What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker
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.
The public schools
The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
· At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.
· Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
· By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
· In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship! Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
· In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”
· Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility. Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.
· It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.
· “Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority. Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
Public health
· The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.
· Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
· Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence
· Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
Business
· All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
· Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
· The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
· Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
Legal profession
· The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
· Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.
Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples
· Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
· In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates
· In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
· Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)
· Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
· In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.
The public square
· Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
The media
· Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.
· A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.
The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.
In conclusion
Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.
It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.
Friday, October 24, 2008
"Coming Out Day" in a Hayward Elementary School
"Coming Out Day" Coming This Week to California Elementary Schools
City: Hayward, CA
October 22, 2008Parents 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. Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk." These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools." Any other parents whose elementary-age children have been subjected to pro-homosexual propaganda should contact Pacific Justice Institute for counsel and possible representation.
City: Hayward, CA
October 22, 2008Parents 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. Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk." These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools." Any other parents whose elementary-age children have been subjected to pro-homosexual propaganda should contact Pacific Justice Institute for counsel and possible representation.
Wall Street Journal Opinion Forum - CTA
Big Labor Does Gay Marriage
Because a teachers' union has other priorities besides education.
Here's a pop quiz: Who's donated the most money to an effort in California to defeat Proposition 8, an initiative on the November 4 ballot that would define marriage as between a man and a woman in the state?
A) Gay-advocacy organizations
B) Civil-rights groups
C) The California Teachers Association
If you guessed "C," you understand the nature of modern liberal politics. And if you didn't, perhaps you're wondering what exactly gay marriage has to do with K-12 public education. The high school dropout rate is 1-in-4 in California and 1-in-3 in the Los Angeles public school system, odds that worsen considerably among black and Hispanic children. So you might think the CTA, the state's largest teachers' union, would have other priorities.
Yet last week the union donated $1 million to the "No on Proposition 8" campaign. Of the roughly $3 million raised by opponents of the measure so far, $1.25 million has come from the teachers' union. "What does this cause have to do with education?" said Randy Peart, a public school teacher in San Juan who was contacted by a local television station. "Why not put that money into classrooms, into making a better place for these kids?"
In fact, the CTA and its parent organization, the National Education Association, have used tens of millions of dollars in mandatory teachers' dues to advance all manner of left-wing political causes. And members like Ms. Peart are right to ask questions. In some years barely a third of the NEA's budget has gone toward improving the lot of teachers themselves.
In addition to vigorously fighting school choice and other reforms that benefit underprivileged children but threaten the public education monopoly, the NEA has directly (or via state affiliates) bankrolled Acorn, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and, naturally, the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights."
Public school teachers of America, take note. This is your dues money at work.
Because a teachers' union has other priorities besides education.
Here's a pop quiz: Who's donated the most money to an effort in California to defeat Proposition 8, an initiative on the November 4 ballot that would define marriage as between a man and a woman in the state?
A) Gay-advocacy organizations
B) Civil-rights groups
C) The California Teachers Association
If you guessed "C," you understand the nature of modern liberal politics. And if you didn't, perhaps you're wondering what exactly gay marriage has to do with K-12 public education. The high school dropout rate is 1-in-4 in California and 1-in-3 in the Los Angeles public school system, odds that worsen considerably among black and Hispanic children. So you might think the CTA, the state's largest teachers' union, would have other priorities.
Yet last week the union donated $1 million to the "No on Proposition 8" campaign. Of the roughly $3 million raised by opponents of the measure so far, $1.25 million has come from the teachers' union. "What does this cause have to do with education?" said Randy Peart, a public school teacher in San Juan who was contacted by a local television station. "Why not put that money into classrooms, into making a better place for these kids?"
In fact, the CTA and its parent organization, the National Education Association, have used tens of millions of dollars in mandatory teachers' dues to advance all manner of left-wing political causes. And members like Ms. Peart are right to ask questions. In some years barely a third of the NEA's budget has gone toward improving the lot of teachers themselves.
In addition to vigorously fighting school choice and other reforms that benefit underprivileged children but threaten the public education monopoly, the NEA has directly (or via state affiliates) bankrolled Acorn, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and, naturally, the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights."
Public school teachers of America, take note. This is your dues money at work.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Our Rally Acknowledged on ProtectMarriage.com website!
