Does My Vote Really Matter?

If you don’t like the outcome, go to court…

2010-08-05T11:55:00.001-07:00

Seriously… Californians have voted TWICE to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet one liberal judge (who happens to be gay, a coincidence, I think not) said that it’s unconstitutional.

We’ve gone round and round about civil rights, equal rights, blah blah blah… we’ve heard all the arguments. I won’t go into that here. But I will voice my frustration about voting. And I’m not the only one… here’s a copy of a status update from a friend on facebook:

“Lol I've seen SO many fb statuses about this whole Prop 8 thing... the only thing I have to say is that this is the EXACT reason I stay away from politics and the voting scene... it doesn't matter what we vote for, things get overruled/overturned anyway... why bother?”

I have these exact same feelings. So how are we supposed to get people out to vote and change things when it doesn’t matter because if someone with a lot of money doesn’t like the outcome, they’ll sue and it’ll go to court… and keep going to court until they find a judge who will rule in their favor.

So… any ideas????

Technorati Tags: marriage,prop8,voting,civil rights,equal rights,same sex marriage,california legislature,supreme court,judges

You don’t agree with me, therefore, you are a bigot…

2010-05-11T22:44:00.001-07:00

The issue of people who are illegally in America has obviously been a hot topic issue lately. There are differing opinions obviously, but what bothers me is the intolerance for the opinions of others. I fall on the side of Arizona, that people need to be in this country legally, or they shouldn't be here. For this, I am apparently a bigot. Because I believe in sustaining and upholding U.S. laws that were created for our freedom and safety, I am now a racist - at least according to the protests around the land and friends on social media sites. The same thing happened with gay marriage - I have gay friends who called people against gay marriage bigots. I think there are better ways to deal with issues. Obviously both sides have feelings on the issue, but is calling names really the best way to deal with that?

I think not. Many of us are adults. Many people who read this are members of the same religious tradition, and can find religious justification for their side of the argument (whichever side they fall on), calling the morality and ethics of others into question when others disagree with their viewpoint. I understand that facebook, twitter, and others are social networking sites, where people are free to express their opinions. However, I do not think it justification for calling people bigots or questioning their morality and ethics for daring to express their opinion. Have a problem with the way someone views something? Call them, talk to them about it, try to make sure you understand their viewpoint before you go off on them. Don't just assume you know everything about "them" and "their group", further polarizing the issues and preventing yourself from understanding your friends' rationale. Especially on facebook, where you usually know and like the people on your friends list. Focus on the positive, and if you disagree with something someone says/feels/believes, talk to them about it.

I feel frustrated when people call me a bigot for feeling like Arizona is right to try to prevent illegal immigration. I DO NOT agree with racial profiling, and I do not think that all Latino/a people are here illegally, are going to screw the system, are lazy, etc. I know a lot of Latino/a people who are here to make a better life for themselves, and I respect that. But, and this is a big but, I think they need to be here legally. They're being hurt by the drug runners and gang members who are bringing drugs and violence into the U.S. through border states, and those people are making it harder for honest, hard-working people to get here. However, that does not change my opinion that people need to come here legally. And that does not make me a racist. That makes me a person who supports our current law. If the law changes, I will support that also. Not because it's the law, but because I don't believe in lawlessness. And I think we need some controls at the border for people who are trying to bring the culture of drugs and violence here.

I personally know very few people who want to live in most parts of Mexico due to the violence and drug problems. An article on CNN tonight discussed members of a bridal party who had been kidnapped and murdered in Ciudad Juarez, and also said that 4,300 people have been murdered in that province since the war on drugs began in 2006. Hopefully they will be able to bring that under control, but I am concerned that will (and is) already spreading to the U.S. And for this, I am a bigot. For being concerned for the safety of officers who protect us, for the children who live there who are in danger, and the safety and future of our country, I am a bigot. That is one label I have no problem rejecting. There are many other labels I will accept, even if they do not describe me, but I will fight against this. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and everyone has the right to be respected.

Written by Sara 05/11/2010

Technorati Tags: racism,mexican,arizona,illegal immigrants,voting,bigots,bigotry,drug cartel,racial profiling,america,constitution,civil rights

The Ant and The Grasshopper – Two Stories

2010-04-06T13:00:00.001-07:00

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
Two Different Versions....Two Different Morals

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous
and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THESTORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

I believe that you are an ant - not a grasshopper!

Make sure that you pass this on to other ants. Don't bother sending
it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it, anyway

Freedom of Speech being threatened yet again…

2010-01-29T15:22:00.001-08:00

Radical pro-abortion groups want to sack a life-affirming ad from Focus on the Family from appearing in the Super Bowl.

The ad focuses on football star Tim Tebow and the courage of his mother who was told by doctors to abort a child that would become a Heisman Trophy winner.

It’s time to take a stand and stop anti-life and anti-Christian radicals from taking control of our airwaves.

