out to our neighbors.
Write letters/make phone calls to our political leaders.
Now is not the time to sit back just because one issue was voted in our favor. Now is the time to stand up with the other 6 million Californians and reach out across the nation. Our grassroots effort is not over... it has just begun!
I could not attend due to prior commitments, but my mom did attend. Two people spoke, one was a lesbian who voiced her troubles in getting child support after separating from her partner 10 years ago; the second was a bisexual lawyer who felt that if you love someone, you should be able to marry him/her.
The woman said that all of the ads in favor of prop 8 were lies and it made her sick to her stomach to see all of the signs in favor of prop 8.
When it was time for questions, someone asked if domestic partnerships don't allow the same rights as marriages. The woman said a domestic partnership is for second-class citizens. The lawyer said that domestic partnerships provide for the same benefits as marriage but domestic partnerships are only recognized in California and not in other states.
A side note, this was the lowest attended town council meeting in a very long time, with only 20-25 people in the audience.
I felt this is important to post because I think it is important that we are aware of what is going on in our local communities. The question was raised, "How did we let it get this far." By not knowing what is being said at our town council meetings, by not telling our city council people our thoughts, by not voting because we think our vote doesn't matter.
Here is what we need to do NOW:
Voice our opinions in our local communities.
Reach out to our neighbors.
Write letters/make phone calls to our political leaders.
Now is not the time to sit back just because one issue was voted in our favor. Now is the time to stand up with the other 6 million Californians and reach out across the nation. Our grassroots effort is not over... it has just begun!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services
This is just so wrong. Click on the link to read the full article.
eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit
By Michelle Malkin
"eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great 'sin' was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services."
eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuitBy Michelle Malkin
"eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great 'sin' was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Forget Democracy, We Want Anarchy
When Chuck Norris speaks, we listen.
(That was a reference to all the Chuck Norris jokes. My favorite: "Chuck Norris doesn't do push ups. He pushes the earth down.")
Below are some excerpts from an article he wrote titled "If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy".
Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.
What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?
There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy.
Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches, such as those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., seem to be long gone.
On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened; the majority of Californians -- red, yellow, black and white -- voted to define the margins of marriage as being between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.
I love the ending to the article, "The people have spoken." So the opposition needs to relax or you can take it up with Chuck Norris.
You can read the entire article here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy?page=full&comments=true
(That was a reference to all the Chuck Norris jokes. My favorite: "Chuck Norris doesn't do push ups. He pushes the earth down.")
Below are some excerpts from an article he wrote titled "If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy".
Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.
What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?
There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy.
Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches, such as those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., seem to be long gone.
On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened; the majority of Californians -- red, yellow, black and white -- voted to define the margins of marriage as being between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.
I love the ending to the article, "The people have spoken." So the opposition needs to relax or you can take it up with Chuck Norris.
You can read the entire article here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy?page=full&comments=true
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
NO talk of judges recall
To all grassroots supporters:
We continue to hear rumor and see e-mails encouraging efforts to recall some of our California Supreme Court justices. This would be very damaging to our campaign to support the new constitutional amendment, and is in complete opposition to the direction of the Protect Marriage Coaltion. A formal statement from our Coalition office in Sacramento is forthcoming.
If you know of anyone who is attempting to start such a campaign, or is being asked to be part of such an effort, please urge them to stop immediately. Our focus now is to ask the California Supreme Court to review the amendment, and the voice of the people. We await the answer of the Court.
Thank you so much,
Sonja Eddings Brown
Deputy Communications Director
Protect Marriage California
sonja@protectmarriage.com
We continue to hear rumor and see e-mails encouraging efforts to recall some of our California Supreme Court justices. This would be very damaging to our campaign to support the new constitutional amendment, and is in complete opposition to the direction of the Protect Marriage Coaltion. A formal statement from our Coalition office in Sacramento is forthcoming.
If you know of anyone who is attempting to start such a campaign, or is being asked to be part of such an effort, please urge them to stop immediately. Our focus now is to ask the California Supreme Court to review the amendment, and the voice of the people. We await the answer of the Court.
Thank you so much,
Sonja Eddings Brown
Deputy Communications Director
Protect Marriage California
sonja@protectmarriage.com
Petition to Governor Schwarzenegger: Respect the Voters' Will on Prop 8
Sign the Petition HERE!
If you are a California citizen, please act immediately to sign this petition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who is urging the California Supreme Court to overthrow the results of the recent free and fair election which passed Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. His actions as governor in attempting to negate this vote are an insult to the voters of California and undermine the rule of law. We will deliver this letter with your signatures to his office as a means of saying that the voices of the voters should neither be disregarded, nor silenced.
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
Since election day, you have made comments urging the California Supreme Court to overturn the citizens' will in passing Proposition 8 in California defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This was passed after a rigorous election process by a healthy margin of 52% to 48%.
You have recommended that the state Supreme Court declare the initiative unconstitutional and said, "The important thing now is to resolve this issue." The election passing Proposition 8 did resolve the issue, according to the most basic tenet of our free society, which is based on the "consent of the governed."
When Thomas Jefferson put that language about "consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence, it was not just a nice-sounding phrase, but the keystone of the Declaration and, indeed, the entire revolution. It captured the fundamental reason the colonists had decided to leave the British Commonwealth, and why they were willing, as the Declaration put it, to "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the cause of independence. The hallmark and foundation of this country is the "consent of the governed."
James Wilson of New Jersey, who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, wrote that "the only reason why a free and independent man was bound by human laws was this - that he bound himself." In other words, he consented to be bound by them, because he participated in the process.
To try to overturn an election is an insult to voters and undermines the democratic process. As governor, it is your responsibility to support and defend the California constitution, which now reads that marriage is between a man and a woman and the foundation processes of our country that are based on "consent of the governed."
We urge you to:
● Publically accept the results of the ballot initiative as the will of the people
● Publically recant any suggestions that the California Supreme Court should overturn the voice of a free and fair election.
● Condemn the recent assaults upon the First Amendment rights of supporters of Proposition 8. We echo what the Protect Marriage coalition has said, "Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials. Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening." We look to you to speak out against those who would silence free speech by targeting donors, disrupting church services and vandalizing property.
If you are a California citizen, please act immediately to sign this petition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who is urging the California Supreme Court to overthrow the results of the recent free and fair election which passed Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. His actions as governor in attempting to negate this vote are an insult to the voters of California and undermine the rule of law. We will deliver this letter with your signatures to his office as a means of saying that the voices of the voters should neither be disregarded, nor silenced.
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,Since election day, you have made comments urging the California Supreme Court to overturn the citizens' will in passing Proposition 8 in California defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This was passed after a rigorous election process by a healthy margin of 52% to 48%.
You have recommended that the state Supreme Court declare the initiative unconstitutional and said, "The important thing now is to resolve this issue." The election passing Proposition 8 did resolve the issue, according to the most basic tenet of our free society, which is based on the "consent of the governed."
When Thomas Jefferson put that language about "consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence, it was not just a nice-sounding phrase, but the keystone of the Declaration and, indeed, the entire revolution. It captured the fundamental reason the colonists had decided to leave the British Commonwealth, and why they were willing, as the Declaration put it, to "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the cause of independence. The hallmark and foundation of this country is the "consent of the governed."
James Wilson of New Jersey, who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, wrote that "the only reason why a free and independent man was bound by human laws was this - that he bound himself." In other words, he consented to be bound by them, because he participated in the process.
To try to overturn an election is an insult to voters and undermines the democratic process. As governor, it is your responsibility to support and defend the California constitution, which now reads that marriage is between a man and a woman and the foundation processes of our country that are based on "consent of the governed."
We urge you to:
● Publically accept the results of the ballot initiative as the will of the people
● Publically recant any suggestions that the California Supreme Court should overturn the voice of a free and fair election.