From the ProtectMarriage.com website. Just found this was posted. No pictures, but it is nice to get the story out to encourage the effort. Hopefully, it can be circulated to everyone working in our area -- and beyond. MS
Blog
« We Can't Stop Now
Yes on 8 Campaign Fights Desperate Attempt of Opponents To Stop Airing of Truthful Commercials »
Auburn Rally Draws Hundreds of Yes on 8 Supportersby Nancy Limon - Grassroots Director on October 11th, 2008
Today Yes on 8 campaign supporters in Placer and El Dorado County held a rally in Auburn, CA where over 400 enthusiastic Yes on 8 voters came to hear speakers discuss the importance of passing Proposition 8 as well as to sign up to volunteer for the grassroots campaign. A representative from the First Baptist Church in Auburn and Christian Ministerial Association of the Foothills attended along with represntatives from the Pacific Justice Institute, Brigham Young University, Captol Resource Institute, Abundant Life Christian Fellowship in Roseville, City of Auburn's social programs and the ProtectMarriage.com campaign. Guests of Honor included the five students from the American River College's student body who bravely stood up for their beliefs and right to Freedom of Speech, passing a Resolution to support Proposition 8. They held up their resolution to the crowd and challenged youth in attendance to recruit 38,000 more students for the campaign. Many people in attendance came bearing signs reading "Stop Judicial Tyranny", "Save Traditional Marriage" and "Free to Choose- Yes on 8!". Yard signs for Prop. 8 lined the entrance into the venue and supporters held additional Yes on Prop. 8 signs high and proud along the streets of Auburn. Even a toddler, with his Mother and Father waved his Prop. 8 sign excitedly as cars filed into the parking lot. People could be heard outside of the venue chanting "Stop the Hate- Vote Yes on 8!" Many booths were set up for people to pick up t-shirts, bumper stickers and yard signs as well as sign up to volunteer. Carig Garbe, El Dorado County Co-Chair for the ProtectMarriage.com campaign asked everyone to take the day off on election day to help pass Prop. 8 - he was met with excited cheers and a round of applause. The event was held at the Auburn Garden Theater Library.
Blog
« We Can't Stop Now
Yes on 8 Campaign Fights Desperate Attempt of Opponents To Stop Airing of Truthful Commercials »
Auburn Rally Draws Hundreds of Yes on 8 Supportersby Nancy Limon - Grassroots Director on October 11th, 2008
Today Yes on 8 campaign supporters in Placer and El Dorado County held a rally in Auburn, CA where over 400 enthusiastic Yes on 8 voters came to hear speakers discuss the importance of passing Proposition 8 as well as to sign up to volunteer for the grassroots campaign. A representative from the First Baptist Church in Auburn and Christian Ministerial Association of the Foothills attended along with represntatives from the Pacific Justice Institute, Brigham Young University, Captol Resource Institute, Abundant Life Christian Fellowship in Roseville, City of Auburn's social programs and the ProtectMarriage.com campaign. Guests of Honor included the five students from the American River College's student body who bravely stood up for their beliefs and right to Freedom of Speech, passing a Resolution to support Proposition 8. They held up their resolution to the crowd and challenged youth in attendance to recruit 38,000 more students for the campaign. Many people in attendance came bearing signs reading "Stop Judicial Tyranny", "Save Traditional Marriage" and "Free to Choose- Yes on 8!". Yard signs for Prop. 8 lined the entrance into the venue and supporters held additional Yes on Prop. 8 signs high and proud along the streets of Auburn. Even a toddler, with his Mother and Father waved his Prop. 8 sign excitedly as cars filed into the parking lot. People could be heard outside of the venue chanting "Stop the Hate- Vote Yes on 8!" Many booths were set up for people to pick up t-shirts, bumper stickers and yard signs as well as sign up to volunteer. Carig Garbe, El Dorado County Co-Chair for the ProtectMarriage.com campaign asked everyone to take the day off on election day to help pass Prop. 8 - he was met with excited cheers and a round of applause. The event was held at the Auburn Garden Theater Library.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Gays Acknowledge There Is No Gay Gene
Source: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8802
Posted at iperceive.net last night. This is material you may wish to use in letters to the editor. (Letters to be published need to go out right away. They often wait till others have their say who were first in line. Letters are usually limited to 200/250 words; longer letters will not be printed or may be edited in ways you would not choose. It is best to keep them to that limit.
April 38 10.17.08 at 11:21 am
At VirtueOnline - News, dated 28/8/5,
A series of homosexual — not heterosexual — activists are quoted who assert that there is no gay gene; that it is a life-style choice. It's nice to get the word from those who live it.From the article by by Bill Muehlenberg:
The tendency is to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired. And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
Among a number of homosexual activists quoted, Australian activist and Latrobe University lecturer, Dennis Altman, wrote in 1986: " 'To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice.' "
Another Australian gay activist comments, "I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, 'it's not our fault', as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions."
There is no gay gene. And therefore no legitimacy in the demand that gays and lesbians be treated as some sort of predetermined, ethnic group.#
Added quote from same online article:"And a leading Australian feminist and lesbian has also made it clear that choice is a major component of the lifestyle. Melbourne University academic Sheila Jeffreys became a feminist in her twenties, when she was involved in "perfectly good" relationships with men. She then decided to become a lesbian: "At the time," she says, we "made the decision to become political lesbians, as we called it.""She says that "you can learn to be heterosexual and you can learn to be lesbian". When challenged by an interviewer that sexuality is more innate than that, she continues, "I don't think there's anything natural about sexuality; you do learn it. And you can unlearn it, go in a different direction, change it." She says that her own experience proves this, as does that of many other women who decided to switch to lesbianism in the '70s."
Posted at iperceive.net last night. This is material you may wish to use in letters to the editor. (Letters to be published need to go out right away. They often wait till others have their say who were first in line. Letters are usually limited to 200/250 words; longer letters will not be printed or may be edited in ways you would not choose. It is best to keep them to that limit.