Last year, NBC sacked a Super Bowl ad by CatholicVote.org. Let’s not let this happen again. Urge CBS to stand behind its decision and allow Focus on the Family to tell this inspirational story about a football star.

Sign the petition at www.CatholicVote.org

Technorati Tags: abortion,prop8,marriage,children,freedom of speech,rights

If I’m Not Happy, No One Can Be Happy

2010-01-12T09:29:00.001-08:00

A very interesting account from today:
"Several times Judge Walker interrupted the plaintiffs to question whether the state should be “in the marriage business” at all, asking if the plaintiffs would be happy with eliminating marriage altogether—and allowing only domestic partnerships for both man/woman and same-sex couples. Amazingly the plaintiffs testified that would be acceptable to them. They actually said: if same-sex couples can’t have marriage, then no one should. Obviously, the elimination of marriage for everybody is certainly not what the people of California, or the nation, have in mind as an appropriate solution to this debate."

I think this sums up the opposition’s feelings very well… “If I’m not happy, then no one can be happy.” So what the opposition is calling “equal rights” (which they already have in California) really means they want everyone to be the same. What happened to celebrating diversity? My high school class motto was “Diverse yet Unified”. We are all different, we are going to have different challenges placed in front of us. But with those differences we can still work together and become the strong nation that we once were.

Here are a couple of websites that have updates and you can follow the Supreme Court proceedings on:

General Counsel Andy Pugno Comments On Opening Day Of Trial
http://www.facebook.com/l/5d935;bit.ly/4NRoUo

The Perry Case: What’s At Stake
http://www.facebook.com/l/5d935;bit.ly/4T2aHK

U.S. Supreme Court Stays Order Allowing Streaming Video of Prop 8 Case
http://www.facebook.com/l/5d935;bit.ly/5okXbw

Technorati Tags: proposition 8,california legislature,federal court hearings,marriage,family

As California Goes, So Goes the Rest of the Country…

2009-08-23T13:15:00.001-07:00

I don’t know if I have many readers left as I have been negligent in my blog posting after the passing of proposition 8. My attention is needed in so many areas that it is difficult to find time to do everything and please everyone. While my blog posting has been pushed aside for little league baseball, AYSO soccer, work, and other adventures, I have been keeping an eye on political news. It’s scary. I received an email the other day that I want to post. It’s long, but worth every word. PLEASE read this and share with your friends… if the few readers I have left share with the few readers they have who share with their friends, etc, etc… you know the outcome.

July 13th, 2009

Congressman Tom McClintock offered remarks in Washington, D. C., on Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrate why California is facing such a large fiscal mess. His beginning joke is so funny because it is so true:

"I know that everybody likes to poke fun at California - but I can tell you right now that despite all of its problems, California remains one of the best places in the world to build a successful small business. All you have to do is start with a successful large business."

Here is the rest of the speech:

Laugh if you will, but let me remind you that when these policies finish wrecking California, there are still 49 other states we can all move to - and yours is one of them.

I should also warn you of the strange sense of déja-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.

We passed a "Cash-for-Clunkers" bill the other day - we did that years ago in California.

Doubling the entire debt every five years? Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates? Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions? Got the T-Shirt.

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember the Golden State in its Golden Age. A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn't bother to measure the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing - and one thing only - has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California's government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

The Census Bureau reports that in the last two years 2/3 of a million more people have moved out of California than have moved into it. Many are leaving for the garden spots of Nevada, Arizona and Texas. Think about that. California is blessed with the most equitable climate in the entire Western Hemisphere; it has the most bountiful resources anywhere in the continental United States; it is poised on the Pacific Rim in a position to dominate world trade for the next century, and yet people are finding a better place to live and work and raise their families in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona and Texas deserts.

I submit to you that no conceivable act of God could wreak such devastation as to turn California into a less desirable place to live than the middle of the Nevada Nuclear Test Range. Only Acts of Government can do that. And they have.

You can trace the collapse of California's economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions. There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration - but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.

The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state - an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.

Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California - an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning. At the center of this world view was a backward ideology that he called his "era of limits" - the naive notion that public works were growth inducing and polluting and that stopping the expansion of infrastructure somehow excused government from meeting the needs of an expanding population. Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California's public works, and public policy was redirected to developing irresistible incentives for the population to concentrate in dense urban cores rather than to settle in suburban communities. Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He canceled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread. This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006. This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. [this is what Kulongoski is trying to do with climate control in Oregon, tks]

This has dire implications to entire segments of California's economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.

We, too, were promised an explosion of "green jobs," but exactly the opposite has happened.

Up until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But since then, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

The second problem is structural: the collapse of the checks and balances and other constitutional and traditional constraints on government spending and borrowing.

Let me mention a few of them.

The State Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest severed the use of local revenue for local schools and invited the state take-over of public education. [ sounds like equalization in Oregon, tks] AB 8 of 1979 - the legislature's response to Proposition 13 - essentially did the same thing to local governments generally.