● Condemn the recent assaults upon the First Amendment rights of supporters of Proposition 8. We echo what the Protect Marriage coalition has said, "Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials. Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening." We look to you to speak out against those who would silence free speech by targeting donors, disrupting church services and vandalizing property.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Right To Win
Wow! This article does a good job of summing up the past few months in America.
(You HAVE to see this blog... it's great!)
http://whatourcountryneeds.blogspot.com/
The Right to Win
by Thomas Sowell
Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.
Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.
Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.
As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?
The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.
Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.
Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."
Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.
In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.
In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.
In their midst was a San Francisco supervisor who said "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."
Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.
There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.
While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.
How did we get to this kind of situation?
With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.
"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.
Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.
Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.
Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.
What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.
When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.
And one more shout out for the blog that I got this article from, there is a post that has what the colors on the gay's rainbow flag stand for.
(You HAVE to see this blog... it's great!)
http://whatourcountryneeds.blogspot.com/
The Right to Win
by Thomas Sowell
Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.
Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.
Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.
As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?
The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.
Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.
Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."
Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.
In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.
In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.
In their midst was a San Francisco supervisor who said "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."
Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.
There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.
While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.
How did we get to this kind of situation?
With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.
"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.
Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.
Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.
Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.
What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.
When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.
And one more shout out for the blog that I got this article from, there is a post that has what the colors on the gay's rainbow flag stand for.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Value of Work
It's a busy night... lots to post!
I could not believe the audacity of some people when I read this...
"Meanwhile, a gay rights activist submitted a formal complaint to the enforcement division of the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the Mormon church failed to report the value of the work, including phone banks, commercials and other services, done to support the Proposition 8 campaign."
Are you kidding me?!?!?! I know the opposition doesn't play by the same rules, so I won't even ask if they reported the "value of the work" done to oppose prop 8.
Then you could look at this and say that the LDS church hasn't reported the "value of the work" because "the work" isn't over and we wouldn't want to be accused of reporting false information. (I'll put my disclaimer in here that I am being sarcastic with this last paragraph.)
It all goes back to the activist's agenda!
I could not believe the audacity of some people when I read this...
"Meanwhile, a gay rights activist submitted a formal complaint to the enforcement division of the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the Mormon church failed to report the value of the work, including phone banks, commercials and other services, done to support the Proposition 8 campaign."
Are you kidding me?!?!?! I know the opposition doesn't play by the same rules, so I won't even ask if they reported the "value of the work" done to oppose prop 8.
Then you could look at this and say that the LDS church hasn't reported the "value of the work" because "the work" isn't over and we wouldn't want to be accused of reporting false information. (I'll put my disclaimer in here that I am being sarcastic with this last paragraph.)
It all goes back to the activist's agenda!
Endure to the End
I was watching the news last night and they said that the opposition to prop 8 is planning on putting their own proposition on the ballot in two years. This means that the fight is not over and it is imparitive that we continue to post information relevant to protecting marriage.
The title of my blog, "Does My Vote Really Matter?" was chosen for a reason... the people of California voted to protect the sanctity of marriage... twice. We need to stand up and tell the opposition that my vote does matter and no matter how many times you put it on the ballot, I will always vote to protect marriage.
The title of my blog, "Does My Vote Really Matter?" was chosen for a reason... the people of California voted to protect the sanctity of marriage... twice. We need to stand up and tell the opposition that my vote does matter and no matter how many times you put it on the ballot, I will always vote to protect marriage.
Elton John: Where Prop 8 went wrong
It's nice to know that there is a gay celebrity out there who has things in perspective...
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm?POE=click-refer#close-share-help
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm?POE=click-refer#close-share-help
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Going Viral
This article was published in our local newspaper. As always, the newspaper is a little late in reporting the "news"... we've already launched and completed an internet campaign while the newspaper says those opposed to prop 8 are now turning to the internet.
Here are a few quotes that caught my attention:
"They [the opposition to prop 8] launched e-mail and text-message blasts that went to thousands at a time. They set up accounts on Web sites Facebook and MySpace that advertised where and when protests would be staged, collecting contacts for follow-up.
“I'm stunned at the reach of these social-networking and viraling efforts,” said Rex Wockner, a San Diego journalist who has reported for gay media outlets for more than 20 years. “To pull together 10,000 people in a fairly laid-back community like San Diego in days is unbelievable.”
“Technology is the campaign,” said Rick Jacobs, who founded the Courage Campaign, a progressive statewide alliance. “The rallies, the protests were all organized 100 percent online.”
However, this also brings to attention the need for the prop 8 blogs to stay open and that we need to continue posting relevant information. We have to keep the truth out there for the public, especially as more people turn to the internet for their source of news.
Here is a link to an older post regarding the activists' agenda that I think needs to be printed on the front page of every newspaper! http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com/2008/10/activists-agenda.html
Here are a few quotes that caught my attention:
"They [the opposition to prop 8] launched e-mail and text-message blasts that went to thousands at a time. They set up accounts on Web sites Facebook and MySpace that advertised where and when protests would be staged, collecting contacts for follow-up.
“I'm stunned at the reach of these social-networking and viraling efforts,” said Rex Wockner, a San Diego journalist who has reported for gay media outlets for more than 20 years. “To pull together 10,000 people in a fairly laid-back community like San Diego in days is unbelievable.”
“Technology is the campaign,” said Rick Jacobs, who founded the Courage Campaign, a progressive statewide alliance. “The rallies, the protests were all organized 100 percent online.”
However, this also brings to attention the need for the prop 8 blogs to stay open and that we need to continue posting relevant information. We have to keep the truth out there for the public, especially as more people turn to the internet for their source of news.
Here is a link to an older post regarding the activists' agenda that I think needs to be printed on the front page of every newspaper! http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com/2008/10/activists-agenda.html
Friday, November 7, 2008
It's Not Over
Lest we think our fight is over, it has just begun! (Which most of us already knew.)
I received an email from "Family Leader Network" noting the true colors of the opposition.
The LDS Temple in Los Angeles was under siege yesterday by 2,000 protesters angry over the Church's role in passing Proposition 8, forcing the temporary closure of the temple. According to reports, a gay activist called the temple saying they would be protesting outside the temple permanently until there is gay marriage.
Signs were hung from the fence around the temple and protesters screamed in anger, snarled afternoon rush-hour traffic and said, "This isn't going to stop us...If we do this we have a chance." "We're going to fight it until the world changes," protesters claimed. "Shame on you," chanted the protesters. Outside the temple, grafitti was scrawled on the walls and signs hung, "Go back to Utah," and "Go to hell Mormons." Their signs said, "No on H8." (Personal note here, I wanted to make a sign that said, "No on hate, yes on 8!")
Protesters promised to go after the Church's tax-exempt status and harass Mormons who had donated to the cause, listed on a website Mormonsfor8.com. The promise was to make the Mormons pay for their role in the passage of Prop 8.
And as if we haven't read enough hate in the blogs, here is my favorite:
Another blog entry: "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."
And what is our response to this?
On the same day, this happened, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement calling for mutual civility. "No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated or harassed." It is a call to turn the other cheek.
I strongly believe in the democractic process, as is evidenced by this blog. You win some and you lose some. It's the process that builds character and makes this country the envy of many nations.
So, those who believe that same sex marriage should be legal, why don't you propose a ballot measure to the citizens of California?
I received an email from "Family Leader Network" noting the true colors of the opposition.
The LDS Temple in Los Angeles was under siege yesterday by 2,000 protesters angry over the Church's role in passing Proposition 8, forcing the temporary closure of the temple. According to reports, a gay activist called the temple saying they would be protesting outside the temple permanently until there is gay marriage.
Signs were hung from the fence around the temple and protesters screamed in anger, snarled afternoon rush-hour traffic and said, "This isn't going to stop us...If we do this we have a chance." "We're going to fight it until the world changes," protesters claimed. "Shame on you," chanted the protesters. Outside the temple, grafitti was scrawled on the walls and signs hung, "Go back to Utah," and "Go to hell Mormons." Their signs said, "No on H8." (Personal note here, I wanted to make a sign that said, "No on hate, yes on 8!")