April 38 10.17.08 at 11:21 am
At VirtueOnline - News, dated 28/8/5,
A series of homosexual — not heterosexual — activists are quoted who assert that there is no gay gene; that it is a life-style choice. It's nice to get the word from those who live it.From the article by by Bill Muehlenberg:
The tendency is to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired. And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.
Among a number of homosexual activists quoted, Australian activist and Latrobe University lecturer, Dennis Altman, wrote in 1986: " 'To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice.' "
Another Australian gay activist comments, "I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, 'it's not our fault', as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions."
There is no gay gene. And therefore no legitimacy in the demand that gays and lesbians be treated as some sort of predetermined, ethnic group.#
Added quote from same online article:"And a leading Australian feminist and lesbian has also made it clear that choice is a major component of the lifestyle. Melbourne University academic Sheila Jeffreys became a feminist in her twenties, when she was involved in "perfectly good" relationships with men. She then decided to become a lesbian: "At the time," she says, we "made the decision to become political lesbians, as we called it.""She says that "you can learn to be heterosexual and you can learn to be lesbian". When challenged by an interviewer that sexuality is more innate than that, she continues, "I don't think there's anything natural about sexuality; you do learn it. And you can unlearn it, go in a different direction, change it." She says that her own experience proves this, as does that of many other women who decided to switch to lesbianism in the '70s."
Video Of Our Defaced Yard Signs
Please view and pass it on. Whatever intolerance exists is not at this end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjkKqjkq1r4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjkKqjkq1r4
CA Teacher's Union Donates a Million Dollars to Defeat Prop. 8
October 17, 2008
CA Teachers Union Ignites 'Class Warfare' over Prop 8
In the weeks leading up to Halloween, the California Teacher's Association (CTA) has no intention of masking its agenda on marriage. The 340,000-member organization -- long considered a powerful branch of the radical Left -- took a risky step yesterday by donating a million dollars to defeat Proposition 8. The gift, which is now the largest contribution by any institutional donor to the ballot issue, raises the stakes in an already tense battle for parents' rights. The CTA's own members, whose dues are fueling this opposition, are fuming. Many, like Randy Peart, are questioning what same-sex "marriage" has to do with education. "It bothers me [that they're] spend[ing] my money on something I'm morally opposed to," she said. "Why not put that money into classrooms, into making a better place for these kids?" But according to CTA President David Sanchez, "...[I]t's a civil rights issue." And he's right. This is a civil rights issue -- for children who deserve to be raised by a mother and father. The donation, CTA's second, should serve as a wake-up call for anyone who doesn't believe that schools are becoming dangerous incubators for the homosexual cause. If the union will stoop to using its dues to promote the homosexual agenda, then you can bet it will have no reservations about using its classrooms. Just last week, a San Francisco administrator took first graders on a field trip to their teacher's lesbian "wedding." How's that for indoctrination? If California schools are promoting "teachable moments" like this for five- and six-year-olds, imagine what the middle and high school curriculums will look like! This is much more than a battle for marriage. It's a last stand for education and parents' rights. The CTA's million dollars will go a long way to undermining the truth. California families need your help! Log on to www.protectmarriage.com and educate yourself about the issues at stake in this fight. Additional Resources ProtectMarriage.com News 10: Teacher's Union Blasted for $1 Million Donation to No on Prop 8
CA Teachers Union Ignites 'Class Warfare' over Prop 8
In the weeks leading up to Halloween, the California Teacher's Association (CTA) has no intention of masking its agenda on marriage. The 340,000-member organization -- long considered a powerful branch of the radical Left -- took a risky step yesterday by donating a million dollars to defeat Proposition 8. The gift, which is now the largest contribution by any institutional donor to the ballot issue, raises the stakes in an already tense battle for parents' rights. The CTA's own members, whose dues are fueling this opposition, are fuming. Many, like Randy Peart, are questioning what same-sex "marriage" has to do with education. "It bothers me [that they're] spend[ing] my money on something I'm morally opposed to," she said. "Why not put that money into classrooms, into making a better place for these kids?" But according to CTA President David Sanchez, "...[I]t's a civil rights issue." And he's right. This is a civil rights issue -- for children who deserve to be raised by a mother and father. The donation, CTA's second, should serve as a wake-up call for anyone who doesn't believe that schools are becoming dangerous incubators for the homosexual cause. If the union will stoop to using its dues to promote the homosexual agenda, then you can bet it will have no reservations about using its classrooms. Just last week, a San Francisco administrator took first graders on a field trip to their teacher's lesbian "wedding." How's that for indoctrination? If California schools are promoting "teachable moments" like this for five- and six-year-olds, imagine what the middle and high school curriculums will look like! This is much more than a battle for marriage. It's a last stand for education and parents' rights. The CTA's million dollars will go a long way to undermining the truth. California families need your help! Log on to www.protectmarriage.com and educate yourself about the issues at stake in this fight. Additional Resources ProtectMarriage.com News 10: Teacher's Union Blasted for $1 Million Donation to No on Prop 8
Saturday, October 18, 2008
We Have to Find the Humor!