This means that vast bureaucracies have grown up over the service delivery level, wasting more and more resources while hamstringing teachers in their classrooms, wardens in their prisons and city councils in their towns.

Next, constitutional constraints on fiscal excesses began to fall. In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor's ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions. In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth. If that limit had remained intact, California would be enjoying a budget surplus today.

The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder. Finally, we've watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five.

That new process, that began under Pete Wilson and has culminated under Arnold Schwarzenegger bypasses the entire legislative deliberative process in favor of an annual deal struck between the governor and legislative leaders behind closed doors and handed to the legislature as a fait accompli.

This short-circuits the separation of powers that is designed to discipline fiscal excess and it literally bargains away the line-item veto authority of the governor. It is a process that allows legislative leaders to extract concessions from the executive that would not be possible if the separation of powers were maintained. With the checks against excessive spending broken down, borrowing became the preferred method of public finance. The Constitutional requirement that all taxpayer-supported debt be approved by voters began to erode in the 1930's, when a depression-era Supreme Court decision allowed the state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic down-turn - as long as the shortfall was addressed in the following fiscal year. This practice was narrowly construed until the Wilson administration began using it to justify spreading out a single year's budget deficit over several years.

During the 1980's, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a "lease revenue bond," to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval.

Although Proposition 13 still protects property owners from unsustainable increases in their property taxes, most of the other fiscal constraints are now gone, and California has entered a period of unprecedented public debt to finance an unprecedented expansion of state government.

The third factor that also can be traced back to the 1970's was the radical transformation that took place in the nature and power of the state's public employee unions. Until that time, state law prohibited public employee strikes against the public and prohibited collective bargaining or closed shops.

During the Jerry Brown era, a series of collective bargaining acts handed to public sector unions all the rights and powers of private sector unions - but without any of the natural constraints on private sector unions. The unions soon brought these newly-won powers to bear to elect hand-picked officials to state and local office.

Today, political expenditures by public employee unions exceed all other special interest groups, while they hold compliant majorities in the state legislature and most local agencies.

The result has been radically escalating personnel costs and radically deteriorating performance.

The impact on governmental services has been devastating. Despite exploding budgets, service delivery is collapsing. Firing incompetent teachers has become a virtual impossibility, adding to the deterioration of educational quality. Essential services can no longer be performed because labor costs have made it impossible to sustain those services.

Today, California is like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much. Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse. Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he's running out of credit. Raising prices causes his sales to decline. And there's only so much discretionary spending he can cut.

That's the state's predicament in a nutshell. California's borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills at the end of this month. Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history.

And I can assure you that the Laffer curve is alive and well. In the first two months after the tax increase took effect, state revenues have plunged 33 percent.

Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can - and should - do without, there aren't enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California's deficit.

Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions.

Fortunately, we have a model that we know works. A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost. It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level. It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government.

Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

Alas, we don't have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can't be accomplished overnight. Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.

This brings us to the fine point of the matter. What Churchill called history's "terrible, chilling words" are about to be pronounced on California's failed leadership: "too late."

A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California's bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state's crushing debt and looming obligations.

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California's problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won't help itself, the federal government cannot, should not and must not..

And before anyone gets too smug at California's agony, remember this: Congress is now enacting the same policies at the national level that have caused the collapse of California. So whistle past this cemetery if you must, but remember the medieval epitaph: "Remember man as you walk by, as you are now so once was I; as I am now so you will be." The good news is there is still time for the nation to avoid California's fate. If anything, the collapse of California can at least serve as a morality play for the rest of the nation - unfortunately in the form of a Greek tragedy.

Technorati Tags: california legislature,california,proposition 8,united states,obama,government

Words of Wisdom

2009-07-16T17:05:00.001-07:00

You cannot help the poor
by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak
by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity
by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up
by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man
by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage
by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them
what they could and should do for themselves.

-Abraham Lincoln

The Truth Behind Signing Petitions

2009-07-13T22:14:00.001-07:00

It has come to my attention that professional signature gatherers will begin standing outside stores and other venues to gather the necessary signatures to put the gay marriage issue back on the ballot for November.

The best and most effective way to defeat this measure, and the least costly, is to make sure it just doesn't get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. In order to do this we need to inform people to not sign the petitions at store fronts, unless they are very aware of the issue and indeed want it on the ballot. A phrase used by professional signature gatherers, "it doesn't matter if you sign it, this is on only so the people can vote on it," is rhetoric of those who profit from each signature. It does matter, and we need to assure that we do our part to keep this off the ballot.

It is important that we save millions of dollars in campaign costs and stop this issue from getting back on the ballot.

Technorati Tags: voting,prop 8,marriage,same sex marriage,california,petitions,signing petitions

Making Sure Our Vote Counts…

2009-07-09T09:19:00.001-07:00

This is from our friends at standformarriage.blogspot.com

As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.

