Friday, October 31, 2008

Proposition 8 and Equal Rights from a Child's Perspective

Two people love each other, derive happiness from being together, and want to raise a family together. They want to join in marriage. Are all unions created equal? Proponents of gay marriage say yes. If marriage has no gender, then the answer would have to be yes. But marriage has always had a gender component. If you remove the gender from marriage, you create a civil union, but you destroy the concept of marriage.

Judges created gay marriage. Popular opinion did not. Nature did not.

Under the prior law, all people were treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. The law did not confer anything which nature did not. And every child at least had the theoretical right to a father and mother.

Under the current state of the law, marriage means a union of two people, not the union of a man and woman. Marriage is neutered.

Those who vote No on Proposition 8 will take gender out of marriage. This will mean that children will not have a legal right to a father and a mother. Children will not be treated equally. Some will get two mothers, some two fathers, and some will get one of each.

Nature never intended that. The law should not be in the position of telling children that they do not have a natural right to be raised by a loving mother and father in a marriage. We live in an imperfect world and situations occur all the time when children must be raised without a mother or father, and are better off than the alternative. But this is the result of problems in our imperfect world--problems which people should work to solve together. Ideally, our laws should not set be designed to create a situation in which a child has no right to be raised by a mother and father.

This does not deny the love that gay partners have for each other, or suggest in any way that they may not make wonderful parents. But to say that this relationship is identical to a traditional gender marriage ignores the reality of gender. Perhaps unfortunately, nature created people with gender. Gender causes lots of blessings and also a few challenges. Judicially declaring marriage to be free of gender may end up causing more problems than it solves.

[Originally posted here.]

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Prop 8 Contributions

You can see all Prop 8 contributors (both for and against) here.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Prop 8 Commercial - What is the Harm of SSM?

This is one of the better commercials I have seen for Proposition 8. I anticipate that the No Crowd will simply dismiss it as "lies" as they have throughout the campaign. Please No Crowd let's be intellectually honest. Is it really your position that life will go on as normal and nothing will change when SSM becomes the norm?

The No Crowd's Illegal Act's in My Neighborhood

This week every Yes on 8 sign in my neighborhood (approximately 20) was torn to shreds, no doubt some kind and tolerant individual from the No Crowd paid his respects to free speech in this manner which has become so typical for the compassionate SSM advocates. Each sign was replaced or taped back together the next day. The hypocrisy of Prop 8's opponents is so ironic.

Have You Thought About What SSM Means?

Teachers, What Will You Do if Prop 8 is Defeated?

Don't Confuse Children - Vote Yes on Prop 8

Sunday, October 26, 2008

More Vandalism by the No Crowd

See the video and read the article here.

I appreciate the No Crowd's spokesperson in the video who recognizes that everyone is entitled to free speech. It is unfortunate that anyone on the Yes or No side would commit illegal acts against those who hold opposite views on the issue.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Friday, October 24, 2008

When Did Our Biggest Concern About SSM Become the Potential Consequences in Public Schools?

Both sides of the Prop 8 fence have been focusing on the potential consequences of SSM on public school children. The Yes side argues that if Prop 8 fails, the public schools will start teaching that SSM is normal and on par with traditional marriage. The No Crowd argues that SSM will not be taught in public schools and that SSM will have no effect whatsoever on public school children. I agree that the potential for normalizing SSM through public school curricula is a concern, but why is that the only consequence of which the Yes side is complaining? I have a few others that I believe merit more attention.

First, SSM is contrary to natural law. Our entire system of government is based on natural law. The U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence were all derived from natural law. To accept and legitimize SSM vanquishes the foundation on which our culture and laws reside. When this happens we will have no foundation. Our society will become a rule of man rather than a rule of law and we will lose our liberties.

Second, SSM is immoral. Why is nobody talking about this? Homosexual acts are wrong, period. There is no moral relativity. There is right and wrong. By recasting their acts as "fundamental rights" and "civil rights" the No Crowd attempts to take the higher ground, but you can call "debauchery" "virtue" all you want, but it will always be debauchery.

Third, a society that accepts, advocates, and builds-up SSM will not survive. History has proven this time and time again. It is self-destructive. Do we look back at the Greeks and Romans with admiration for their tolerance of homosexual relationships? Or do we wonder how those cultures came to the point of encouraging such relationships even though it meant their demise? Do we want to model our society after Sodom and Gomorrah? Or do we want to avoid that same fate?