This is humorous ("humor" is funny because it is based on truth!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko2-EQss0V4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko2-EQss0V4
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Editorial by Kurt Schulzke
This story is about one of our area coordinators:
Means-Enders of the left: Stealing Proposition 8 signs in California
by Kurt Schulzke on October 16, 2008
Why can't the anti-Prop 8 crowd play fair? They don't have the arguments, the decency or the integrity to make them. Instead, they resort to childishness or criminality — ranting, punching, kicking and stealing signs. Here's an eye-witness account from the Sacramento area:
Today [Tuesday, October 14] as I was driving home from work I witnessed and very nice lady stealing one of our signs!!! I quickly made a U turn and followed her to the post office. I parked behind her and approached her and asked "why did you steal our sign???"" She was dumbfounded and answered, "Well it shouldn't have been there"!! I told her that I was so disappointed to see that a very nice upstanding woman like herself would lower herself to steal a sign off a private property."
I said "you have a Obama sign in the back of your car, I don't steal your signs." I said it's funny, but she had "just confirmed why I'm a Republican, we don't steal, we believe in freedom of speech and have integrity!"
She didn't know what to say; she asked who owned the property. I told her some very intelligent people that don't like to be stolen from; could I please have the sign from her back seat. I told her also that I wrote down her license plate of her brand new Lexus, and that if the sign was missing again I would know who to report to the police. I promptly returned the sign! . . .
These people have no shame. It's as if their emotional and moral development suddenly ended at age 2. At one point will the militant gay community and its enablers grow up?
Means-Enders of the left: Stealing Proposition 8 signs in California
by Kurt Schulzke on October 16, 2008
Why can't the anti-Prop 8 crowd play fair? They don't have the arguments, the decency or the integrity to make them. Instead, they resort to childishness or criminality — ranting, punching, kicking and stealing signs. Here's an eye-witness account from the Sacramento area:
Today [Tuesday, October 14] as I was driving home from work I witnessed and very nice lady stealing one of our signs!!! I quickly made a U turn and followed her to the post office. I parked behind her and approached her and asked "why did you steal our sign???"" She was dumbfounded and answered, "Well it shouldn't have been there"!! I told her that I was so disappointed to see that a very nice upstanding woman like herself would lower herself to steal a sign off a private property."
I said "you have a Obama sign in the back of your car, I don't steal your signs." I said it's funny, but she had "just confirmed why I'm a Republican, we don't steal, we believe in freedom of speech and have integrity!"
She didn't know what to say; she asked who owned the property. I told her some very intelligent people that don't like to be stolen from; could I please have the sign from her back seat. I told her also that I wrote down her license plate of her brand new Lexus, and that if the sign was missing again I would know who to report to the police. I promptly returned the sign! . . .
These people have no shame. It's as if their emotional and moral development suddenly ended at age 2. At one point will the militant gay community and its enablers grow up?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Connecticut Court Creates Same-Sex Marriage
Breaking News: Connecticut Court Creates Same-Sex Marriage
Today the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the marriage law of that state was unconstitutional and must be redefined to include same-sex couples. The decision ends with a direction to the trial court to issue an injunction against the Department of Public Health, which means that same-sex marriages will begin taking place in that state as soon as the trial court acts.
In Kerrigan & Mock v. Dept. of Public Health, eight gay couples had sued on the grounds that the state's 2005 civil unions law did not provide equal protection under its constitution. The trial court had ruled that the essential equivalence between the state's civil union status and marriage meant there was no constitutional deprivation in not allowing same-sex couples to marry, according to Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that by creating civil unions, the legislature had relegated same-sex couples to "an inferior status in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution of marriage." The majority believed civil unions are not equal because marriage "is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance."
One dissenting judge argued that the majority opinion was premised on a presumption "that the essence of marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two adults" but the actual purpose "is to privilege and regulate procreative conduct." The dissent also said "a couple that is incapable of engaging in the type of sexual conduct that can result in children is not similarly situated to a couple that is capable of engaging in such conduct."
This is indeed a disappointing loss, but a reminder that civil unions or domestic partnerships can be easily morphed into marriage by the courts.
Friday, October 10, 2008Visit familyleader.net for more articles, news & issues.
Today the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the marriage law of that state was unconstitutional and must be redefined to include same-sex couples. The decision ends with a direction to the trial court to issue an injunction against the Department of Public Health, which means that same-sex marriages will begin taking place in that state as soon as the trial court acts.
In Kerrigan & Mock v. Dept. of Public Health, eight gay couples had sued on the grounds that the state's 2005 civil unions law did not provide equal protection under its constitution. The trial court had ruled that the essential equivalence between the state's civil union status and marriage meant there was no constitutional deprivation in not allowing same-sex couples to marry, according to Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that by creating civil unions, the legislature had relegated same-sex couples to "an inferior status in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution of marriage." The majority believed civil unions are not equal because marriage "is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance."
One dissenting judge argued that the majority opinion was premised on a presumption "that the essence of marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two adults" but the actual purpose "is to privilege and regulate procreative conduct." The dissent also said "a couple that is incapable of engaging in the type of sexual conduct that can result in children is not similarly situated to a couple that is capable of engaging in such conduct."