We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”

Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage -- and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.
It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver. That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.

Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.

Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.

SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.

But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly.

Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.

In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.

Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)
Assemblymember.feuer@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 285-5490

Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)
Trish.zanella@asm.ca.gov
(714) 668-2100

Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D - Calabasas, Oxnard)
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
(818) 596-4141

Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)
Assemblymember.evans@assembly.ca.gov
(707) 546-4500

Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
(916) 324-4676

Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)
Assemblymember.knight@asm.ca.gov
(661) 267-7636

Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)
Assemblymember.krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
(818) 558-3043

Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)
Assemblymember.lieu@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 615-3515

Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)
Assemblymember.monning@assembly.ca.gov
(831) 425-1503

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)
Assemblymember.nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
530-223-6300

Technorati Tags: SB 54,marriage,health insurance,voting,california legislature,same sex marriage,prop 8

Harvey Milk Day

2009-06-20T08:34:00.001-07:00

News from our friends at “SaveCalifornia.com”

The good news is "Harvey Milk Gay Day" for public schools might be vetoed.

The bad news is SB 572 also could be signed -- unless you pick up the phone today and ask your friends to do the same.

You see, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the same bill last year, it was because of a large outpouring of public opposition.

That opposition remains strong among the "silent majority." A recent poll found only 1 out of 5 Californians want a statewide "day of significance" honoring Harvey Milk.

But homosexual-agenda advocates are turning up the heat. Sean Penn, who starred in the movie "Milk" about the late San Francisco homosexual activist, has talked to Schwarzengger to ask him to sign SB 572. So has Milk's homosexual activist nephew.

Of course, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual activist groups are working hard to pass "Harvey Milk Gay Day" into law. They're generating calls and emails to Schwarzenegger urging him to sign this horrible bill. You had better be doing the same, only to demand a VETO instead, especially right now, since SB 572 has just passed another committee.

As you can see, this is a dynamic situation that could go either way. But one thing's for sure. If Arnold Schwarzenegger receives more calls, emails and faxes supporting "Harvey Milk Gay Day," he will be tempted to sign it. Don't let this happen!

PICK UP THE PHONE RIGHT NOW

Call Schwarzeneggers' State Capitol office at 916-445-2841 right now. Listen to the recorded message and push the buttons to get to a live constituent services representative.

Kindly but firmly tell him or her, "I'm calling to urge the Governor to veto SB 572, "Harvey Milk Gay Day," like he did last year.

Parents don't want this, and children don't need this. Schools should teach children academics, not the 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender' values of Harvey Milk."

Technorati Tags: Harvey Milk,prop 8,voting,california,california legislature,Schwarzengger,marriage,same sex marriage

Drop Homosexual Activist from Education Department

2009-06-10T17:08:00.001-07:00

This is from our friends at the Family Resource Council:

“Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was appointed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. GLSEN is the chief national group promoting policies to force affirmation of homosexuality in schools, beginning in kindergarten. GLSEN once sponsored a conference at Tufts University that was advertised to "youth only ages 14 to 21." Three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled "What They Didn't Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class." Among other activities, the activists guided the students on gay sex practices.

Jennings has spoken publicly about a high school student he once counseled who was in a sexual relationship with an older man -- yet Jennings never reported this abuse to the authorities, the school, or the child's parents. Should he be overseeing a major federal program designed to promote the health and well being of students and families? We can only assume, given his past, that he will steer grant money toward programs like those offered by GLSEN that put a homosexual agenda ahead of the rights of parents and the safety of students.

This is unacceptable. Jennings' appointment should be withdrawn. Email Arne Duncan today. Tell him to withdraw the appointment of Kevin Jennings.”

Apparently just voting to protect traditional marriage isn’t enough. Now we have to make our voices heard. It takes only a minute to fill out the form. Please, please, let our leaders know that their actions are not acceptable and that they ARE accountable to US.

Does My Vote Really Matter?

2009-05-26T10:32:00.001-07:00

YES!

The CA Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in a vote of 6-1! So, for right now, we can say YES, our vote does matter!

I’ve been quiet for a while, not having the time to post on my blog. But I have been following other blogs and the news. I find it very interesting that other states are not putting the issue of traditional marriage to the vote of the people, but rather making laws that allow same-sex couples to be “married” among the legislature. Why? Is this not a country where the people make the laws?

Another question I have to put out there – I thought the entire nation was watching California in November because “as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation”… well, that hasn’t happened.

Okay friends… today is a good day. My faith in our judicial system has been restored, for now.

my favorite part of protesting...

2009-04-16T11:16:00.000-07:00

... all the creative signs!

GLAD Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government

2009-03-03T17:24:00.001-08:00

Here’s another update from our friends at The Family Leader Network.

Handful of same-sex couples attack federal Defense of Marriage Act passed overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans

A lawsuit was filed yesterday with the federal District Court in Boston that seeks to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

The suit addresses the use of DOMA Section 3, which makes clear that spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees' and retirees' benefits, and in the issuance of passports are reserved for married couples only.