Fourth, SSM will eventually destroy real fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and association and parental and children's rights. SSM proponents will not be satisfied with being treated "equally" regarding marriage. Instead, they will next attempt to silence any opposition to their degeneracy, which will result in persecution of those whose faith or reason will not permit accepting SSM as equal to traditional marriage.

Fifth, SSM is unfair to children. Everyone knows that children should have a father and a mother. Every study ever made has demonstrated that a family environment where a father and mother who love each other are present is the best environment for children. SSM cannot ever provide such a foundation to raise children. Instead, children raised in SSM households will be more likely to have gender confusion and an inability to recognize right from wrong.

Sixth, only traditional marriage can produce children. The true family unit, therefore, is the only unit that makes and preserves a society. SSM, on the other hand, destroys it. SSM produces no children, and therefore, is an institution that is destined to implode.

There are many more reasons why SSM is harmful and wrong, but I wanted to touch upon only a few here. Please feel free to share your thoughts on other reasons and I'll be happy to post them here.

Proposition 8 and Parental Rights

Proposition 8 is about a lot of things including preserving freedom of religion, speech, and association, but parental rights are also on the line if Proposition 8 does not pass.

Here is what the United States Supreme Court said in 2000 in the case of Troxel v. Granville: "Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course."

Thus, parental rights are based on "Western civilization concepts of the family" i.e., one man and one woman who come together to raise children. This is the family. When those concepts are no longer the legal definition of the family in this nation, then the foundation upon which parental rights are based is completely removed.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

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

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.

More here.

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

More here.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

More Intolerance from the No Crowd

For the past three days, Michele and Bob Sundstrom and their five children have been painfully aware of the SUV parked in front of their house with a message painted on the rear windshield that says: "Bigots live here."

Their neighborhood near Blossom Hill Road has suddenly become the center of a political tempest over Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.

More here.

Proposition 8 in Plain English

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Party A and Party B

Info for Teachers Who Want To Get Out of the CTA

Suburban Frontier left the following comment which I thought was important enough to make a blog entry.

"I know 2 teachers who have decided to withdraw membership from the [CTA] because of [its contributing more than $1 million to fight Prop 8]. Teachers interested in leaving the union can get more info on how to get some of their $ back here:"

Monday, October 20, 2008

Yes Prop 8 Commercial - Gay Marriage Will Be Taught in Our Schools

See the latest Yes Proposition 8 Commercial here.

The No Crowd's Intolerance for Free Speech

Another glaring example of the No Crowd's intolerance for free speech. Even if you don't agree with the message, you must give the messenger the freedom to state his views on political issues. If Proposition 8 does not pass, you can guarantee that any viewpoint that espouses classical virtue and traditional morality will be stampeded any time it arises. Unfortunately, it is the state funded schools that encourage and propagate the No Crowd's hate.

This week, American River College students will be asked to recall nine student leaders who endorsed a state ballot measure making same-sex marriage illegal, sending the suburban Sacramento campus into an uproar.

In politics, a recall usually marks the end of the story. In this instance, the brouhaha over Proposition 8 and recall vote likely only mark a chapter break in an ongoing battle between a group of politicized Christian fundamentalists and the campus's left-of-center faction, both sides say.

More here.

Question Regarding CTA's $1 Million Donation

A friend recently asked the following rhetorical question regarding CTA's $1 Million donation to defeat Proposition 8:

"Gay marriage denies kids a fair education. Why shouldn't the CTA subsidize it?"

Friday, October 17, 2008

300 signs supporting Proposition 8 stolen from Chino Hills church

Surprise surprise. The preachers of tolerance strike once again. And yes, I am assuming that it was someone from the No Crowd who stole them.

CHINO HILLS - About 300 signs supporting Proposition 8 were stolen Tuesday from the St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church courtyard.

The signs - which were piled loosely in the courtyard at 14085 Peyton Drive - were there for parishioners to take home to place in their yards, said Josie Dumdum, St. Paul the Apostle director of ministries.

"We don't know who (the thieves) are," Dumdum said. "But they must be against the proposition to pick them up."

More here.

The Courts vs. Marriage

In 2005, Connecticut enacted “civil unions,” designed to be marriage in everything but name for same-sex couples. We are not sure what good purpose is served by such laws. The reason governments recognize marriage in the first place is to promote the well-being of children in the setting most conducive to their flourishing. There may or may not be great value in other types of relationships: those between friends, or heterosexual lovers, or relatives who take care of each other. But why should the government grant recognition to one subset of those non-marital relationships — those between people of the same sex who are sexually involved? What goal does such recognition serve? Other, that is, than the legitimization of homosexual conduct?

