Tuesday, September 30, 2008
“They preach tolerance but give none”
Prop 8 campaigners run into more trouble, this time in Berkeley
News from the Trenches
(Editor’s Note: Last week, John Ritchie, who writes the Marriage Campaign Blog for the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), was kind enough to allow California Catholic Daily to reprint an item about an assault in Santa Rosa on TFP members touring California to show support for Proposition 8. Today, another report from Mr. Ritchie, this time from Berkeley.)
Sept. 8, 2008
Sather Gate, University of California – Berkeley
He looked at the flier and froze like a statue for a few long seconds. "Are you sure you know where you are?" asked the student. "Yes, of course," I answered as I passed out more fliers defending traditional marriage near Sather Gate. But he insisted: "No. You don't understand... Do you really, really know where you are? This is Berkeley! You are at UC Berkeley! I can't believe it."
The Forgotten Founding Document:
The Overlooked Legal Contribution of the Declaration of Independence
And California’s Opportunity to Revive It Through Proposition 8
A. Scott Loveless
In early November, eyes across the nation will focus not just on the outcome of the Presidential election, but also on an important proposed amendment to a state constitution, California’s Proposition 8. Just eight years ago, 62% of California’s voters passed a “citizens’ initiative” that declared marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, however, the California Supreme Court declared otherwise by a 4-3 vote. As in other states voting on similar amendments, this proposition is hotly contested because both its supporters and its opponents view their respective positions as morally compelling: gay rights advocates feel the amendment is discriminatory and would deny them their human rights; others see the amendment as necessary to block a movement that could reduce traditional marriage from its protected and privileged place as the major protection for children and the undergirding of society.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Last update: 1:51 p.m. EDT Sept. 29, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept 29, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Embargoed until 2 PM on 9/29/2008
The ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on Proposition 8 campaign released its first television advertisement of the campaign Monday, an ad titled "Whether You Like It or Not."
More of the article here.
See the commercial here.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 24, 7:19 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - Hundreds of pastors have called on their congregations to fast and pray for passage of a ballot measure in November that would put an end to gay marriage in California.
The collective act of piety, starting Wednesday and culminating three days before the election in a revival for as many as 100,000 people at the San Diego Chargers' stadium, comes as church leaders across California put people, money and powerful words behind Proposition 8.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
By Maggie Gallagher
October 21, 2005
Every society needs some social institution that channels the swirling erotic energies of young men and women towards each other, and towards generativity both in the negative sense (avoiding unwed childbearing) and the positive sense (encouraging babies). You need some way to tell men (and women) that fathers matter. In absence of some such powerful social institution, children suffer enormously, communities and societies are burdened with all kind of costs, government gets more deeply and intrusively involved in directing the details of family life. And yes, if the social institution weakens enough, the actual future of the society itself is threatened.
Sex makes babies. Society needs babies. Babies need mothers and fathers. This is the heart of marriage as a universal human idea.
SSM advocates instead demand we reshape this institution in law to be more equally affirming of adults' diverse intimacy needs. That is some people's idea of the great moral crusade of our time. Here's mine:
Children have a right to a society that respects their deep, passionate longing for a mother and a father; one that calls on adults to make significant sacrifices to satisfy this longing.
In the middle of a crisis of fatherlessness of unprecedented proportions, proposing to conduct this kind of legal experiment on marriage is not reasonable. It is not kind; it is not compassionate and it is not remotely just.
Read the entire thing here.
A scene at City Hall in San Francisco after Proposition 8 is defeated.
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not homosexuals."