The plaintiffs in the suit are eight homosexual couples who say they are "married" and three individuals whose homosexual partners have passed away.

The suit was filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).

"Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?"

45 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
All 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so.
DOMA passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.

"None of these facts appear to matter to the people who have filed this lawsuit," Raum explained. "They do not care about the negative social impact on children if federal judges redefine marriage. Courts should never impose a system which guarantees that more kids will be brought up in homes without a married mom and dad. How can we justify hurting millions of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?"

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins expressed concerns that the Obama administration's Department of Justice would not suitably defend DOMA against the lawsuit, given Obama's personal position in favor of repealing the law.

"We advise the Obama Administration to fulfill its constitutional duties and defend DOMA energetically and competently. We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions," said Perkins.

My question is why are these people filing a lawsuit now? Where were they in 1996 when this was signed into law? The majority of America feels that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s the way it needs to stay.

Technorati Tags: marriage,prop 8,DOMA,obama,constitution,voting,tolerance,families

State Legislators Didn’t Listen to Our Vote

2009-03-03T11:52:00.001-08:00

From CRI: California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

The Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court’s hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature’s passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.

Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. “How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to “retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters” who passed Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an “illegal ex parte communication with the court.” Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people’s right to pass Proposition 8.

Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

http://www.capitolresource.org

Technorati Tags: prop 8,constitution,voting,tolerance,marriage,HR 5,SR 7,state legislators

First NBC, Now CNN Rejects Pro-Life Ad

2009-02-20T12:41:00.001-08:00

I received this email from CatholicVote.org. We all know that the media is very liberal, which is why it is even more important to keep our voices going strong on the internet.

We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next. The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday.

So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach. Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed. Not so.

For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer. And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

But wait. Is this fair?

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

FactCheck.org described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably. You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at jonathan.klein@cnn.com

So what now?

We aren't going to sit back and complain. We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad. We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.

Brian Burch

CatholicVote.org

P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

Technorati Tags: voting,catholic,obama,families,pro choice,pro life,advertisements,cnn,nbc,super bowl,marriage

Time to Make YOUR Vote Count

2009-02-13T16:46:00.001-08:00

I received this email from United Families. It is time to stand up and make your vote count. Here’s the email with all the details:

On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an "improper revision" to the state constitution.

Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters. Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, "Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike....Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern."

Don't let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.

What You Can Do

Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

For directions
For parking information

Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7

Julia Brownley
Phone: 916 319 2041
Fax: 916 319 2141

Noreen Evans
Phone: 916 319 2007
Fax: 916 319 2107

Mike Feuer (Chair)
Phone: 916 319 2042
Fax: 916 319 2142

Dave Jones
Phone: 916 319 2009
Fax: 916 319 2109

Steve Knight
Phone: 916 319 2036
Fax: 916 319 2136

Paul Krekorian
Phone: 916 319 2043
Fax: 916 319 2143

Ted Lieu
Phone: 916 319 2053
Fax: 916 319 2153

Bill Monning
Phone: 916 319 2027
Fax: 916 319 2127

Jim Nielsen
Phone: 916 319 2002
Fax: 916 319 2102

Van Tran
Phone: 916 319 2068
Fax: 916 319 2168

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7
Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916 651 4010
Fax: 916 327 2433

Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Tom Harman
Phone: 916 651 4035
Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno
Phone: 916 651 4003
Mimi Walters
Phone: 916 651 4033
Fax: 916 445 9754

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state.
United Families California

Technorati Tags: voting,prop 8,marriage,family,california,tolerance,rights

Are We A Socialist Society?

2009-02-12T13:42:00.001-08:00

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

William J. H. Boetcker, 1916 (often attributed to Lincoln )

My mom said that her goal was to raise her children to be independent and contribute to society. Now, as the youngest of six turns 18 in a couple of months, I look at my brothers and sisters and where we are in our lives. I think my mom has reached her goal.

How is the list by Boetcker related to the paragraph about my family? It is my strong belief, back by research, that it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children how to become members of society. It is not up to the teachers at school, leaders in church, or president of the United States. Outside leaders assist in the teaching, but the primary responsibility is up to the parents.

Technorati Tags: voting,socialism,obama,united states,capitalism,rights,freedom,family,marriage

Court Date Set for Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Regarding Prop 8

2009-02-07T17:32:00.000-08:00

Well, get ready... we have a court date for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding proposition 8. Below is an article from Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

Marriage has its final day in Court!

The California Supreme Court announced this week that on March 5, 2009, they will hear oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the initiative that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The oral argument will be broadcast live on the California Channel. In addition to considering challenges to Prop 8, the Court will consider the fate of 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the November election.

On January 15, 2009, Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed an Amicus Brief (“friend of the court brief”) with the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8 and to preserve the will of the people.

