Friday, October 31, 2008
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
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
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.
Friday, October 24, 2008
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
"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: http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expenses"
Monday, October 20, 2008
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.
Friday, October 17, 2008
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."
Who's really lying?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
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
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.
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.
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
Civil unions and the litigation strategy that could be used to conquer marriage. Is your
state legislature taking the bait? Consider the following:
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.”
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.
. . . . 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 . . .
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
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.
Friday, October 10, 2008
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."
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.
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.
October 10, 2008
In today's Political Diary
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 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
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"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."
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Read about it here.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Watch the trailer here and make your own conclusions.
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.
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.”
Friday, October 3, 2008
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.
"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: Ken.Starr@pepperdine.edu
"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 and threats."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Libertarians Should Support Proposition 8
Jubal | 09/30/2008 5:51 PM
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.