More here.

Equal Rights A Weak Argument for Redefining Marriage

Stephen Silva’s recent column (“A right means we can choose”) contains what has become a typical argumentative move by those advocating one’s right to marry a member of the same sex: the assertion that homosexuals are not granted the “equal” rights that heterosexuals enjoy. (The necessity of scare quotes will quickly become apparent.) It is this move that gives the homosexual marriage advocacy argument its urgency, and, without commenting on whether homosexual marriage is desirable (my opinion on that matter is irrelevant to the issue I wish to raise here), I’d like to propose that this argument does not rest on ground as solid as its proponents would like it to be.

More here.

Proposition 8: Who's Really Lying?

A good question that is easily answered by the amicus briefs submitted by the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Anti-Defamation League in the Massachusetts lawsuit involving the "King and King" incident. These, of course, are the same organizations that would tell you that the defeat of Proposition 8 will have no affect on public school children. For example, in the ACLU's amicus brief that glorious organization states:

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

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

Who's really lying?

More here.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

CTA Gives Another $1 Million to Oppose Proposition 8

You gotta love California's largest teacher's union. They originally gave $250,000 a couple of months ago to the No on 8 campaign. Now they've given another million.

Read about it here.

I especially love this page on the CTA's website. Funny that the CTA asks for families to get involved, recognizing that the family is the key to a child's receiving a good education, but at the same time works to destroy the family.

If there is one thing that is clear, the CTA is not concerned about public school children or education in general.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

School Trustee Pushes for Support of Proposition 8

Personally I don't think it is the place of a school district to make a resolution on a political matter. I would rather a school district stick to making sure the children in its schools are learning how to read and write. Nonetheless, with the LAUSD coming out against Proposition 8, it is nice to see that not every school district is saturated with the No Crowd.

VISTA ---- A Vista Unified School District board member wants the panel to take a stand this week in the debate over same-sex marriage, but not everyone on the board thinks it should chime in on the issue.

Board President Jim Gibson has asked the trustees to pass a resolution at Thursday's board meeting supporting Proposition 8, the initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

More here.

Proposition 8 Is Only the Beginning for California: The Problem With Permitting SSM...Anywhere

This article illustrates one of the problems with SSM - what happens when a gay couple who was legally married elsewhere demands the benefits afforded married couples in a state that does not allow SSM?

Make no mistake - Proposition 8 is only the beginning of this struggle.

NY court hears appeal in same-sex marriage case

By Joseph Spector • Journal Albany bureau • October 15, 2008

ALBANY — A state appeals court heard arguments today on whether New York can give equal benefits to same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions.

The case comes from a decision by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer in May 2007 to let gay couples married out of state and employed by the state receive health benefits for their families.

A group of taxpayers represented by the anti-gay-marriage group Alliance Defense Fund sued, but a lower court ruled earlier this year in favor of the state Department of Civil Service, which manages the benefits.

More here.

You've Been Warned...Many Times

The Alliance Defense Fund posted this warning message in 2005. At the time, SSM proponents made many of the same arguments to this warning as they are now making against the Yes campaign's warnings regarding the potential consequences of Proposition 8 - namely, that it is merely a "lie" and "will not happen." Then, they turned around and used civil unions as the foundation for their lawsuits in California and Connecticut to redefine marriage.

Let's make sure to listen to our conscience this November and pass Proposition 8. Our freedom of religion, speech, and association are all on the line.

Civil Unions: Trojan Horse to Conquer Marriage
ADF, 4.15.2005

Civil unions and the litigation strategy that could be used to conquer marriage. Is your
state legislature taking the bait? Consider the following:

Legal Theory

Citing Lawrence v. Texas, the ACLU has argued and several state and federal courts have held
that a law justified by moral disapproval alone cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

A recent California Superior Court decision further demonstrates how civil unions undermine the state’s interest in preserving marriage: “[T]hat California has granted marriage-like rights to
same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them
the rites of marriage as well.”

Litigation Scenario:

1. State X passes a state constitutional marriage amendment which is upheld by state courts.
The amendment does not prohibit civil unions.