The homosexual agenda is spreading across America, one state at a time, as state legislatures consider significant expansion of homosexual rights. View our Top Story, “The Advance of Same-Sex Rights in New Mexico," here: http://www.faith-freedom.com/news/advance-same-sex-rights-new-mexico

In the coming weeks, please cover the hearing on March 5th with your fervent prayers believing that God will intervene in a sovereign way and speak to the hearts and souls of the California Supreme Court justices. Also lift up the attorneys presenting the case in support of Prop 8.

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for Deputy Attorney General

2009-02-05T09:06:00.001-08:00

It’s time to get your pen/pencil/computer out and write another letter to our senators. They should know us by name now! Our President has elected a porn lawyer for Deputy Attorney General. We need to let our Senators know that this is not okay with us, to have someone with such a reputation in a leadership position.

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice

CHICAGO, February 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.

"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination" said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis.

"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."

"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine - at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch.

As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.

"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch. "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws. "

See a full dossier on Ogden compiled by Fidelis here: http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl

To express concern to Senators regarding the appointment visit: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Technorati Tags: marriage,family,obama,deputy attorney general,senators,pornography,vote,voting

Sacked by the Mainstream Media

2009-01-30T16:05:00.001-08:00

I just heard that NBC refused to show an ad from Catholic.org, saying that the NFL and NBC are not interested in advertisements that involve “political candidates or issues.”

Really? Because I’m quite the sports fan and I remember watching the Super Bowl last year and I remember seeing an ad for Mitt Romney, who was running for President of the United States at the time. I’ve also been told that NBC has allowed PETA to run an ad.

So what’s the real deal here, NBC? They are willing to sell everything from tortilla chips to beer to cars to sex, even show a commercial for the most extreme animal rights activists, but not allow a conservative message about hope and life?

Here is the commercial that NBC does not want to show:

We need to stand up and let the mainstream media know that the majority of the people in the United States would rather watch a message about how sacred life is than watch half naked anorexic barbie dolls drooling over a guy because of the beer bottle in his hand.

Technorati Tags: voting,tolerance,marriage,abortion,rights,NBC,commercials,Super Bowl,conservative

Who Do the Legislators Represent?

2009-01-28T19:55:00.001-08:00

“For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”

While I agree with the last sentence of this quote, the rest of it is quite troublesome. It is time that we make sure that our vote counts… and how do we do that? By letting our legislators know that they represent the people, not the lobbyists or liberal agenda. If they do not uphold our vote, then it is our responsibility to vote them out of office.

You can read the entire article here.

Technorati Tags: marriage,voting,traditional marriage,rights,legislators,congressmen,prop 8,proposition 8

Obama’s “New” Ideas

2009-01-22T19:08:00.001-08:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

If you have problems viewing the video, you can watch it from Comedy Central’s website here.

Technorati Tags: obama,voting,rights,tolerance,freedom

Obama Shows His True Agenda

2009-01-22T18:55:00.001-08:00

Updated just minutes after the inauguration, the new Obama White House website declares "we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," instantly jeopardizing the marriage laws of 45 states, including constitutional amendments in 30 states where voters have recently acted to give marriage the greatest protection possible at the state level.

Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama's policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

Go Viral:
Use this link to write our representatives in Congress.
http://www.domadefensefund.com/c.loJQIPOtErH/b.4868969/k.90F5/Take_Action/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?msource=EC0901NAT004&tr=y&auid=4426151

Go! Write! Email! Post on Facebook, mention it on Twitter, Do whatever you can to get the message out. The only way to stop the repeal of DOMA is through a massive groundswell of grassroots involvement.

Technorati Tags: prop 8,marriage,DOMA,voting,rights,tolerance,freedom,family,obama,traditional marriage,grassroots,constitution

Common Sense – A Good Man

2009-01-20T08:55:00.001-08:00

My parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years but less and less as time passed by until today I read his obituary. Please join me in a moment of silence in remembrance, for Common Sense had served us all so well for so many generations.

Obituary - Common Sense
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentions but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a class mate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Aspirin, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student; but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Author Unknown

Technorati Tags: prop 8,rights,common sense,marriage,voting,tolerance

Time to Take Action

2009-01-16T16:30:00.001-08:00

It is time to write letters to the California Supreme Court letting them know why they should uphold OUR VOTE.

There are pre-fab letters out there, but I think it would be best if you took a few minutes and wrote out, in your own words, why you think the Supreme Court should uphold our vote.

I know I’ve already commented on this, but I will tell the Supreme Court that the people have voted on this issue TWICE, both times they have voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage. It is time to stop being “politically correct” and starting standing up for what is right.

