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
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Comic Relief
Tensions are getting high in the debates this year. There are some tough times facing us and our vote is more important today than ever.
That being said, here are some YouTube videos that shed some light on prop 8 from a different angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H386B1XCUos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mog3JVbbHDU
Enjoy!
That being said, here are some YouTube videos that shed some light on prop 8 from a different angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H386B1XCUos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mog3JVbbHDU
Enjoy!
What are the Benefits of Marriage?
From: Randy Alcorn
Marriage encourages men to share the burdens of child rearing and binds fathers to their children.
Marriage provides the optimal setting in which mothers and fathers can raise their own boys and girls to enter a world that consists exclusively of men and women.
A procreative marriage, one where children are the offspring of the husband and wife, is more stable and long lasting—the husband and wife have the added incentive of keeping the relationship healthy and alive since leaving it involves leaving their natural children.
As the societal building block, the family has also developed as the best gauge—the canary in the mine—that protects culture from harmful change. Since change can harm men, women, and children (and the family as a whole), the most effective harbinger of detrimental societal change is the traditional family.
Marriage between one man and one woman is perfectly integrated by sex. An identical number of men and women get married each year, side-by-side, hand-in-hand. The mechanism of marriage is perfectly balanced. No man may become a husband unless a woman becomes a wife at the same moment.
Marriage has been the societal building block for millennia; it has developed as the method by which cultures pass on, from generation to generation, who and what they are. Since cultures are made up of men, women and children, to effectively pass on cultural values the family should reflect the cultural makeup of one man, one woman (an equal number), and their natural children where possible.
Marriage encourages men to share the burdens of child rearing and binds fathers to their children.
Marriage provides the optimal setting in which mothers and fathers can raise their own boys and girls to enter a world that consists exclusively of men and women.
A procreative marriage, one where children are the offspring of the husband and wife, is more stable and long lasting—the husband and wife have the added incentive of keeping the relationship healthy and alive since leaving it involves leaving their natural children.
As the societal building block, the family has also developed as the best gauge—the canary in the mine—that protects culture from harmful change. Since change can harm men, women, and children (and the family as a whole), the most effective harbinger of detrimental societal change is the traditional family.
Marriage between one man and one woman is perfectly integrated by sex. An identical number of men and women get married each year, side-by-side, hand-in-hand. The mechanism of marriage is perfectly balanced. No man may become a husband unless a woman becomes a wife at the same moment.
Marriage has been the societal building block for millennia; it has developed as the method by which cultures pass on, from generation to generation, who and what they are. Since cultures are made up of men, women and children, to effectively pass on cultural values the family should reflect the cultural makeup of one man, one woman (an equal number), and their natural children where possible.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Not Just a Conservative Issue
A Liberal Explains His Rejection of Same-Sex Marriage
June 23, 2007
By PETER STEINFELS
Could legalizing same-sex marriage actually strengthen marriage as a social institution? ''If I could believe this,'' writes David Blankenhorn, ''I would support gay marriage without reservation.''
Mr. Blankenhorn is a self-described liberal Democrat and ''marriage nut,'' a veteran leader in the movement to strengthen marriage, and especially fatherhood, in the United States.
His book, ''The Future of Marriage,'' published last month by Encounter Books, explains why he doesn't believe same-sex marriage will serve that cause. But given the charged nature of the subject, his book may also set a record for optimism about the human capacity for rational discussion.
Mr. Blankenhorn, who opposes same-sex marriage, believes that the national debate about the issue can be rescued from the polarized clash of gut reactions, religious injunctions, emotional appeals and accusations of bigotry. He even believes the debate could provide ''an invaluable opportunity for Americans to have a serious national discussion about marriage's meaning and future.''
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Minority Rules?
So this question popped into my head today as I was driving home from work... does it seem that the minority rules our nation? Here are some examples:
- Everyone is talking about the big financial crisis, there's going to be no credit available. Why? Because a few (I've heard approximately 10%) borrowed money that they couldn't repay. So 10% of the people in this country have messed things up for all of us?
- Those living in San Diego, how many times have we voted on the seals at La Jolla Cove? No matter where you stand on the matter, I'm tired of seeing the issue on the ballot. I think this might be the first time in eight years that it hasn't been on the ballot. (I'm sure that's an exaggeration, anyone have the real numbers?) Yet a small group of people keep bringing it up and the issue goes back to the voters.
- A few years ago, 64% of the people who voted in California said that marriage should be between a man and a woman. A few months ago, the California Supreme Court (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are 5 judges), said anyone can be married. FIVE people said how many million people were wrong?
California power company opposing marriage amendment!
