The Truth Behind Signing Petitions

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…

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

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

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?

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...

... all the creative signs!

GLAD Files Lawsuit Against Federal Government

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

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

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

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