2. The legislature in State X then passes a civil unions law which grants all the rights of marriage
to same sex couples. (This gives the ACLU grounds in federal litigation)

3. The ACLU files a federal lawsuit alleging that the state constitutional marriage amendment
violates the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU argues that the only distinction between civil unions and marriage under state law is in name only. Therefore, the failure to grant same sex marriage must be based on mere moral disapproval which is unconstitutional per Lawrence v. Texas. By
allowing civil unions the state legislature has effectively undermined its legal interest in preserving marriage as a unique institution.

Imposing San Francisco Values On First-Graders

Well said Maggie.

. . . . Right. What do gay marriage advocates think public schools should teach about marriage if gay marriage is the law of the land? Could we have a reasonably honest discussion please about what you have in store for California’s first-graders?

Instead of standing their ground and defending their moral views, gay marriage advocates are simply pretending to voters that legalizing gay marriage won’t affect anyone else at all . . .

More here.

Media stunned by scope of grassroot support for Cal. marriage amendment, Proposition 8

News Media At A Loss For Words

by Sonja Eddings Brown - Deputy Communications Director on October 15th, 2008

Honestly, the news media is at a bit of a loss. It’s hard to write bad news about something that is so clearly a big success. Several reporters were so skeptical that a “million lawn sign grassroots effort” would really materialize. We could easily have used two million! So many supporters are calling in trying to get more signs, more bumper stickers, more wave signs, that the campaign is hustling to meet demand.

More here.

Contributions For and Against Proposition 8

Newsy numbers in the Proposition 8 scramble

Here's some fun with numbers, courtesy of the campaigns for and against Proposition 8 campaigns.

The last financial report from ProtectMarriage.Com, the main group backing the ban on same-sex marriage, was so long that the secretary of state's Web site went "Tilt" like a pinball machine when the Prop. 8 supporters tried to upload it. It took a couple of days before Sacramento techno-geeks could get the report to play nice with the state's software.

More here.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Organized Prop 8 Sign Stealing

We have been informed that beginning [last] weekend, 10/10/08, Democrat union activists will be dispatched statewide to collect and remove as many political signs as possible for Republican candidates and Propositions that they do not support. This includes any "Yes on 8" materials or yard signs that they can get their hands on.

This activity is highly illegal. The California Republican Party is filing formal complaints with various District Attorney Offices across the state starting 10/7/08. These complaints also include activities where individuals supporting Republican candidates, voter registration drives and Prop 8 supporters have been harassed, attacked and physically assaulted. In some extreme cases, the voter registration cards were stolen from individuals under allegations that the signature gatherers were engaging in identity theft as a result of asking individuals to complete the voter registration forms.

More here.

More Harassment from the Prop 8 No Crowd

Letter: Prop. 8 election signs stolen

Editor: It seems that not all people have equal standing in our community.

This Sunday morning I discovered that all "Yes on Proposition 8" signs were stolen in our area. Fifteen signs were taken from residences on East North Bear Creek and East Olive Avenue between G Street and McKee Road as well as in White Gate Estates.

Someone seems to feel that we don't have a right to show our support for Marriage between a man and a woman. Since the signs were on private property, whoever took the signs is guilty of trespassing and theft.

More here.

Prop. 8 Supporter Violently Attacked for Distributing Lawn Signs

Unbelievable. The intolerance of the No Crowd is astounding. But those who support traditional marriage are somehow the bigots and haters, right? Laughable really.

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

Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while waiting to distribute yard signs to other supporters of the initiative after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.

More here.

Latest No Prop 8 Commercial - A Hypocritical Misrepresentation

You've probably seen the latest commercial produced by the No Crowd asking voters to help keep government out of all of our lives. When I first saw this I couldn't help myself but think "so hypocritical."

It is the No Crowd who has forced the government into this issue. SSM is not a natural right with which every human soul is born. Instead, it is a judicially created man-made right. The "right" to SSM has never existed prior to judicial intervention, nor could it because it is prohibited by natural law. As Thomas Aquinas recognized, any man-made law that contradicts the natural law is void at its inception.

It was the No Crowd who sought the government's help through the courts to destroy traditional marriage. It is the No Crowd who filed lawsuits as an attack to traditional families.

We who support Proposition 8 are reacting the only way we can - by fighting fire with fire. The No Crowd used the Judicial branch to undermine marriage. We are using the Legislative branch to restore that which is recognized by natural law and which the people already proclaimed to be the law.