Protesters promised to go after the Church's tax-exempt status and harass Mormons who had donated to the cause, listed on a website Mormonsfor8.com. The promise was to make the Mormons pay for their role in the passage of Prop 8.
And as if we haven't read enough hate in the blogs, here is my favorite:
Another blog entry: "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."
And what is our response to this?
On the same day, this happened, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement calling for mutual civility. "No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated or harassed." It is a call to turn the other cheek.
I strongly believe in the democractic process, as is evidenced by this blog. You win some and you lose some. It's the process that builds character and makes this country the envy of many nations.
So, those who believe that same sex marriage should be legal, why don't you propose a ballot measure to the citizens of California?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
THANK YOU
The polls have closed. Now it's the waiting game. I just want to take a minute to thank everyone on both sides of the issues. I love this country. I am so grateful that I live in a country that allows us to voice our opinions. Sometimes the vote goes our way and sometimes it doesn't. But in the end, we are all Americans and it is the process that is what makes this such a wonderful country. I am proud to be an American. :)
THANK YOU!!!
THANK YOU!!!
Vote - Vote - Vote - Vote!
Okay, so I know everyone is watching the news and/or volunteering (I'm on a break right now- back to the polls as soon as my daughter wakes up from her nap!), but I just want to say how great this election experience has been for me this time, especially because of all the support we have received for our Make My Vote Count blog! Awesome Activist Of The Year goes to Heather for taking the initiative to inspire so many others to action, me included. Special props (no pun intended...) to the members of the Digital Network Army!!! We appreciate all your comments and positivity!
Time for some ice cream! Woo-hoo!
- Heidi the passionate prop-8ster
Time for some ice cream! Woo-hoo!
- Heidi the passionate prop-8ster
Monday, November 3, 2008
Only *two* more days...
Hi everyone! Will you all be as glad as I am when this election is over?! My energy is waning, but I am super excited for the next two days to go wave signs on busy streetcorners, hang more reminders on doorknobs, and help get more votes at the polling places!
Check out The Hedgehog Blog... there is great information here about Proposition 8!
My favorite article is:
Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods
"Perhaps the most hotly-debated question about Proposition 8 is the measure's impact on schoolchildren. If Proposition 8 fails, will young children be taught that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage? Opponents of Prop 8 have adamantly -- and falsely -- claimed this will not happen.The fact is, Prop 8's leading opponents have been very public for a long time about their goal of teaching schoolchildren about gender orientation at very young ages. What is worse, they have openly promoted strategies for overcoming or circumventing parental objections to such teaching. It is foolish to believe they will not use the same approach to teaching children about same-sex marriage."
Check out The Hedgehog Blog... there is great information here about Proposition 8!
My favorite article is:
Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods
"Perhaps the most hotly-debated question about Proposition 8 is the measure's impact on schoolchildren. If Proposition 8 fails, will young children be taught that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage? Opponents of Prop 8 have adamantly -- and falsely -- claimed this will not happen.The fact is, Prop 8's leading opponents have been very public for a long time about their goal of teaching schoolchildren about gender orientation at very young ages. What is worse, they have openly promoted strategies for overcoming or circumventing parental objections to such teaching. It is foolish to believe they will not use the same approach to teaching children about same-sex marriage."
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Whose Rights Are Being Taken Away?
I am very grateful to the people who spent several hours into creating this list of rights that will be (or already have been) taken away from EVERYONE if proposition 8 does not pass. Please look at this list, click on the links that serve as back up support to the claims made. This is not propaganda -- this is truth!
EDUCATION & PARENTS RIGHTS
If same-sex marriage remains legal, California schools that acceptstate money for their health curriculum and that choose to teach sexeducation (e.g. 96% of public schools) will be required by law topresent same-sex unions and traditional marriages as equal, whethertheir parents approve of this message or not. This is not a redherring as some in the “No on 8” Campaign have claimed. The erosion ofparental rights on this topic has already happened in both Californiaand Massachusetts. (Massachusetts was the first state in the union tolegalize same-sex marriage). http://tinyurl.com/NoParentalDisclosure.
Alarmingly, some first-grade students here in California are alreadybeing introduced to the concept of same-sex marriage. Just recently,first graders at a public charter school went on a field trip to asame-sex marriage performed by San Francisco’s mayor.http://tinyurl.com/SameSexFieldTrip
In Hayward, California, kindergarteners at a public school wereencouraged to become “allies” to homosexuality as part of “Gay andLesbian History Month.” On October 23rd they celebrated Coming OutDay. Parents received no advance notice of this event. http://tinyurl.com/ComingOutDay
The California Teachers Association has taken an activist standagainst traditional marriage by recently donating over $1.25 millionto the “No on Prop 8” campaign. This financial endorsement implies anagenda among educational leaders that is inconsistent with theirprimary responsibilities. You can watch a teacher’s reply to the CTAonline by going to http://tinyurl.com/TeacherRantsAgainstCTA.
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business for thefirst time in 100 years because it will not place children with ahomosexual couple. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays/
In Ocean Grove, New Jersey, a Methodist group was stripped of part ofits state real estate tax exemption for refusing to permit a civilunion ceremony at the beachfront pavilion it owns. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=91554986
In Canada, A Catholic Priest is under criminal investigation under a“hate crimes” law for quoting from Bible, the Catechism of theCatholic Church of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’sencyclicals during Canada’s same-sex debate. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=page.printable&pageld=66247
A Lutheran school in Riverside county has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/6.20.html
WORKPLACE RIGHTS
A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, California declined to provide in vitro fertilization treatmentto a lesbian patient on the grounds that doing so would violate thedoctor’s religious beliefs. Although the doctor referred the patientto another partner in her practice who agreed to do the procedure, thepatient still sued and won. The judge also recommended the doctor finda new line of work. http://tinyurl.com/GaySuesDR
Wedding photographers who prefer not to shoot same-sex weddings andcivil unions for religious reasons are being sued. http://tinyurl.com/gaySuesPhotographer
On May 8, 2008, an African American administrator named Crystal Dixonwas fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio, for objecting to thecomparison of racial discrimination to same-sex marriage. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050605.html
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories08/may/0516082.htm
http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=7609
EDUCATION & PARENTS RIGHTS
If same-sex marriage remains legal, California schools that acceptstate money for their health curriculum and that choose to teach sexeducation (e.g. 96% of public schools) will be required by law topresent same-sex unions and traditional marriages as equal, whethertheir parents approve of this message or not. This is not a redherring as some in the “No on 8” Campaign have claimed. The erosion ofparental rights on this topic has already happened in both Californiaand Massachusetts. (Massachusetts was the first state in the union tolegalize same-sex marriage). http://tinyurl.com/NoParentalDisclosure.
Alarmingly, some first-grade students here in California are alreadybeing introduced to the concept of same-sex marriage. Just recently,first graders at a public charter school went on a field trip to asame-sex marriage performed by San Francisco’s mayor.http://tinyurl.com/SameSexFieldTrip
In Hayward, California, kindergarteners at a public school wereencouraged to become “allies” to homosexuality as part of “Gay andLesbian History Month.” On October 23rd they celebrated Coming OutDay. Parents received no advance notice of this event. http://tinyurl.com/ComingOutDay
The California Teachers Association has taken an activist standagainst traditional marriage by recently donating over $1.25 millionto the “No on Prop 8” campaign. This financial endorsement implies anagenda among educational leaders that is inconsistent with theirprimary responsibilities. You can watch a teacher’s reply to the CTAonline by going to http://tinyurl.com/TeacherRantsAgainstCTA.