On behalf of pro-family California citizens, Focus on the Family Action is launching this California Citizen Petition to PG&E and state leaders objecting to PG&E’s open advocacy of homosexual marriage by its opposition of Prop. 8. Some more info from Focus on the Family Action:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the largest investor-owned power company in California, has just donated $250,000 to defeat Prop. 8 (this November’s marriage amendment ballot initiative). As a public utility that services more than 15 million Californians, PG&E has no place siding with the homosexual agenda and against the views of millions of pro-family Californians in this effort to restore the traditional definition of marriage in the Golden State. Even worse, PG&E is also spearheading a move to rally other California businesses to jump aboard its anti-family bandwagon.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
presidential puppets
Thanks to the creative genius of http://folduscandidate.com, you can print and fold your own paper finger puppets of the presidential candidates, their wives, and running mates! Just think, now you can stage your own mini-debate...
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Early recognition of potential financial crisis
According to this enlightening news story, the Bush administraion, John McCain, and Alan Greenspan all voiced concerns and the need for regulation early-on about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue, and the Democratic representative of the Chairman House Financial Services Committee (who is now blaming Bush and McCain for everything) was singing the praises of the mortgage companies who were putting so many people in houses way beyond their ability to afford.
It really sheds some light on current issues to look back and see who was saying what, and who has changed their story...
Friday, October 3, 2008
Glenn Beck - Fortune teller or Pessimist?
Below are a few quotes from Glenn Beck's online commentary titled: "America's Chilling Future"
"Stop worrying so much about who runs the country and start worrying about who runs your towns, your states, and your Congress... Decades of Republicans and Democrats alike have all chipped in to lead you to where you are today."
"Looking back now, it's pretty obvious that our trust in government declined at about the same rate as our partisanship increased. People became so concerned about getting their party into power at any cost that the truth didn't even seem to matter anymore."
"The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them. "
Couldn't have said it better myself! There are some serious issues that face us, and our children. It's time we stand up for what we believe in.
You can read Glenn Beck's entire commentary at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/beck.future/index.html
"Stop worrying so much about who runs the country and start worrying about who runs your towns, your states, and your Congress... Decades of Republicans and Democrats alike have all chipped in to lead you to where you are today."
"Looking back now, it's pretty obvious that our trust in government declined at about the same rate as our partisanship increased. People became so concerned about getting their party into power at any cost that the truth didn't even seem to matter anymore."
"The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them. "
Couldn't have said it better myself! There are some serious issues that face us, and our children. It's time we stand up for what we believe in.
You can read Glenn Beck's entire commentary at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/beck.future/index.html
Thursday, October 2, 2008
VP debate weigh-in
This election year I have actually watched the debates (instead of being bored out of my mind...) and have learned about many of the issues that are shaping the campaign. I thought both Palin and Biden did well tonight.My favorite part, of course, was when Gov. Palin gave a strong statement about marriage being between only a man and a woman. Biden also acknowledged that he and Obama are opposed to gay marriage, and that government should not define marriage. Woo-hoo! (that last part is me).
What did you think of the debate??
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
kindergarteners and same-sex marriage video
Opponents of Proposition 8 in California say that kindergartners will never be forced to learn about homosexuality from public school. That is what they thought in Massachusetts – until same sex marriage became legal.
Look what happened there. It can happen here. California Education Code 51890 allows a teacher to teach "marriage," which now means homosexual "marriage."
A portion of the Code states: a) ...all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that: (1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in makingdecisions in matters of ...family... health, to include the following subjects: (D)...marriage and parenthood.
Now, look what happened in Massachusetts to David Parker when he insisted that his kindergartner would not be taught homosexuality. He was taken to jail.
Two courts have sided with the school, against the Parkers. The case appears to be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. This is amazing! A dad arrested for insisting that his five year old not be taught homosexuality.
We, in California are next, unless we pass Prop. 8.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 8 in California, to keep dads from being taken to jail when they protect their five year olds.
Look what happened there. It can happen here. California Education Code 51890 allows a teacher to teach "marriage," which now means homosexual "marriage."
A portion of the Code states: a) ...all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that: (1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in makingdecisions in matters of ...family... health, to include the following subjects: (D)...marriage and parenthood.
Now, look what happened in Massachusetts to David Parker when he insisted that his kindergartner would not be taught homosexuality. He was taken to jail.
Two courts have sided with the school, against the Parkers. The case appears to be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. This is amazing! A dad arrested for insisting that his five year old not be taught homosexuality.
We, in California are next, unless we pass Prop. 8.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 8 in California, to keep dads from being taken to jail when they protect their five year olds.
What's on the Ballot in November?
So what issues are up for vote in November? Well, besides voting for the President of the United States, here are the statewide initatives on the California ballot:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/ballot-sum/ballot-measure.htm
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/ballot-sum/ballot-measure.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