"Not homosexuals? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But, just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not homosexuals?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to homosexual couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
September 19, 2008
Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
I. Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Create the Risk of Civil Suits Against Religious Institutions That Refuse to Treat Legally Married Same-Sex Couples as Morally Equivalent to Traditionally Married Men and Women
A. Religious institutions that reflect disapproval of same-sex marriage in their employment policies risk suits under employment anti-discrimination laws
B. Religious institutions that refuse to extend housing benefits to same-sex couples on terms identical to those offered to traditionally married men and women risk suits under fair housing laws
C. Religious institutions that refuse to extend their services or facilities to same-sex couples on terms identical to those offered traditionally married men and women risk suits under public accommodation laws
D. Religious institutions that publicly express their religious disapproval of same-sex marriage risk hate-speech and hate-crime litigation
II. Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Create the Risk That Government Will Strip Its Benefits from Religious Institutions That Refuse to Treat Legally Married Same-Sex Couples as Morally Equivalent to Traditionally Married Men and Women
A. Religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages risk losing their traditional tax-exempt status
B. Religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages risk exclusion from competition for government-funded social service contracts
C. Religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages risk exclusion from government facilities and fora
D. Religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages risk exclusion from the state function of licensing marriages
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 8:27 AM on 16th September 2008
Could it really be that 60 to 80% of Californians are just bigots and hatemongers as claimed by many from the No crowd?
The No crowd continues to take the position that religious liberties are not jeopardized by SSM. Given the fundamental contradictions between SSM and Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I cannot see how that position carries any weight.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2008) — Active father figures have a key role to play in reducing behaviour problems in boys and psychological problems in young women, according to a review published in the February issue of Acta Paediatrica.
By Nathan Donato-Weinstein The Press-Tribune
Gideon and Rachel Codding say they weren’t looking to start a big political row when they made a snap decision at the county clerk’s office: writing in “bride” and “groom” on the state’s new gender-neutral marriage certificate.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Mr. Rutten does not understand how the judicial system works. Judges make unsupported new precedent all of the time. That is exactly what the California Supreme Court did in the In re Marriage Cases. There was no legal precedent permitting gay marriage, but the Court applied the cases relating to interracial marriage in order to justify supporting gay marriage.
The case involving the physician (to which Mr. Rutten refers) can easily be used as precedent to infringe on religious liberties. All it takes is a savvy litigator and a judge with an agenda. Case law is developed step-by-step. Speculation that it could never happen is a weak argument and unsupported by over 200 years of case law development in the United States.
Further, a Legislature bolstered by the defeat of Proposition 8 could very well extend the anti-discrimination laws to preclude religious organizations from discriminating. Is that likely to happen right away? Probably not, but again, it is step-by-step.
If Proposition 8 fails, it is not if, but when, courts and/or the Legislature begin to deprive us of our religious liberties.
Extra help for California's Prop. 8
The GOP ticket could add fire to the state fight over same-sex marriage.
September 6, 2008
I also learned first hand that some in the No crowd have decided to not play it nice. Two men, one in a Chrysler minivan and another in a black Volvo, were driving around our precinct taking pictures of all of the Proposition 8 volunteers. I expect they were just trying to intimidate us, but it is really disappointing to me that this is what it has come down to. In spite of the "picture taking," I'll be out this Saturday morning again to canvass and encourage people to vote. For any of the No crowd who is reading this...please play nice.
AB 2567 | Harvey Milk Day
This bill would require the governor proclaim May 22 each year as Harvey Milk Day. It would encourage public schools and educational institutions to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.
Friday, September 5, 2008
"I was able to deliver the following statement before the San Diego City Council. The Council was considering whether to add the City of San Diego's name to a Friend of the Court brief supporting a case in favor of same sex marriage, currently pending before the California Supreme Court."
September 18, 2007
Next week, I will be going to Canada to do a briefing for their Members of Parliament about why cohabitation is not the same as marriage. I mention that to indicate the my primary job is to straighten out the straight people. And believe me, it is a full-time job. I am here today to explain why I believe instituting same sex marriage will make that job immeasurably more difficult. The needs of same sex couples and opposite sex couples would both be better served by having distinct institutional arrangements, rather than by trying to have one institution serve the needs of both groups.Read the rest here.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
What do you mean by "ad hominem" attacks? No one has attacked the person who wrote these lies, only the lies themselves.
The accusation is that these are "lies," which implies that the author and those who disseminate this information are liars. Most who criticize these consequences leave their criticism at that. I appreciate you, however, taking the time to set forth your reasoning rather than merely stating that these consequences are "lies."
For instance, on number 1, regarding children being taught about same-sex marriage in school. Any parent has the right to remove their child from a health ed class (or any other class) if they don't agree with the curriculum.