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business for thefirst time in 100 years because it will not place children with ahomosexual couple. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays/
In Ocean Grove, New Jersey, a Methodist group was stripped of part ofits state real estate tax exemption for refusing to permit a civilunion ceremony at the beachfront pavilion it owns. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=91554986
In Canada, A Catholic Priest is under criminal investigation under a“hate crimes” law for quoting from Bible, the Catechism of theCatholic Church of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’sencyclicals during Canada’s same-sex debate. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=page.printable&pageld=66247
A Lutheran school in Riverside county has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/6.20.html
WORKPLACE RIGHTS
A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, California declined to provide in vitro fertilization treatmentto a lesbian patient on the grounds that doing so would violate thedoctor’s religious beliefs. Although the doctor referred the patientto another partner in her practice who agreed to do the procedure, thepatient still sued and won. The judge also recommended the doctor finda new line of work. http://tinyurl.com/GaySuesDR
Wedding photographers who prefer not to shoot same-sex weddings andcivil unions for religious reasons are being sued. http://tinyurl.com/gaySuesPhotographer
On May 8, 2008, an African American administrator named Crystal Dixonwas fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio, for objecting to thecomparison of racial discrimination to same-sex marriage. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050605.html
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories08/may/0516082.htm
http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=7609
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Prop 8 vandalism / theft
To report all incidents of theft, violence, graffiti, and other illegal activities against Proposition 8 supporters (information and photos), please go to http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=ph6WjzxdTsYGYBl1gxvtgcA.
Donations needed to increase advertising power
One of the most fervent supporters of Prop 8 has agreed to match, dollar for dollar, whatever you and I can donate, up to a total of $1 million. That means that every dollar you give will buy two dollars in advertising time. Go to https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/truth-web/ to donate so that the new ad that refutes the lies that gay marriage will not be taught in California schools will have as much air time as possible.
Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth
The Yes on 8 campaign has created a new ad that fights back against
the recent Jack O'Connell No on 8 ad, explaining the truth about how
Prop 8 affects schools.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Hate in the Name of Love
I received this article via email. You can find it at http://www.humanevents.com. It is very good and seemingly unbiased.
Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love
by Dennis Prager
Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America. It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Which is why Proposition 8 exists. But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right. Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots. According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it." What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create. And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.
The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate." It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited." But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate." Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show. It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different? These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love
by Dennis Prager
Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America. It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Which is why Proposition 8 exists. But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right. Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots. According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it." What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create. And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.
The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate." It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited." But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate." Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show. It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different? These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
powerful letter to CTA president David Sanchez
Please read this powerful letter written by a fellow teacher and personal friend . . .
Dear friends,
It's time to speak out. Most of you know that I'm a teacher. Recently, CTA, the California Teachers Association donated $1,250,000 to the 'No on 8' campaign. When I read this I was very angry and, frankly, embarrassed. Here was the largest state teachers union in the country telling the world that they spoke for me. I didn't know what to do so I wrote a letter to the CTA president, David Sanchez, to tell him what I thought. That letter snowballed into a grassroots movement within the teaching ranks (Teachers for Prop. 8) that brought out those of us who are tired of being represented by am extreme leftist organization. That $1.25 million was only a small part of the more than $5 million CTA has given to political causes and campaigns this year. In an email from my local union's state council "representative", he states that the vote to approve these political donations was "nearly unanimous". There are over 800 men and women in that state council. Where can you get 800 elected people to agree unanimously on anything? Think of the countries that hold "democratic" elections and take note of the ones where the vote comes out "nearly unanimous". That's frightening. I've attached my original letter to this email. Please read it. If you know a teacher anywhere in this state, send it to them and encourage them to write a letter of their own to CTA president, David Sanchez. If you know anyone who has children who attend public school, send to them and ask that they write a letter. If you know anyone who pays taxes that fund public education, send it to them as well. We need to speak out. We CAN have some influence if we will just speak out. May we all fight the good fight.
21 October 2008
Dear President Sanchez,
I am just one voice among many. It’s difficult for one voice to be heard. Nevertheless, I have found it impossible to remain silent any more. I am writing to express my anger over two decisions CTA has made that are wrong and, in my mind, criminal.
The first is in regards to the $20.00 donation that has quietly been removed from my paycheck ($2.00 at a time) each month since the school year began in September. It is my understanding that it is being taken from each CTA member and has been designated to support some scholarships and other causes the board of directors has deemed worthy.
I, like all of my unsuspecting colleagues around the state, were notified a few weeks ago of the surreptitious deductions and told that you would graciously send back OUR hard earned money (which was taken without permission) upon written request. That’s big hearted of you, Mr. Sanchez. What I find most interesting is that you aren’t sending the money back until the end of the year – after you have collected great amounts of interest from the money you’ve stolen from us. Is that even legal?
The second is in your financial support of Proposition 8. CTA is a union. Unions were created to promote better working conditions for the people they represented. You represent me. How does the passing or failing of this proposition affect my working conditions? It doesn’t. I personally don’t care how you or CTA’s leaders feel about any political issue. However, I do care what my union does with the money they take from me every month.
You represent me, Mr. Sanchez, but very few of CTA’s decisions represent how I, and many of my colleagues feel. Did you poll those you claim to represent? Did you ask around the state what the plain old classroom teacher thinks about all this? Did you ever think about climbing outside your box to ask what WE thought? I don’t ever remember seeing a survey asking for my opinion, yet you donated well over a million dollars in my name. I would have been equally angered if you would have given to the other side.
Aren’t there other buckets that could use some filling? I have some ideas. How about spending more money to lower class sizes? How about using the millions of dollars in political contributions to help us get better benefits and wages around the state? How about adding some of this surplus of money you seem to be able to give away to our STRS fund. How about buying each school site a pallet of paper so our kids will have something to write on? How about taking less money out of our paychecks each month so WE can decide whom to support. Or, how about just sending it back to help us buy some bread and milk to get us through to the end of the month.
This is why I held out so long to join. You have become corrupted. You have stolen my money, offered to give it back, but keep the interest made on it. You spend money you have collected from the hardest working people in the state and wastefully spent it on causes that only promote your personal political philosophies. You have lost sight of what unions used to mean to the working person.
Randall J. Schimpf
Barnett Elementary School
Ramona Unified School District
Contacting David A. Sanchez:
California Teachers Association
P.O. Box 9211705 Murchison Drive
Burlingame, CA 94011-0921
Phone: (650) 552-5305
FAX: (650) 552-5007
E-mail: dsanchez@cta.org
Dear friends,
It's time to speak out. Most of you know that I'm a teacher. Recently, CTA, the California Teachers Association donated $1,250,000 to the 'No on 8' campaign. When I read this I was very angry and, frankly, embarrassed. Here was the largest state teachers union in the country telling the world that they spoke for me. I didn't know what to do so I wrote a letter to the CTA president, David Sanchez, to tell him what I thought. That letter snowballed into a grassroots movement within the teaching ranks (Teachers for Prop. 8) that brought out those of us who are tired of being represented by am extreme leftist organization. That $1.25 million was only a small part of the more than $5 million CTA has given to political causes and campaigns this year. In an email from my local union's state council "representative", he states that the vote to approve these political donations was "nearly unanimous". There are over 800 men and women in that state council. Where can you get 800 elected people to agree unanimously on anything? Think of the countries that hold "democratic" elections and take note of the ones where the vote comes out "nearly unanimous". That's frightening. I've attached my original letter to this email. Please read it. If you know a teacher anywhere in this state, send it to them and encourage them to write a letter of their own to CTA president, David Sanchez. If you know anyone who has children who attend public school, send to them and ask that they write a letter. If you know anyone who pays taxes that fund public education, send it to them as well. We need to speak out. We CAN have some influence if we will just speak out. May we all fight the good fight.
21 October 2008
Dear President Sanchez,
I am just one voice among many. It’s difficult for one voice to be heard. Nevertheless, I have found it impossible to remain silent any more. I am writing to express my anger over two decisions CTA has made that are wrong and, in my mind, criminal.
The first is in regards to the $20.00 donation that has quietly been removed from my paycheck ($2.00 at a time) each month since the school year began in September. It is my understanding that it is being taken from each CTA member and has been designated to support some scholarships and other causes the board of directors has deemed worthy.