You can send your letters to:

Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the
Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Technorati Tags: prop 8,letter to editor,marriage,rights,voting

Priorities

2009-01-12T13:08:00.001-08:00

The economy is bad, schools are hurting everywhere, and budget cuts are a necessity, but in Massachusetts, funding for the gay agenda is untouchable. This story really illustrates how serious the gay lobby is, and how complicit educators are in getting our children indoctrinated with this agenda in our schools.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=376924

Technorati Tags: prop 8,marriage,family,tolerance,voting

Government of the People, By the People, For the People

2008-12-19T20:50:00.000-08:00

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

The First Step

2008-12-12T11:14:00.000-08:00

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

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.

Time to Make YOUR Vote Count

2008-12-11T12:35:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

Though many of us are tired after a long battle to initially pass Proposition 8, it is apparent that it will take more energy and effortto continue to defend the laws that protect our families. May we remind our elected officials of Abraham Lincoln's desire "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" that includes California.

Where Did the Money Really Come From?

2008-12-05T13:30:00.000-08:00

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 Need to Keep Our Voices Heard

2008-12-01T21:21:00.001-08:00

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!

eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services

2008-11-25T07:49:00.000-08:00

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."

Forget Democracy, We Want Anarchy

2008-11-20T14:27:00.000-08:00

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

NO talk of judges recall

2008-11-19T20:57:00.000-08:00

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

Petition to Governor Schwarzenegger: Respect the Voters' Will on Prop 8

2008-11-19T10:00:00.000-08:00

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.

The Right To Win

2008-11-18T22:32:00.000-08:00

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.

The Value of Work

2008-11-13T21:56:00.000-08:00

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!

Endure to the End

2008-11-13T20:21:00.000-08:00

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.

Elton John: Where Prop 8 went wrong

2008-11-13T19:50:00.000-08:00

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."

Going Viral

2008-11-12T20:38:00.000-08:00

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

It's Not Over

2008-11-07T16:29:00.000-08:00

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?

THANK YOU

2008-11-04T20:49:00.000-08:00

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!!!

Vote - Vote - Vote - Vote!

2008-11-04T16:15:00.000-08:00

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

Only two more days...

2008-11-03T00:14:00.000-08:00

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."

Whose Rights Are Being Taken Away?

2008-10-29T14:17:00.000-07:00

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

Prop 8 vandalism / theft

2008-10-28T15:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-28T14:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

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.

Hate in the Name of Love

2008-10-27T21:23:00.000-07:00

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?

powerful letter to CTA president David Sanchez

2008-10-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

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

Disagree but don't be unkind

2008-10-25T20:41:00.000-07:00

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.

PUBLISHED!!

2008-10-25T18:35:00.000-07:00

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!

Is gay marriage a civil right?

2008-10-25T07:39:00.001-07:00

A Defense of Traditional Marriage

2008-10-24T16:31:00.000-07:00

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.

"Coming Out Day" in California Elementary Schools

2008-10-24T13:34:00.000-07:00

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

Hilarious Prop 8 video

2008-10-23T15:13:00.000-07:00

experience of a "Yes on 8" sign-placer

2008-10-20T23:09:00.000-07:00

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

CTA opposes Prop 8... what about the teachers?

2008-10-20T22:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-20T21:09:00.001-07:00

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 Activists' Agenda

2008-10-17T22:06:00.000-07:00

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/

Scathing Letter to GLBT from a Gay Couple

2008-10-17T16:38:00.000-07:00

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

Activism can be entertaining!

2008-10-15T22:04:00.001-07:00

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!

Make My Vote Count

Protect Marriage

Support Prop 8

2008-10-15T19:32:00.000-07:00

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.

tolerance. how is that spelled?

2008-10-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

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/

Proposition 8 in plain english

2008-10-13T19:56:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-13T07:41:00.000-07:00

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

Comic Relief

2008-10-12T19:33:00.000-07:00

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!

What are the Benefits of Marriage?

2008-10-12T14:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Not Just a Conservative Issue

2008-10-09T16:49:00.000-07:00

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.''

Minority Rules?

2008-10-08T17:49:00.000-07:00

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?

If you can think of any more examples, please add them. If you disagree with me, please comment. If you agree with me, please comment. Get the hint here? PLEASE COMMENT. I want to discuss this with people, and not necessarily those who view my same opinion. Let's discuss this because I think it's one of the major reasons people don't vote. Why do I need to vote if the courts are going to prove me wrong? Why do I need to vote if those who lose are going to fight it? WHY DO I NEED TO VOTE? (Hint... look at the posts below. Look at the ads on the side banner. Look at the links. There's a lot riding on one vote - YOUR vote.)

California power company opposing marriage amendment!

2008-10-08T13:07:00.000-07:00

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.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION!

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.

presidential puppets

2008-10-07T07:59:00.000-07:00

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...

Early recognition of potential financial crisis

2008-10-04T16:56:00.001-07:00

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...

Glenn Beck - Fortune teller or Pessimist?

2008-10-03T14:34:00.000-07:00

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

VP debate weigh-in

2008-10-02T23:46:00.000-07:00

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??

kindergarteners and same-sex marriage video

2008-10-01T21:37:00.000-07:00

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.