This is indeed a disappointing loss, but a reminder that civil unions or domestic partnerships can be easily morphed into marriage by the courts.
Friday, October 10, 2008Visit familyleader.net for more articles, news & issues.
Pictures From The Auburn Rally!!!
The Rally was a great success! Thanks to all that attended. The following is the email from Keenan Davis, the Committee Chair and Moderator. Continue down for a link to pictures !
"Oh man, oh man,
I am almost speechless to describe the blessings I saw showered on our heads today at the Rally. It was a wondrous sight indeed to see the culmination of so much effort manifest in that wonderful event. I echo Craig’s sentiments at the Rally: let’s turn this effort into VOTES…!!
It was so great to see how the advance publicity was prepared (see the above-the-fold article in the Auburn Journal?), the tables were spread with literature and good cheer, the stage was decked out with plants, flags, banners and musicians, how the three levels of security were so large and in charge, meshed (and vested), polished (include the chrome on the bikes!), gentlemanly and helpful, how the Scouts glowed with their posting the colors, how great the music felt, how gracious everyone was to our trio of brave protesters, how heartfelt and mighty the offered prayers were, how competent and passionate the speakers were, and what an impact the American River College kids made (and what they learned and the boost it gave them). I could go on and on.
If we had held this event in any major city, it could not have been more professional, substantive and inspiring. Estimates of attendees are in the 300 to 400 person range. No one can calculate the strengthening, lifting influence the Rally will have on the attendees, of course. But I have to believe the increased confidence in the cause and heightened awareness of the stakes and consequences in the hearts and minds of the attendees will pay victorious dividends.
The Lord presided over a teamwork miracle today of different faiths, talents, and skills. I can with conviction say He used all of us in His cause.
I know we can feel His approval and, at the same time, hear His still small voice urging us onward. May we continue to share in the rich blessings that come from such efforts, I hope and pray.
Mesha and I are grateful to be a part of such a marvelous team and such a stellar event. Let’s build on this and spread the net even wider for November 4. Thanks again.
Keenan"
Pictures of the Auburn Rally taken by Nathan Johnson.
Thanks Nathan!
.http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/thungsong/Prop%208%20Rally/?albumview=grid
"Oh man, oh man,
I am almost speechless to describe the blessings I saw showered on our heads today at the Rally. It was a wondrous sight indeed to see the culmination of so much effort manifest in that wonderful event. I echo Craig’s sentiments at the Rally: let’s turn this effort into VOTES…!!
It was so great to see how the advance publicity was prepared (see the above-the-fold article in the Auburn Journal?), the tables were spread with literature and good cheer, the stage was decked out with plants, flags, banners and musicians, how the three levels of security were so large and in charge, meshed (and vested), polished (include the chrome on the bikes!), gentlemanly and helpful, how the Scouts glowed with their posting the colors, how great the music felt, how gracious everyone was to our trio of brave protesters, how heartfelt and mighty the offered prayers were, how competent and passionate the speakers were, and what an impact the American River College kids made (and what they learned and the boost it gave them). I could go on and on.
If we had held this event in any major city, it could not have been more professional, substantive and inspiring. Estimates of attendees are in the 300 to 400 person range. No one can calculate the strengthening, lifting influence the Rally will have on the attendees, of course. But I have to believe the increased confidence in the cause and heightened awareness of the stakes and consequences in the hearts and minds of the attendees will pay victorious dividends.
The Lord presided over a teamwork miracle today of different faiths, talents, and skills. I can with conviction say He used all of us in His cause.
I know we can feel His approval and, at the same time, hear His still small voice urging us onward. May we continue to share in the rich blessings that come from such efforts, I hope and pray.
Mesha and I are grateful to be a part of such a marvelous team and such a stellar event. Let’s build on this and spread the net even wider for November 4. Thanks again.
Keenan"
Pictures of the Auburn Rally taken by Nathan Johnson.
Thanks Nathan!
.http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/thungsong/Prop%208%20Rally/?albumview=grid
New Meaning to First Grade Field Trips!
In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as "lies" claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding.
Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day
Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&o=&type=politics
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.
"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroflow.
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," White said.
California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall's main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.
The two met on a dance floor two years ago.
"This is one girl I can honestly say deserves happiness, and it came in the form of Kerri," said Carder's friend Dani Starelli.
Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Mark Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder's students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.
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."
As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day
Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&o=&type=politics
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.
"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroflow.
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," White said.
California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall's main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.
The two met on a dance floor two years ago.
"This is one girl I can honestly say deserves happiness, and it came in the form of Kerri," said Carder's friend Dani Starelli.
Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Mark Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder's students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.
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."
As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Should Christians Argue Politics?
10-1-2008
Should Christians Argue Politics?
by Frank Pastore
'Our political and social policies should grow out of our theology, not vice versa.'
Note: This column originally appeared Sept. 30 on Townhall.com. It is used with permission.
For the past several months, I’ve heard two recurring themes from critics of my show: “You’re too political and unloving; Christians shouldn’t argue about politics,” and “You’re not fair and balanced; you’re close-minded and too biased against liberals.”