I, like all of my unsuspecting colleagues around the state, were notified a few weeks ago of the surreptitious deductions and told that you would graciously send back OUR hard earned money (which was taken without permission) upon written request. That’s big hearted of you, Mr. Sanchez. What I find most interesting is that you aren’t sending the money back until the end of the year – after you have collected great amounts of interest from the money you’ve stolen from us. Is that even legal?
The second is in your financial support of Proposition 8. CTA is a union. Unions were created to promote better working conditions for the people they represented. You represent me. How does the passing or failing of this proposition affect my working conditions? It doesn’t. I personally don’t care how you or CTA’s leaders feel about any political issue. However, I do care what my union does with the money they take from me every month.
You represent me, Mr. Sanchez, but very few of CTA’s decisions represent how I, and many of my colleagues feel. Did you poll those you claim to represent? Did you ask around the state what the plain old classroom teacher thinks about all this? Did you ever think about climbing outside your box to ask what WE thought? I don’t ever remember seeing a survey asking for my opinion, yet you donated well over a million dollars in my name. I would have been equally angered if you would have given to the other side.
Aren’t there other buckets that could use some filling? I have some ideas. How about spending more money to lower class sizes? How about using the millions of dollars in political contributions to help us get better benefits and wages around the state? How about adding some of this surplus of money you seem to be able to give away to our STRS fund. How about buying each school site a pallet of paper so our kids will have something to write on? How about taking less money out of our paychecks each month so WE can decide whom to support. Or, how about just sending it back to help us buy some bread and milk to get us through to the end of the month.
This is why I held out so long to join. You have become corrupted. You have stolen my money, offered to give it back, but keep the interest made on it. You spend money you have collected from the hardest working people in the state and wastefully spent it on causes that only promote your personal political philosophies. You have lost sight of what unions used to mean to the working person.
Randall J. Schimpf
Barnett Elementary School
Ramona Unified School District
Contacting David A. Sanchez:
California Teachers Association
P.O. Box 9211705 Murchison Drive
Burlingame, CA 94011-0921
Phone: (650) 552-5305
FAX: (650) 552-5007
E-mail: dsanchez@cta.org
Disagree but don't be unkind
Check out this great article by Orson Scott Card, Disagree But Don't Be Unkind.
My favorite points that I feel respond well to many accusations:
We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who "marry" are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.
Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom. And that will be because of their attempt to suppress religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and the right of parents to control their children's moral education.
Those who promote gay marriage have already shown a disposition to insist on uniformity of thought on the topic, and will certainly attempt to use the power of the state to suppress any attempt to publicly express a preference for heterosexuality, even (or especially) when such a preference has a religious basis, making this a potential religious-freedom and freedom-of-speech-and-press issue as well.
Those who promote gay marriage have already shown a disposition to insist on uniformity of thought on the topic, and will certainly attempt to use the power of the state to suppress any attempt to publicly express a preference for heterosexuality, even (or especially) when such a preference has a religious basis, making this a potential religious-freedom and freedom-of-speech-and-press issue as well.
In fact, I believe that even those who absolutely believe in gay marriage should join us in opposing any law that is forced on an unwilling majority by the dictates of judges. For those that are wise will recognize that once judges are given such power, that power has as much chance of being used against them as for them.
My favorite points that I feel respond well to many accusations:
We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who "marry" are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.
Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom. And that will be because of their attempt to suppress religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and the right of parents to control their children's moral education.
Those who promote gay marriage have already shown a disposition to insist on uniformity of thought on the topic, and will certainly attempt to use the power of the state to suppress any attempt to publicly express a preference for heterosexuality, even (or especially) when such a preference has a religious basis, making this a potential religious-freedom and freedom-of-speech-and-press issue as well.
Those who promote gay marriage have already shown a disposition to insist on uniformity of thought on the topic, and will certainly attempt to use the power of the state to suppress any attempt to publicly express a preference for heterosexuality, even (or especially) when such a preference has a religious basis, making this a potential religious-freedom and freedom-of-speech-and-press issue as well.
In fact, I believe that even those who absolutely believe in gay marriage should join us in opposing any law that is forced on an unwilling majority by the dictates of judges. For those that are wise will recognize that once judges are given such power, that power has as much chance of being used against them as for them.
PUBLISHED!!
My husband brought home a surprise this afternoon . . . the letter to the editor we wrote about the scandalous $1.25 million contribution to "No on Prop 8" made by the CTA was published in today's paper!!!We are so proud and excited! It sure feels good to think someone is noticing our efforts, and that we might even make a small difference. We feel like we're in good company with all you other activists out there :) Thanks for visiting this blog and helping it climb the search engine ladder!
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Defense of Traditional Marriage
This was written by Daniel Frost. It's a little lengthy, but has wonderful information. I encourage all to read it, especially those who are undecided.
Recently the Connecticut supreme court legalized same-sex marriage. Connecticut joins California and Massachusetts as the only states which have same-sex marriage, and in every case the change was made by a one-vote margin in the state supreme court. News coverage was predictably positive; even articles which set out to address both sides of the issue (such as this recent article by the NYTimes), if read closely, often endorse the pro-same-sex marriage side of the debate. Because the case for traditional marriage is not often made clear in the news media, I would like to give a defense of it in what follows.
One of my concerns with same-sex marriage can be illustrated by beginning with a story. Imagine that at some point in the future same-sex marriage is legalized by the US Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter a grandmother, 60, and her granddaughter, 21, apply for a marriage license. The granddaughter is pregnant and they want to get married in order to gain the benefits of marriage to better care for the child. The state, in response to their petition, says, "We were willing to say that people of the same sex can marry, but we're not quite ready for incestuous relationships to be called marriage." The grandmother/granddaughter couple can reply in one of two ways. First, they could say "What we do as consenting adults in the privacy of our own bedroom is not the state's business." Given the prevailing social norms about sex (i.e., that sex is just a pleasant experience between consenting adults), I frankly don't think our public culture has much to say in response to this argument, but we can leave that discussion for another occasion. I think the grandmother/granddaughter couple could give another response that is even more interesting. They could instead respond, "Oh, you don't need to worry about that. We haven't the slightest sexual interest in each other, and we'd be willing to sign a legal document ensuring that we'll never have sexual relations of any kind. We realize that throughout our history marriage has been seen as a sexual relationship of some kind, but we don't see why sexual relationships should be considered more important than other kinds of relationships that involve love and commitment. We believe that marriage is fundamentally about love and commitment, and we definitely love each other and are committed to each other. Therefore, we should be able to marry."
How does the same-sex marriage state respond to that? The state could say, "OK, fine, you can be married," but this concession empties the concept of marriage of almost any meaning. Parents could marry children, brothers could marry sisters, and all this because marriage would not carry with it any presumption of sexual involvement. This seems to redefine marriage out of existence.
But then we are left with the question: why does the government have an interest in recognizing sexual relationships simply because they are sexual? Why should the state give legal and economic benefits to sexual partners which it does not give to, say, committed chess partners? Why are sexual relationships considered "special" before the law? One answer could be that sexual relationships matter a lot to people, and this is undoubtedly true. But business relationships matter a lot to people as well. There are many things that people consider important, significant, or fulfilling in their lives, and it's not immediately clear why the law should privilege some kinds of activities and relationships over others. The point I'm getting at is that the rationale for same-sex marriage can't be, "People of the same sex should be able to marry because these relationships are really important and fulfilling to them," because that justifies a lot more than same-sex marriage. It justifies marriage for anything that is really important to you, and actually makes sex just one reason consideration among many for getting married (and not a necessary one at that).