That does not address the point made. The issue is not whether parents can remove their children from public school so as to avoid disagreeable curricula. The issue is whether SSM and traditional marriage will be placed on an equal footing in public school class rooms.
Thus, it is not a "lie." It would only be a "lie" if public schools were not going to teach that "same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage." Do you contend that public schools will not be required to take that position?
Number 2, churches will be sued if they don't allow same-sex marriages in their churches.
This is perhaps the most blatant lie of the bunch. First, the California Supreme Court specifically stated in its decision that churches would not be required to perform any ceremonies that went against their teachings. On top of that, Catholics don't let divorced people marry in their churches. No law suits. They don't let women become priests. No law suits. Mormons don't allow any but active, tithe-paying members to marry in their temples. For years they wouldn't allow black people to marry in their temples. no law suits.
You are correct that the California Supreme Court stated:
no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)(Page 117 of the opinion.) You are incorrect, however, to think that the court's dicta establishes a bullet-proof protection for religion. Any litigator will tell you that such litigation is certainly a possibility and a probability. Will such litigation commence immediately? Probably not. It could take a long time. But, as society becomes more comfortable with SSM, public opinion will become more intolerant of religious viewpoints that contradict the perception that SSM is a "fundamental right." Can you think of any legal precedent in which public perception was forced on a religion, causing that religion to change its religious practices or risk imprisonment of anyone practicing those religious beliefs? If not, I will be happy to tell you.
Thus, it is not a lie. It would only be a lie if churches could not be sued over their tax-exempt status. Such litigation is definitely possible.
Number 3, regarding adoption agencies closing. That has NOTHING to do with marriage equality. It has to do with anti-discrimination laws that were in place for years before Massachusetts became the first state to embrace marriage equality.
You are correct that the laws in Massachusetts pre-dated the 2003 decision protecting SSM. That, however, is not the issue that is addressed. The point is that if Proposition 8 is defeated, it is likely that religious adoption agencies will be challenged on grounds of discrimination. Will religions prevail in such litigation? Possibly, and at this point in time, probably, but the facts remains that such a challenge is likely. It would only be a "lie" if such a challenge is impossible. Again, any litigator will tell you that such a challenge is possible and probable.
I find your response somewhat contradictory to your response to Number 2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you find no problem with using state intervention to ensure that religions don't "discriminate" in adoption proceedings based on SSM. If you are okay with that, are you also okay with the state intervening to prevent religions from "discriminating" in their marriage practices?
Number 4 is probably true. After all, Bob Jones University had to allow mixed-race couples in married student housing.
Number 5 is ridiculous, as well. This isn't Canada. We have the First Amendment here. Ministers have free speech rights at their respective pulpits that state municipal employees (who are conducting government business) do not have.
Canada also has the equivalent of our First Amendment, which is embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, i.e., Canada has freedom of both speech and religion. And, just like the U.S., Canada constitutional law permits infringments on those rights under certain situations. Thus, in the U.S. a court could find that a minister's preaching against homosexuality and SSM is "hate speech" not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, it is not a "lie."
If that doesn't convince you, I will add these two words: Fred. Phelps.
For now. But again, as society becomes more used to the idea of SSM, that could change very quickly.
Number 6, a "cascade" of lawsuits. Also untrue. Churches will be no more or less likely to be sued if Proposition 8 fails than if it succeeds.
You have not rebutted this point. In fact, several examples of such lawsuits are given in Number 6.
That enough logic for you?
I will resist any sarcastic retort.
EQCA Raises $2 Million To Fight Prop 8
Monday, August 11, 2008 – West Hollywood
Read the rest here.
By Dan Morain, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 1, 2008
Bruce W. Bastian, an Orem, Utah, philanthropist who helped found WordPerfect Software, gave $1 million two weeks ago to the No on 8 campaign and hopes his contribution will encourage others to do the same.
"There are a lot of other rich gay people. They can do something," Bastian said. "They don't have to be gay. They just have to oppose discrimination."
Read the rest here.
Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified If Proposition 8 Fails
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.
Let’s work together to protect them.
Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.