Perhaps many Christians believe these things because they don’t understand politics is really an exercise of theology applied — one way we love our neighbors as ourselves. Our political and social policies should grow out of our theology, not vice versa. We are not to reverse engineer our theology based upon our political and social agendas. Our faith is foundational to everything else. For Christians, theology creates and shapes our approach to politics; for non-Christians, politics creates and shapes their approach to theology — or at least their worldview.
A Christian becomes too political when their politics is no longer rooted in their theology, when their faith becomes merely peripheral and unnecessary to their political agenda, rather than the one thing that is fundamental and essential.How we vote to spend our tax dollars, what economic and social policies we hope to advance through votes for particular candidates, and what domestic and foreign policies we hope our government advances — these things are the applications of the values rooted in our Christian worldview.
Just as how I choose to invest my time and treasure is the best expression of whether I’m living out my Christian values, so too what the government spends money on and what policy preferences it pursues is the best expression of our true American values.
The best way for me to love my neighbor is through those things I choose to do personally. The second best way is through votes for candidates who support policies that I believe will promote the common good. Thus, I am political because I am loving, and I am loving because I am Christian. Therefore, I should argue — albeit in a God-glorifying manner — about politics.
Perhaps many Christians don’t know how to argue without getting angry — though there are times when anger is morally justified. The two things that we should be willing to argue about are theology and politics. This isn’t about getting mad or letting your emotions get out of control. In fact, when we lose our cool and merely emote, we’re not arguing very well and we actually become less persuasive rather than more so. It usually escalates into a test of whose emotional intensity is strongest, rather than the strength of the arguments themselves.
Perhaps many Christians think arguing is bad because they can’t distinguish between a person and their ideas. Even for themselves, they can take it personally when someone is arguing against their ideas. But not arguing does make me a nice person. And the fact that I do argue about consequential things does not make me unloving. Nice people can be wrong, and mean people can be right. I can criticize a person’s ideas without criticizing the person. The challenge is to communicate my disagreement — to argue — in such a way that the person understands I disagree with their ideas, not them personally. Friends can and do argue over their disagreements, though it is most often the case that they are friends precisely because they do agree on so many things.
Finally, with regards to the criticism that I am “not fair and balanced” and that I am “close-minded and too biased against liberals,” I am perhaps guilty as charged. However, it is only because I have weighed the arguments on both sides and found the current expressions of modern liberalism deficient. I gave liberalism a fair hearing when I began to formulate my political philosophy and found it contrary to my Christian values. I am no longer struggling with moral equivalence between the left and the right. I would be close-minded and biased if I were unwilling to weigh arguments for liberalism. Having done so, I am a conservative precisely because I have found the arguments for liberalism unpersuasive.
Some Christians may claim, “Christians shouldn’t argue about politics” simply because they’re political liberals who are unwilling to actually engage in argument over their political views. Instead, they would rather attempt to stifle debate by taking the pseudo moral high ground, saying something like, “Truly spiritual Christians are above politics.”
That’s too bad. Christians can and should argue, especially about theology and politics — and hopefully in that order
Should Christians Argue Politics?
by Frank Pastore
'Our political and social policies should grow out of our theology, not vice versa.'
Note: This column originally appeared Sept. 30 on Townhall.com. It is used with permission.
For the past several months, I’ve heard two recurring themes from critics of my show: “You’re too political and unloving; Christians shouldn’t argue about politics,” and “You’re not fair and balanced; you’re close-minded and too biased against liberals.”
Perhaps many Christians believe these things because they don’t understand politics is really an exercise of theology applied — one way we love our neighbors as ourselves. Our political and social policies should grow out of our theology, not vice versa. We are not to reverse engineer our theology based upon our political and social agendas. Our faith is foundational to everything else. For Christians, theology creates and shapes our approach to politics; for non-Christians, politics creates and shapes their approach to theology — or at least their worldview.
A Christian becomes too political when their politics is no longer rooted in their theology, when their faith becomes merely peripheral and unnecessary to their political agenda, rather than the one thing that is fundamental and essential.How we vote to spend our tax dollars, what economic and social policies we hope to advance through votes for particular candidates, and what domestic and foreign policies we hope our government advances — these things are the applications of the values rooted in our Christian worldview.
Just as how I choose to invest my time and treasure is the best expression of whether I’m living out my Christian values, so too what the government spends money on and what policy preferences it pursues is the best expression of our true American values.
The best way for me to love my neighbor is through those things I choose to do personally. The second best way is through votes for candidates who support policies that I believe will promote the common good. Thus, I am political because I am loving, and I am loving because I am Christian. Therefore, I should argue — albeit in a God-glorifying manner — about politics.
Perhaps many Christians don’t know how to argue without getting angry — though there are times when anger is morally justified. The two things that we should be willing to argue about are theology and politics. This isn’t about getting mad or letting your emotions get out of control. In fact, when we lose our cool and merely emote, we’re not arguing very well and we actually become less persuasive rather than more so. It usually escalates into a test of whose emotional intensity is strongest, rather than the strength of the arguments themselves.