Thus, please see the commercial posted below for what it is: a hypocritical misrepresentation. We are happy to leave homosexuals alone and let them live their lives. We have no intent to prevent them from exercising their free will. The No Crowd, however, is not satisfied with our tolerance. Now they require that we accept and condone what we consider to be wrong - and they have used the government to force us to do it.

Make your voice heard. Let's really keep the government out of our lives by passing Proposition 8.

Monday, October 13, 2008

SSM Propaganda And Public School Children

For anyone who doubts that SSM either (1) will not be taught in public schools as the equivalent of traditional marriage or (2) will not influence what public school children are taught about marriage in general, just read this article from the SF Chronicle.

Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."

It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."

No Nolan - marriage is much more, much, much more. Unfortunately your delicate little mind has been inundated with lies and you and every other child in the public school system will have little chance to learn and grow up with a proper sense of right and wrong if California doesn't stop this insanity.

Let's pass Prop 8 and protect traditional marriage and the values that made this country great.

Video of Lesbian Teachers' Wedding With First Graders Onlooking

See it here.

Yes on 8 Campaign Fights Desperate Attempt of Opponents To Stop Airing of Truthful Commercials

by Frank Schubert - Campaign Manager on October 11th, 2008

Now trailing in the polls, the No on 8 campaign is desperately trying to stop voters from hearing the truth about the many consequences to Californians of the state Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. They have written to television stations asking the stations to refuse to air our powerful new ad that recounts how gay marriage was taught to Massachusetts second graders after that state legalized same-sex marriage. Unless Proposition 8 is enacted, students in California public schools will also be taught about gay marriage.

More here.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

No Crowd Intolerance

The hate and anti-civil rights found in many of the "No on 8" campaign supporters seems to have boiled over for at least one resident of Union City. Last week, the home of a good friend of ours was irreversibly vandalized by his neighbor. The neighbor, a resident of Union City living on Queen Anne Court, took his power tools to our friend's side of a hedge of trees planted along their bordering property line. The action was brought on by anger for a sign our friend had placed in the hedge supporting Prop 8. He removed the sign and proceeded to cut down the half of the hedges on our friend's lot in an attempt to prevent him from putting up the sign again.

More here.

School takes 1st-graders to see lesbian teacher wed

Appalling. Yet, the No Crowd will continue to tell everyone that we have nothing to worry about and that the Yes Crowd is simply lying when we discuss the possibility of SSM being taught in public schools.

A public school in San Francisco bused 18 first-graders to City Hall yesterday, so the youngsters could scatter rose petals in celebration of their lesbian teacher's wedding.

More here.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Civil Unions: The recipe to redefine marriage

The Price of Being Nice [Matthew J. Franck]

Maggie Gallagher had it right in The Corner regarding today's same-sex marriage ruling in Connecticut when she said, "The civil unions law there not only failed to protect marriage, it was used by gay marriage advocates to argue that marriage laws are unconstitutional."

More here.

Activists Judges Who Have No Understanding of Natural Law Once Again Redefine Marriage

Conn. High Court Rules Same-Sex Couples Can Marry

The Associated Press
October 10, 2008

Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, Conn., who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

More here


The next stage in litigating same-sex marriage.
by Robert F. Nagel
10/13/2008, Volume 014, Issue 05

As odd as it may sound, when the California Supreme Court recently declared that prohibitions against homosexual marriage violate the state's constitution, the justices acknowledged, in effect, that relatively little was at stake in the case. As the court said, California's domestic partnership law already extended to same-sex couples "all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated .  .  . with the institution of marriage." Thus the forms of discrimination that gay rights advocates usually complain about-involving, for instance, the right to hospital visitation, the provision of health care benefits, parental rights, and so on-were not at issue. What was at issue was whether the state could use the term "domestic partnerships" when referring to same-sex couples while using "marriage" when referring to heterosexual couples.

More here.

What Was Really Taken Away

October 10, 2008

In today's Political Diary

California Pops the Question

Opponents of California's anti-gay marriage proposition have been playing hardball. Back in July, Attorney General Jerry Brown reworded the ballot measure to indicate an attempt to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," which supporters complained cast it in a harsh and negative light. Their preferred wording described Proposition 8 simply as reinstating in the state constitution a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Now supporters are hitting back with a new ad campaign that looks like it's having a significant effect. According to a survey conducted last week for CBS, Prop. 8 has jumped out to a five-point lead, just 11 days after being down by the same margin.

