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.

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

R-e-s-p-e-c-t

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

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.

Great New Pro-Prop 8 Website

Check out www.preservingmarriage.org, 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.

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.

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 (1^st Cir. 2008).' (Source: http://www.frc.org/marriage/redefining-marriage-will-affect-all-americans.)

"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?"

Freedom Isn't Free

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 friend...so 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: 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 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."

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.