Perhaps many Christians think arguing is bad because they can’t distinguish between a person and their ideas. Even for themselves, they can take it personally when someone is arguing against their ideas. But not arguing does make me a nice person. And the fact that I do argue about consequential things does not make me unloving. Nice people can be wrong, and mean people can be right. I can criticize a person’s ideas without criticizing the person. The challenge is to communicate my disagreement — to argue — in such a way that the person understands I disagree with their ideas, not them personally. Friends can and do argue over their disagreements, though it is most often the case that they are friends precisely because they do agree on so many things.
Finally, with regards to the criticism that I am “not fair and balanced” and that I am “close-minded and too biased against liberals,” I am perhaps guilty as charged. However, it is only because I have weighed the arguments on both sides and found the current expressions of modern liberalism deficient. I gave liberalism a fair hearing when I began to formulate my political philosophy and found it contrary to my Christian values. I am no longer struggling with moral equivalence between the left and the right. I would be close-minded and biased if I were unwilling to weigh arguments for liberalism. Having done so, I am a conservative precisely because I have found the arguments for liberalism unpersuasive.
Some Christians may claim, “Christians shouldn’t argue about politics” simply because they’re political liberals who are unwilling to actually engage in argument over their political views. Instead, they would rather attempt to stifle debate by taking the pseudo moral high ground, saying something like, “Truly spiritual Christians are above politics.”
That’s too bad. Christians can and should argue, especially about theology and politics — and hopefully in that order
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Religious Freedom Concerns are Real with Same-Sex Marriage
By William C. Duncan
Most people are rightfully leery of buying something just because the seller touts his or her personal religious activity. In California, right now, there are groups working to defeat Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Part of their sales pitch is their religious identity.
They feel the need to advertise this because their own church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has officially announced its support for the common-sense measure that would reverse the actions of a bare majority of the California Supreme Court that ruled in May that a hitherto unknown and still unwritten provision of that state's constitution required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples.
Most recently, an attorney and a group calling itself “Mormons for Marriage” have been attacking the idea that redefining marriage in California creates possible negative ramifications for religious liberty in this state. They have attempted to refute an anonymous document that lists some of these potential ramifications. They say the document misconstrues legal precedents and that, actually, there is no reason to worry that churches and religious believers will be harmed in any way if California redefines marriage.
Anyone can read the LDS Church's official statement on the issue, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” published on August 13, 2008 and available on the Church's website for a careful and persuasive examination of this question that concludes that the redefinition of marriage does bode ill for religious liberty. Interestingly, one of the attacks cites to the Church statement to argue that the debate over marriage should be civil (a point on which all hopefully agree) but does not note this section.
In addition, eminent religious liberty scholars who have a variety of opinions on the subject of same-sex marriage all agree that a conflict between the state and religious organizations and believers is an inevitable result of redefining marriage. A video presentation by some of these scholars is available here. How that conflict will work out may be a matter of debate but its existence is widely understood to be a given.
The California Supreme Court itself has made it abundantly clear that it does not think the Federal or State Constitutions provide a religious exemption to laws mandating identical treatment of same-sex couples or gay and lesbian individuals. In a recent, unanimous, opinion to this effect, the court said a doctor could not invoke his religious beliefs in a lawsuit brought against him because he did not provide an artificial insemination procedure to a woman in a same-sex couple. See North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. San Diego Superior Court, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708 (Cal. 2008). In its opinion, the court said that even under the legal standard most protective of religious liberty the doctor would lose because the state had a compelling interest in requiring identical treatment of homosexuals. One judge wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the result and identifying the court's same-sex marriage decision as the authority for the proposition that every law must treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly the same. Ibid. at 722 (opinion of Justice Baxter).
Since many churches' religious beliefs do not allow them to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples, it is not very hard to see that the court's ruling sets up a serious quandary for believers.
Those who are now arguing that “all is well” for religious liberty say that it is not the redefinition of marriage that has caused these changes. In one way they are right, but their argument is also very misleading. It is true that states which have not redefined marriage have significantly interfered with religious liberty in advancing the cause of gay rights. They have relied on state statutes enacted by legislatures. These statutes, though, could be amended to make exceptions for religious groups. When the court redefines marriage, however, it makes the issue a constitutional matter and the court interpretation will trump any statutory exemption and might, as the California Supreme Court ruled, even outweigh other constitutional rights like religious freedom.
This is what the U.S. Supreme Court held in a famous case brought to remove the tax exemption of a religious college, Bob Jones University, which at the time forbade interracial dating. The government argued successfully in that case that the university should have its tax exemption revoked because the government's policy of ending racial discrimination outweighed any other consideration. See Bob Jones University v. U.S. , 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
It is common sense to most of us that racial discrimination is wrong and that a belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a different matter. When the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage had to be redefined, however, they turned the issue of marriage into a civil rights issue and gave official government endorsement to the idea that those who believe in husband/wife marriage are bigots. The Bob Jones case and many other laws teach us that the law does not tolerate those it considers to be bigots.
Proposition 8 would overrule the California Supreme Court's holding about marriage and allow those who believe in marriage to continue that belief without the official stigma of being considered bigots.