How do proponents of traditional heterosexual marriage avoid these problems? On the traditional account, marriage is considered (among other things) a permanent, exclusive sexual union, and the reason it gets special legal and economic benefits is not because sexual relationships as such are somehow more significant or important than other relationships, but because (hetero)sexual relationships are the kind of relationship which produces children. Society has an interest in ensuring that children are reared in an environment which is conducive to moral, physical, and social development. The nuclear family in which children are reared by their biological parents has proven to be (other things being equal) the best place for that development to take place. Marriage (conceptualized as a permanent, exclusive sexual relationship) makes it easy for children to know on whom they have claim for support (their biological parents), and makes it easy for society to know to whom parents owe special duties of care and concern (their biological children). Parents have a special responsibility for their children which they do not have for others, and marriage is the institution which ensures that children get their rights and parents fulfill their responsibilities.
Of course, children are not always raised by their biological parents, and the state has an interest in their growth and development too. This brings us to a discussion of who should get the various benefits that come with being married. As far as I can tell, being married typically brings about three different kinds of benefits: 1) the title of being "married", 2) legal benefits (such as being able to visit one's spouse in the hospital, joint ownership of property), and 3) and economic benefits (tax credits/deductions for children). I'll address these in reverse order.
I think that the economic benefits that go along with marriage should be centered on the children that a marriage has produced or will produce. Bearing and rearing children is a public service - any society interested in lasting beyond the current generation needs to have a plan of replenishment. Having children is also a costly enterprise, affecting the revenue producing capacity of parents throughout their lives. It is therefore just and right for society to make fewer financial demands of those who bear and rear children. Also, prior to having children, I think it makes sense for the government to give married couples some economic benefits in preparation for their children, at least for a period of time (say, up to 10 years). Benefits should be in some way proportional to the number of children borne and cared for. However, if the couple never has children, I don't think they should keep getting the kinds of economic benefits that couples with children do get. On this framework, people who care for children in situations other than the traditional family should also get economic benefits. This could be an older sibling taking care of a younger sibling, two grandparents taking care of a grandchild, a gay couple taking care of the children of one of the partners, etc. These benefits would kick in when an individual or individuals begin caring for a child.
Though the issue of legal benefits is more complicated, I think many of the legal benefits that go along with marriage should be available to people in other arrangements. For example, if two people want to jointly own property similar to the way that a marriage partnership owns property, I don't think this should be particularly legally difficult. Similarly, if I want my best friend from college to be able to come see me in the hospital, I should just be able to enter into some kind of legal arrangement which would make that possible. These kinds of benefits could be available "a la carte," or in some kind of bundle, depending on the interests of the parties.
Lastly, I think only heterosexual couples should have the title of being "married" because heterosexual couples are the only kind of relationship which produces children which are the biological offspring of both parents. Almost all biological functions can be carried out "in house," by one organism: respiration, circulation, digestion, etc. However, reproduction is a biological function which requires both male and female involvement. Only heterosexual relationships produce children which are the biological offspring of both parents. Children who are the product of such a relationship have a special set of rights and obligations which are specifically attached to their biological parents; likewise, parents have special obligations for care and concern which are specifically focused on their biological children (and not on other children). Of course, the world being what it is, many parents and children do not give or get their due; however, I do think it makes sense for society to have an institution (i.e., marriage) centered on that one relationship which by its very nature is oriented toward the begetting and raising of children. Children can be raised in other circumstances, and the state should be sympathetic to their needs; and people can choose to fashion their lives around concerns which are not directly related to procreation, and the state should honor some of their desires; but the bearing and rearing of children by their biological parents is a societal interest which deserves its own institution. That institution is and should be traditional marriage.
***
Endnote on infertility: It is frequently argued against accounts like mine that infertile heterosexual couples should not be able to marry because they, like homosexual couples, cannot produce children. But this comes from a confusion about "kinds." On my account, heterosexual couples, even if they are not fertile, are in every case the kind of relationship which produces children which are the biological offspring of both parents. Take another example from biology. Even if a kidney is not functioning to cleanse blood, as it is designed to do, it is still correct to say that it is the kind of organ that cleanses blood. It simply would not work to say that a brain is the kind of organ which cleanses blood, because it doesn't. That is not its function. Likewise, human reproduction requires both a male and a female, and (here I borrow language from Robert George) even if every heterosexual act is not procreative in fact, it is procreative in type - it is the kind of relationship which produces children who are the offspring of both parents. This should be the relevant characteristic for what counts as a "marriage," even if, as I noted, many of the economic and legal benefits of marriage are given to people in other arrangements.
Recently the Connecticut supreme court legalized same-sex marriage. Connecticut joins California and Massachusetts as the only states which have same-sex marriage, and in every case the change was made by a one-vote margin in the state supreme court. News coverage was predictably positive; even articles which set out to address both sides of the issue (such as this recent article by the NYTimes), if read closely, often endorse the pro-same-sex marriage side of the debate. Because the case for traditional marriage is not often made clear in the news media, I would like to give a defense of it in what follows.
One of my concerns with same-sex marriage can be illustrated by beginning with a story. Imagine that at some point in the future same-sex marriage is legalized by the US Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter a grandmother, 60, and her granddaughter, 21, apply for a marriage license. The granddaughter is pregnant and they want to get married in order to gain the benefits of marriage to better care for the child. The state, in response to their petition, says, "We were willing to say that people of the same sex can marry, but we're not quite ready for incestuous relationships to be called marriage." The grandmother/granddaughter couple can reply in one of two ways. First, they could say "What we do as consenting adults in the privacy of our own bedroom is not the state's business." Given the prevailing social norms about sex (i.e., that sex is just a pleasant experience between consenting adults), I frankly don't think our public culture has much to say in response to this argument, but we can leave that discussion for another occasion. I think the grandmother/granddaughter couple could give another response that is even more interesting. They could instead respond, "Oh, you don't need to worry about that. We haven't the slightest sexual interest in each other, and we'd be willing to sign a legal document ensuring that we'll never have sexual relations of any kind. We realize that throughout our history marriage has been seen as a sexual relationship of some kind, but we don't see why sexual relationships should be considered more important than other kinds of relationships that involve love and commitment. We believe that marriage is fundamentally about love and commitment, and we definitely love each other and are committed to each other. Therefore, we should be able to marry."
How does the same-sex marriage state respond to that? The state could say, "OK, fine, you can be married," but this concession empties the concept of marriage of almost any meaning. Parents could marry children, brothers could marry sisters, and all this because marriage would not carry with it any presumption of sexual involvement. This seems to redefine marriage out of existence.
But then we are left with the question: why does the government have an interest in recognizing sexual relationships simply because they are sexual? Why should the state give legal and economic benefits to sexual partners which it does not give to, say, committed chess partners? Why are sexual relationships considered "special" before the law? One answer could be that sexual relationships matter a lot to people, and this is undoubtedly true. But business relationships matter a lot to people as well. There are many things that people consider important, significant, or fulfilling in their lives, and it's not immediately clear why the law should privilege some kinds of activities and relationships over others. The point I'm getting at is that the rationale for same-sex marriage can't be, "People of the same sex should be able to marry because these relationships are really important and fulfilling to them," because that justifies a lot more than same-sex marriage. It justifies marriage for anything that is really important to you, and actually makes sex just one reason consideration among many for getting married (and not a necessary one at that).
How do proponents of traditional heterosexual marriage avoid these problems? On the traditional account, marriage is considered (among other things) a permanent, exclusive sexual union, and the reason it gets special legal and economic benefits is not because sexual relationships as such are somehow more significant or important than other relationships, but because (hetero)sexual relationships are the kind of relationship which produces children. Society has an interest in ensuring that children are reared in an environment which is conducive to moral, physical, and social development. The nuclear family in which children are reared by their biological parents has proven to be (other things being equal) the best place for that development to take place. Marriage (conceptualized as a permanent, exclusive sexual relationship) makes it easy for children to know on whom they have claim for support (their biological parents), and makes it easy for society to know to whom parents owe special duties of care and concern (their biological children). Parents have a special responsibility for their children which they do not have for others, and marriage is the institution which ensures that children get their rights and parents fulfill their responsibilities.