What's on the Ballot in November?

2008-10-01T18:09:00.000-07:00

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

Why Prop 8?

2008-09-30T18:57:00.000-07:00

I like how this clearly states the reasoning behind Prop 8, and why it is so important to vote YES...

The Issue:

California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, legalizing same-sex marriage.

The Consequences:

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

The Solution:

Vote YES on Proposition 8 to overturn the outrageous Supreme Court decision and restore the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters. Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.

Passing Proposition 8 protects our children and places into the Constitution the simple definition that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

from www.ProtectMarriage.com

Add My Badge to Your Blog

2008-09-30T17:36:00.000-07:00

Copy and paste the html code below into a new html/javascript widget on your blog.

<a href="http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com"> <img alt="voting" src="http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv225/pseudospeedy/MMVCBadge.jpg" border="0" </img></a>

HAPPY BLOGGING!!!!

hello out there!

2008-09-29T13:51:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone! I'm Heather's cousin, Heidi. I'm excited to help contribute to her blog! I'm patriotic, somewhat conservative, and I love ice cream. I've become involved in the grassroots campaign to support Prop 8, through gathering information door-to-door (that was interesting...), entering data, and spreading the word to vote this November! Check out the Protect Marriage website to learn more, or stay tuned for future posts!

Never say "No" when you need to say "Yes"

2008-09-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

In my quest to find answers as to why we need to vote, I found this quote from a website that I think does a good job of summing up why we need to vote.

"Never say “No” when you need to say “Yes”. Everyone wants to see their children to have better future and voting helps a lot. There is no wrong in showing and acting on what you believe as long as you know that you are making the right decision without a doubt. Be Proud of yourself because you are given the chance to vote for the right."

Why Do I Need to Vote?

2008-09-26T21:51:00.001-07:00

I'm not Catholic, but this video is definitely a "must see". It takes only a few minutes and explains in pictures, words and music why it is important that we must VOTE and get our friends and family members out to VOTE.

http://catholicvote.com

Your Vote Counts

2008-09-26T16:08:00.000-07:00

In the June 2008 Primary Election in California, 23,033,970 people were eligible to vote. 16,123,787 people voted. That means that 6,910,183 people who were eligible to vote in California DID NOT.

Does My Vote Really Matter?

If you don’t like the outcome, go to court…

You don’t agree with me, therefore, you are a bigot…

The Ant and The Grasshopper – Two Stories

Freedom of Speech being threatened yet again…

If I’m Not Happy, No One Can Be Happy

As California Goes, So Goes the Rest of the Country…

Words of Wisdom

The Truth Behind Signing Petitions

Making Sure Our Vote Counts…

Harvey Milk Day

Drop Homosexual Activist from Education Department

Does My Vote Really Matter?

YES!

my favorite part of protesting...

GLAD Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government

State Legislators Didn’t Listen to Our Vote

First NBC, Now CNN Rejects Pro-Life Ad

Time to Make YOUR Vote Count

Are We A Socialist Society?

Court Date Set for Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Regarding Prop 8

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for Deputy Attorney General

Sacked by the Mainstream Media

Who Do the Legislators Represent?

Obama’s “New” Ideas

Obama Shows His True Agenda

Common Sense – A Good Man

Time to Take Action

Priorities

Government of the People, By the People, For the People

The First Step

Time to Make YOUR Vote Count

Where Did the Money Really Come From?

The Need to Keep Our Voices Heard

eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services

Forget Democracy, We Want Anarchy

NO talk of judges recall

Petition to Governor Schwarzenegger: Respect the Voters' Will on Prop 8

The Right To Win

The Value of Work

Endure to the End

Elton John: Where Prop 8 went wrong

Going Viral

It's Not Over

THANK YOU

Vote - Vote - Vote - Vote!

Only *two* more days...

Whose Rights Are Being Taken Away?

Prop 8 vandalism / theft

Donations needed to increase advertising power

Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth

Hate in the Name of Love

powerful letter to CTA president David Sanchez

Disagree but don't be unkind

PUBLISHED!!

Is gay marriage a civil right?

A Defense of Traditional Marriage

"Coming Out Day" in California Elementary Schools

Hilarious Prop 8 video

experience of a "Yes on 8" sign-placer

CTA opposes Prop 8... what about the teachers?

Calling all Citizens of San Diego

The Activists' Agenda

Scathing Letter to GLBT from a Gay Couple

Activism can be entertaining!

Support Prop 8

tolerance. how is that spelled?

Proposition 8 in plain english

From the Other Side

Comic Relief

What are the Benefits of Marriage?

Not Just a Conservative Issue

Minority Rules?

California power company opposing marriage amendment!

presidential puppets

Early recognition of potential financial crisis

Glenn Beck - Fortune teller or Pessimist?

VP debate weigh-in

kindergarteners and same-sex marriage video

What's on the Ballot in November?

Only two more days...