A big reason appears to be a promotional effort by the National Organization for Marriage that reminds voters that a previous 2000 ballot initiative had been supported by 61% of voters but was overturned by "four activist judges" last May. The ad campaign also emphasizes the heavy-handed approach used by same-sex marriage supporters. One ad features San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying same-sex marriage is here "whether you like it or not."

Referendums are notoriously difficult to poll, and the numbers are likely to remain volatile. But the "take it or leave it" attitude of the State Supreme Court, as well as Attorney General Brown and Mayor Newsom, seems to have handed Prop. 8's supporters a powerful rhetoric weapon. Mr. Brown wanted voters to interpret the proposition as taking something away. NOM's new campaign argues that what was really taken away is Californians' right to vote for policies they support.

-- Brian M. Carney

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Yes Prop 8 Signs Are Here

This afternoon I helped deliver about 4,000 Yes Proposition 8 yard signs to various grassroots leaders. If you want one you can get one easily from your zip code coordinator.

$$$ Raised by the Yes and No Campaigns

More than $46 million in campaign contributions have poured into the struggle over the November ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in California, and more money is on the way.

More here.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Great New Pro-Prop 8 Website

Check out, a great new website where you can get plenty of information, videos, email updates, etc. on Proposition 8.

Most Recent Yes Proposition 8 Commercial

See it here.

Sex Education

Although he's discussing it in the context of the presidential race, Thomas Sowell addresses an issue relevant to the campaign for Proposition 8. Excerpt:

"Many Americans would consider sex education for kindergartners to be absurd but there is more to it than that.

"What is called "sex education," whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities.

"Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early start."

More here.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Poll - Yes on Prop 8 5 Points Ahead

See the recent poll by CBS 5. According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents.

Read about it here.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Prop 8 - Fighting Against the Demographic Winter

I saw a fascinating trailer today of a documentary film called "Demographic Winter." The film concerns the decline of the human family, that is, the declining birth rate in the world's developed nations which is fostered by increased sexuality outside the bonds of traditional marriage. The consequences of the decline of the human family are dire.

Watch the trailer here and make your own conclusions.

LAUSD Against Prop 8

Why is a teacher's union taking a public position on Proposition 8? Shouldn't LAUSD be concerned more with why the children who attend its schools get one of the worst educations in the world?

A hearing on Proposition 8 today by a joint panel of the state Senate and Assembly judiciary committees became heated when proponents of both sides of the issue spoke on the issue, whether in turn or out of turn. Prop 8 seeks to eliminate gay marriage in California. The most interesting comment from the event was from the Los Angeles Unified School District, whose board voted against the prop last month. "We cannot support a proposition that promotes divisiveness and inequality," Judy Chiasson of the school district's Office of Human Relations and Diversity. The Daily News reported that "She dismissed arguments by initiative supporters that children would be taught about same-sex marriage in kindergarten. Those students learn shapes and colors and are taught to be nice to each other, not about who their parents should or shouldn't be."

Post found here.

California Orthodox Christian Bishops in Support of Prop 8

I appreciate the Bishops' appeal to "natural law." Proposition 8 truly is a protection of those principles on which liberty is founded.

The decision of the California Supreme Court on May 15, 2008, unilaterally redefines the sacred institution of marriage in a manner unprecedented in human history — and alien to our Christian tradition. We, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, were saddened by this decision which constitutes a direct attack upon the longstanding role and freedom of religion in American life. A majority of the justices declared not only that same-sex couplings must be allowed to exist at those couples’ discretion as “marriages,” but that the state of California is forbidden to refer to these couplings as anything but “marriages.”

More here.

SMS and Public Schools

Think it won't happen? Think again. As explained by a friend of mine:

"Perhaps the most common objection to Proposition 8 goes something like this: "If a same-sex couple wants to marry, let them. It doesn't affect you." As the video linked below powerfully shows, it DOES affect you. The Family Research Council explains:

"'In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington [Massachusetts] elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class. At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. He later filed a civil rights action against the school district that was dismissed by Judge Mark L. Wolf (federal district court). The dismissal was affirmed in Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).' (Source:

"In the video, David and Tonya Parker describe how their kindergartener came home one day with a "diversity book bag" including the book "Who's in a Family?" The book introduces the topic of same-sex partners, presenting them as an equally acceptable family form. The Parkers requested parental notification and opt-out rights. The school refused, claiming that because same-sex marriage had been mandated by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, no notification was required, and the school would not provide opt-out rights. When David Parker said that that was unsatisfactory, the school had him arrested, handcuffed, and jailed.