Of course, children are not always raised by their biological parents, and the state has an interest in their growth and development too. This brings us to a discussion of who should get the various benefits that come with being married. As far as I can tell, being married typically brings about three different kinds of benefits: 1) the title of being "married", 2) legal benefits (such as being able to visit one's spouse in the hospital, joint ownership of property), and 3) and economic benefits (tax credits/deductions for children). I'll address these in reverse order.
I think that the economic benefits that go along with marriage should be centered on the children that a marriage has produced or will produce. Bearing and rearing children is a public service - any society interested in lasting beyond the current generation needs to have a plan of replenishment. Having children is also a costly enterprise, affecting the revenue producing capacity of parents throughout their lives. It is therefore just and right for society to make fewer financial demands of those who bear and rear children. Also, prior to having children, I think it makes sense for the government to give married couples some economic benefits in preparation for their children, at least for a period of time (say, up to 10 years). Benefits should be in some way proportional to the number of children borne and cared for. However, if the couple never has children, I don't think they should keep getting the kinds of economic benefits that couples with children do get. On this framework, people who care for children in situations other than the traditional family should also get economic benefits. This could be an older sibling taking care of a younger sibling, two grandparents taking care of a grandchild, a gay couple taking care of the children of one of the partners, etc. These benefits would kick in when an individual or individuals begin caring for a child.
Though the issue of legal benefits is more complicated, I think many of the legal benefits that go along with marriage should be available to people in other arrangements. For example, if two people want to jointly own property similar to the way that a marriage partnership owns property, I don't think this should be particularly legally difficult. Similarly, if I want my best friend from college to be able to come see me in the hospital, I should just be able to enter into some kind of legal arrangement which would make that possible. These kinds of benefits could be available "a la carte," or in some kind of bundle, depending on the interests of the parties.
Lastly, I think only heterosexual couples should have the title of being "married" because heterosexual couples are the only kind of relationship which produces children which are the biological offspring of both parents. Almost all biological functions can be carried out "in house," by one organism: respiration, circulation, digestion, etc. However, reproduction is a biological function which requires both male and female involvement. Only heterosexual relationships produce children which are the biological offspring of both parents. Children who are the product of such a relationship have a special set of rights and obligations which are specifically attached to their biological parents; likewise, parents have special obligations for care and concern which are specifically focused on their biological children (and not on other children). Of course, the world being what it is, many parents and children do not give or get their due; however, I do think it makes sense for society to have an institution (i.e., marriage) centered on that one relationship which by its very nature is oriented toward the begetting and raising of children. Children can be raised in other circumstances, and the state should be sympathetic to their needs; and people can choose to fashion their lives around concerns which are not directly related to procreation, and the state should honor some of their desires; but the bearing and rearing of children by their biological parents is a societal interest which deserves its own institution. That institution is and should be traditional marriage.
***
Endnote on infertility: It is frequently argued against accounts like mine that infertile heterosexual couples should not be able to marry because they, like homosexual couples, cannot produce children. But this comes from a confusion about "kinds." On my account, heterosexual couples, even if they are not fertile, are in every case the kind of relationship which produces children which are the biological offspring of both parents. Take another example from biology. Even if a kidney is not functioning to cleanse blood, as it is designed to do, it is still correct to say that it is the kind of organ that cleanses blood. It simply would not work to say that a brain is the kind of organ which cleanses blood, because it doesn't. That is not its function. Likewise, human reproduction requires both a male and a female, and (here I borrow language from Robert George) even if every heterosexual act is not procreative in fact, it is procreative in type - it is the kind of relationship which produces children who are the offspring of both parents. This should be the relevant characteristic for what counts as a "marriage," even if, as I noted, many of the economic and legal benefits of marriage are given to people in other arrangements.
"Coming Out Day" in 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 www.pji.org/getinvolved.
http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR081022a
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 www.pji.org/getinvolved.
http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR081022a
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
experience of a "Yes on 8" sign-placer
I was extremely heartened by the positive shouts and words of encouragement my husband received as he was placing signs for the "Yes on 8" campaign. I am also proud of the way he was able to handle a difficult situation while still standing up to a sign stealer. In his own words...Rick and I spent two hours after work today placing signs. All of the "Yes on Prop 8" signs in our community had been taken down. The first hour and a half went great. Then it happened. A mom and son walked past us while we were getting the signs ready. The we placed them at the corner of two busy streets. They walked across the street and as we pulled away he tore them out of the ground and started to rip them up. I jumped out of the truck and told him to put them back. The mom said, "My son is gay and you are offending him." I of course told her she is offending the Constitution and my freedom of speech. She yelled some words and then said, "What are you going to do about it?!" I started to cross the street and they ran down the road. I was just going to put up another sign. I was worried as they continued down the road they would tear out more signs we had just placed. I called the police and they said they would come right over. They said it is very illegal to remove any campaign sign before the election date. I told them not to come yet. Rick and I debated what to do. We decided just to let it go. We were worried about our other signs though. We decided to go back and in a very calm manner explain to them our purpose. I pulled up and discussed with the young man (probably 18-20 years old) that we called the police and they were more then willing to come. I told him we had seen many of the No on 8 signs and we did not touch one of them. I said a couple more things respectfully, and he agreed to not touch any more signs. His mom yelled some more things at me but he said he agreed. He told his mom to shut up and then they moved along. We drove by the signs a couple minutes after they passed and they were still there. Crazy days.
The main reason I tell you this is that there is a law that prohibits the removal of campaign signs before the election as long as they are on public property or private property with the consent of the owner.
Side note: That was the first negative thing. We had at least 6 to 8 people yell encouragement and praise.
Jason
The main reason I tell you this is that there is a law that prohibits the removal of campaign signs before the election as long as they are on public property or private property with the consent of the owner.
Side note: That was the first negative thing. We had at least 6 to 8 people yell encouragement and praise.
Jason
CTA opposes Prop 8... what about the teachers?
This controversy had me fuming... until Jason and I fought back by writing this letter tonight (A letter. That'll show 'em.) to the editor of our local newspaper in response to the CTA's voting pamphlet opposing Proposition 8 and the $1 million plus donation it made. To the Editor:
When I became a teacher and joined the California Teachers Association, I felt more or less forced to pay union dues. Teachers have the option to not join the union, but are still required to pay a fee to the union that runs only $18 less per month than regular dues.
At no time are teachers asked regarding their political views, moral code of conduct, or opinions on hotbed political issues. Thus, the CTA does not represent the majority view of teachers as it claims to.
Given the fact that last week the CTA donated over $1 million to the "No on Proposition 8" campaign, it is apparent that our opinion has been declared for us, in spite of the fact that opposing Proposition 8 is not the representative view of the rank and file teacher in the classroom.
I know that I speak for over a dozen teachers at my school site that are also adamently opposed to the CTA using our funds to support any moral issue on the election ticket without the input or permission of the teachers it claims to represent.
This CTA decision was made by the political arm of the CTA, not the teachers, and teachers would like the CTA to quit making political contributions that do not represent the majority of the teacher.
Teachers who interact with students and their families on a daily basis recognize the fact that children from traditional homes with a mom and dad do better in school than children from any other family make-up.
From a teacher who is also a member of the CTA, please vote YES on Proposition 8!
Calling all Citizens of San Diego
Okay, so I am breaking one of my rules of online business and am disclosing that I am from San Diego. (But San Diego is a big place with lots of people.)
The reason for this admission is that I just received an email that the San Diego City Council is going to vote on Oct 27th whether or not to endorse Proposition 8. Now there is controversy over whether or not they should even be allowed to voice a formal endorsement, but regardless of that fact, those in southern California need to let the San Diego City Council know that they are elected officials and the people of San Diego have already voted that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I strongly encourage those who live within the city limits to send your councilman an email/letter/phone call to remind them of who they represent (YOU AND ME) and that we already voted on this issue. If they are in fact going to vote on an endorsement, they need to represent the people and VOTE TO ENDORSE PROP 8.
There are talks about having a rally at City Hall the evening of the vote (Oct 27th). If I find out more, or if others who read this blog find out more, please let us know in the comments section of this post.
Here is the link to be able to send your comment to the City Council. Your comment will be part of the record of the meeting. PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS! We need to be heard.
http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/officialdocs/docketcomment.shtml
The reason for this admission is that I just received an email that the San Diego City Council is going to vote on Oct 27th whether or not to endorse Proposition 8. Now there is controversy over whether or not they should even be allowed to voice a formal endorsement, but regardless of that fact, those in southern California need to let the San Diego City Council know that they are elected officials and the people of San Diego have already voted that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I strongly encourage those who live within the city limits to send your councilman an email/letter/phone call to remind them of who they represent (YOU AND ME) and that we already voted on this issue. If they are in fact going to vote on an endorsement, they need to represent the people and VOTE TO ENDORSE PROP 8.
There are talks about having a rally at City Hall the evening of the vote (Oct 27th). If I find out more, or if others who read this blog find out more, please let us know in the comments section of this post.
Here is the link to be able to send your comment to the City Council. Your comment will be part of the record of the meeting. PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS! We need to be heard.
http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/officialdocs/docketcomment.shtml
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Activists' Agenda
My eyes have been opened after reading this post.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/the-agenda/
It is a MUST READ for all. Basically it confirms that the opposition does have an agenda and a very well laid out agenda. They have a plan that was put in place in 1989 with six items.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/the-agenda/
In case I haven't caught your interest yet, here are the six action items:
1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”
2. “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”
3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.”
4. “Make gays look good.”
5. “Make the victimizers look bad.”
6. “Get funds from corporate America.”
Now do I have your interest? Click on the link below to read the entire post, especially the end, where it talks about the authors of this agenda admitting that they don't care if they use lies, as long as the people of America believe them.
I posted a comment that I will state here as well: Why isn't this published on the front page of the newspapers?
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/the-agenda/
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/the-agenda/
It is a MUST READ for all. Basically it confirms that the opposition does have an agenda and a very well laid out agenda. They have a plan that was put in place in 1989 with six items.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/the-agenda/
In case I haven't caught your interest yet, here are the six action items:
1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”
2. “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”
3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.”
4. “Make gays look good.”
5. “Make the victimizers look bad.”
6. “Get funds from corporate America.”
Now do I have your interest? Click on the link below to read the entire post, especially the end, where it talks about the authors of this agenda admitting that they don't care if they use lies, as long as the people of America believe them.
I posted a comment that I will state here as well: Why isn't this published on the front page of the newspapers?
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/the-agenda/
Scathing Letter to GLBT from a Gay Couple
Below is a link to a letter that was written to the Los Angeles GLBT Community Center by a gay couple from the bay area. They have outlined the reasons for voting YES on 8 and, hope you're sitting down for this one, say to do otherwise would be taking away religious freedom.
"Churches have a RIGHT to worship in peace as they choose. NOBODY has a right to disrupt, intimidate, protest, or disrespect these services, no matter what their agenda is. While I may not agree with many of the Church’s doctrines and teachings, out of respect and tolerance I remain humble, quiet, and respectful during the proceedings."
"Prior to this ballot measure, we were really indifferent to the whole matter. However, as voters and as a gay couple it has now gotten personal. We are now being asked to make a choice between our families and our community.We have news for all those angry-bitter people in our community; we choose to protect our family from the gay activists who threaten our families’ beliefs and religious institutions. This is a no-brainer."
I am so grateful that there are people out there who can see the whole picture and understand the meaning of tolerance. Let's keep supporting these websites/posts/blogs!
VOTE YES ON PROP 8!
http://justanothercaligirl.blogspot.com/2008/10/gay-men-support-prop-8.html
"Churches have a RIGHT to worship in peace as they choose. NOBODY has a right to disrupt, intimidate, protest, or disrespect these services, no matter what their agenda is. While I may not agree with many of the Church’s doctrines and teachings, out of respect and tolerance I remain humble, quiet, and respectful during the proceedings."
"Prior to this ballot measure, we were really indifferent to the whole matter. However, as voters and as a gay couple it has now gotten personal. We are now being asked to make a choice between our families and our community.We have news for all those angry-bitter people in our community; we choose to protect our family from the gay activists who threaten our families’ beliefs and religious institutions. This is a no-brainer."
I am so grateful that there are people out there who can see the whole picture and understand the meaning of tolerance. Let's keep supporting these websites/posts/blogs!
VOTE YES ON PROP 8!
http://justanothercaligirl.blogspot.com/2008/10/gay-men-support-prop-8.html
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Activism can be entertaining!
So tonight I helped make polling phone calls for the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign with a group of friends... what an experience. I normally hang up on telemarketers and groups trying to solicit money, but I am glad that I have never been rude to callers taking surveys or polling. Because now I know what it feels like!
Making that first call was like jumping into the deep end of the pool without knowing how cold it will be. Fortunately for me, I got an answering machine! Just read off the script, piece of cake. My second call, however, reached a not-so-happy-camper who apparently thinks 7:30 pm is too late at night (granted, he may be a crazy early-riser) and so I can "just stick it, lady!" Hm. I hung up and after telling everyone why I had that look on my face, we all burst out laughing. I know I wouldn't have been laughing if I had been making calls on my own, so here's a shout-out to Suzie, Russ, Denise, Stan and Marjorie :)
The other highlight of the evening was when Suzie was telling about her last recipient who thought the call was from the opposers, and shouted "Yes on 8! YES! YES! YES!" The only problem was that the person I was calling picked up the phone just as Suzie was enthusiastically retelling the YES! YES! YES! part, and I barely made it through my lines without laughing! (I did giggle a little, poor guy probably thought I was a nut!) By the time I hung up, everyone realized I had been on a call, and we really lost it then!
So tomorrow I will be at it again, with more confidence and a greater sense of humor. And we're all bringing dessert, so let the sugar-highs commence!
Vote YES on Prop 8!
Support Prop 8
Hi everyone out there in the blogosphere. I don't want you to think that I've stopped blogging. I'm working on a post regarding same-sex couples adopting children and it's going to take a little longer than I anticipated, so, while you are waiting for my ever-so inspired comments (ha ha), please support the other pro prop 8 blogs, websites, youtube videos, news articles, etc out there on the internet. I have a list of blogs on the sidebar. I also have a list of links that are pro prop 8 under "online resources" on the sidebar. Please, please, please support these websites. There is wonderful pro marriage commentary on the internet. You can get a lot of ideas and information to pass along to the undecided voters. If you are an undecided voter, read the blogs and articles so you can make an educated decision.
Monday, October 13, 2008
tolerance. how is that spelled?
I'm frustrated tonight. My husband spent the evening with a friend passing out and posting yard signs supporting Proposition 8. They were yelled and cursed at by drivers, called bigots, and when backtracking found that some of the signs they had posted 5 minutes earlier were already stolen. Reports have come from across the county that hundreds of "Yes on Prop 8" signs are being stolen, and residents are being advised to bring their yard signs in at night to prevent theft.
For a group of people so adamant about tolerance, many of them sure don't have tolerance for others. It's called free speech, people! I hope that there aren't supporters of Prop 8 stooping to such lows.
Okay, done venting!
Vote YES on Proposition 8!
UPDATE 10/18/08
Here is a video I found regarding "tolerance".
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/tolerance/
For a group of people so adamant about tolerance, many of them sure don't have tolerance for others. It's called free speech, people! I hope that there aren't supporters of Prop 8 stooping to such lows.
Okay, done venting!
Vote YES on Proposition 8!
UPDATE 10/18/08
Here is a video I found regarding "tolerance".
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/tolerance/
Proposition 8 in plain english
Check out this awesome video on our sidebar! Prop 8 in plain english is the most simplified, clear, and concise explanation of both sides of Proposition 8. And I love the design element as well- it keeps the distraction to a minimum and the graphics are used to illustrate the concepts (literally!)
http://www.protectmarriage.com/
From the Other Side
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