"Remind me again: which side in this debate is intolerant?"

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Friday, October 3, 2008

Tolerance and Proposition 8

I received the following from a friend today.

If you've seen the television commercial supporting Proposition 8, you've seen Professor Richard Peterson explaining the consequences of failure. Proving his point, Professor Peterson is now the target of a nasty backlash, as explained in the message below. Isn't it interesting how the apostles of tolerance demonstrate such intolerance towards those who seek to protect traditional marriage? If California voters acquiesce to the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage, they will experience continued weakening of First Amendment rights (free exercise of religion, free speech) in favor of judicially-created "equal protection" rights. Statements like Professor Peterson's will be outlawed as hate speech -- but the hate in the debate isn't coming from him; it's directed toward him. The time for complacency is past.

"If you have watched the TV in the last two days, you may have seen the new Yes on Prop 8 commercial. (the one with Gavin Newsom). The professor from Pepperdine University who speaks on behalf of all of us in the commercial is a very close family close that I refer to him as "Uncle Richard". He does a fabulous job stating some key consequences of NOT passing prop 8.

"Since the commercial has aired Richard has been receiving literally hundreds of emails, some violent and very threatening from various gay groups and also some even from the faculty. His wife [] said that another well respected and prominent professor was supposed to do the commercial but was called away to Washington D.C. and unable to do it so they asked Richard if he would consider doing it. He said that he would but he had to clear it with" the powers that be" at Pepperdine first. He submitted the script to them and they said that they had no issues with it. Now with the backlash, as so often happens, they are not being very supportive. Richard thought that if there were some positive emails amid all the negative it would help.

"To help support this cause and those who speak out publicly as our voice for our stance... would you please email the head of the law department at Pepperdine, Ken Starr, and let him know how appreciative you are for their support in allowing Professor Richard Peterson to speak for all Prop 8 supporters? If you could please also contact your friends and other supporters and ask for their help in sending an email as well.

"Ken Starr's email is:

"After receiving this email about the backlash of his participation in this commercial, it confirmed to me again why we CANNOT be complacent as defenders of the Proclamation on the Family. It also gave me more insight as to the church's unprecedented and vigorous support of this issue. As we can see, many groups against prop 8 are VERY vocal and VERY pushy with their views and beliefs. Many of them are all for freedoms of speech, except when it contradicts their beliefs. I personally have seen many No on Prop 8 commercials and haven't thought once, "I am going to email those people and tell them I disagree with them through hateful speech and threats."

"We cannot allow our opponents on this issue bully us into submission and silence our own personal views for fear that we will receive similar backlash as Richard. We can not allow a loud minority to shape an intuition that means so much to the very core of our beliefs. We need to stand up and be counted. I give a lot of credit to Professor Richard Peterson and others who (at some cost) have chosen to stand up and be counted."

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Prop 8 Video: 4 vs. 4.3 million

Good Op-Ed Piece on Natural Law and Proposition 8

This article makes some excellent points. There are many libertarians and small government conservatives who support the California Supreme Court's ruling which created the right to gay marriage based on their libertarian beliefs, but they misunderstand libertarianism. It is contradictory for libertarians to support the use of government power to create rights which are not inherent and do not exist within natural law. The "right" to gay marriage is a creation of the human mind, not natural law, and imposed on the populace through government coercion and aggression. Thus, libertarians should be fighting heart and soul to return state governments to their proper role, i.e., the protection of inalienable/inherent/natural rights, by working to pass Proposition 8.

Libertarians Should Support Proposition 8

Jubal | 09/30/2008 5:51 PM

Although what became Proposition 8 was already moving toward the November ballot, what really thrust same-sex marriage to the forefront of California and national politics was the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision creating it. Since then I've been perplexed by the attitude of a number of Republicans and small "l" libertarians to the court's decision and the issue of same-sex marriage.

For example, the OC Register editorial page responded by expressing its support for the ruling, and Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr chimed in his approval.

It's astounding to me that any libertarian would applaud a such a naked exercise of government power. Four judges took it upon themselves to use their power to re-define the fundamental unit of civilization in opposition to what it has been throughout recorded history. Such deep social engineering by judicial diktat should appall libertarians, not merit their approval.

More here.