The marriage decision will have effects beyond religious liberty. One of the most obvious is that it requires schools to teach students of every age that there is no difference between marriage between a husband and wife and between same-sex couples. California law now requires that students in public schools from kindergarten on must be taught about “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” California Education Code 51890 Now that marriage has been officially redefined, any discussion of marriage must include discussions of same-sex marriage. Another provision of the law forbids discrimination in any school program on the basis of “sexual orientation” which reinforces this policy. California Education Code 200
This is not a hypothetical concern. In Massachusetts , the only other state to redefine marriage, this exact situation has arisen. Parents who objected to pro-gay curriculum at their children's elementary school lost their lawsuit seeking an injunction to exempt their children from the material, in part because a federal court said the public schools “ have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages.” See Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1 st Cir. 2008).
There are other religious liberty concerns as well. In Canada , where marriage has been redefined, a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was fined for canceling a reception for a same-sex couple's wedding. See Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus, 2005 BCHRT 544 (2005). The list could go on.
These concerns do not exhaust the potential harms to which Proposition 8 would respond.
When the California Supreme Court redefined marriage, they did so not only for the small group who might benefit from the change but for every citizen of the State of California . This change means that the law of California now strongly endorses three ideas: men and women are essentially interchangeable, children do not need a mother and father and those who disagree are bigots.
In reality, every healthy human society, across time and cultures, has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for those children and for each other. Marriage is fundamentally about children's needs, not adult desires.
Our society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to provide this opportunity.
California law now creates intentionally motherless or fatherless families where children will not experience the unique contributions of at least one of their parents.
Decades of social science research has effectively demonstrated that the best arrangement for children's well being is to be raised by their own mother and father who are married to each other. Even married couples that do not have children promote society's concern for children by providing an example to those that do and, by observing their marriage vows, preventing the creation of other motherless or fatherless homes.
Proposition 8 is not about taking people's rights away. It is a simple way to protect marriage. It is also the last chance California voters may have to get their say on this matter.
William Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Protect Marriage campaign in California or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Most people are rightfully leery of buying something just because the seller touts his or her personal religious activity. In California, right now, there are groups working to defeat Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Part of their sales pitch is their religious identity.
They feel the need to advertise this because their own church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has officially announced its support for the common-sense measure that would reverse the actions of a bare majority of the California Supreme Court that ruled in May that a hitherto unknown and still unwritten provision of that state's constitution required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples.
Most recently, an attorney and a group calling itself “Mormons for Marriage” have been attacking the idea that redefining marriage in California creates possible negative ramifications for religious liberty in this state. They have attempted to refute an anonymous document that lists some of these potential ramifications. They say the document misconstrues legal precedents and that, actually, there is no reason to worry that churches and religious believers will be harmed in any way if California redefines marriage.
Anyone can read the LDS Church's official statement on the issue, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” published on August 13, 2008 and available on the Church's website for a careful and persuasive examination of this question that concludes that the redefinition of marriage does bode ill for religious liberty. Interestingly, one of the attacks cites to the Church statement to argue that the debate over marriage should be civil (a point on which all hopefully agree) but does not note this section.
In addition, eminent religious liberty scholars who have a variety of opinions on the subject of same-sex marriage all agree that a conflict between the state and religious organizations and believers is an inevitable result of redefining marriage. A video presentation by some of these scholars is available here. How that conflict will work out may be a matter of debate but its existence is widely understood to be a given.
The California Supreme Court itself has made it abundantly clear that it does not think the Federal or State Constitutions provide a religious exemption to laws mandating identical treatment of same-sex couples or gay and lesbian individuals. In a recent, unanimous, opinion to this effect, the court said a doctor could not invoke his religious beliefs in a lawsuit brought against him because he did not provide an artificial insemination procedure to a woman in a same-sex couple. See North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. San Diego Superior Court, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708 (Cal. 2008). In its opinion, the court said that even under the legal standard most protective of religious liberty the doctor would lose because the state had a compelling interest in requiring identical treatment of homosexuals. One judge wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the result and identifying the court's same-sex marriage decision as the authority for the proposition that every law must treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly the same. Ibid. at 722 (opinion of Justice Baxter).
Since many churches' religious beliefs do not allow them to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples, it is not very hard to see that the court's ruling sets up a serious quandary for believers.
Those who are now arguing that “all is well” for religious liberty say that it is not the redefinition of marriage that has caused these changes. In one way they are right, but their argument is also very misleading. It is true that states which have not redefined marriage have significantly interfered with religious liberty in advancing the cause of gay rights. They have relied on state statutes enacted by legislatures. These statutes, though, could be amended to make exceptions for religious groups. When the court redefines marriage, however, it makes the issue a constitutional matter and the court interpretation will trump any statutory exemption and might, as the California Supreme Court ruled, even outweigh other constitutional rights like religious freedom.
This is what the U.S. Supreme Court held in a famous case brought to remove the tax exemption of a religious college, Bob Jones University, which at the time forbade interracial dating. The government argued successfully in that case that the university should have its tax exemption revoked because the government's policy of ending racial discrimination outweighed any other consideration. See Bob Jones University v. U.S. , 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
It is common sense to most of us that racial discrimination is wrong and that a belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a different matter. When the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage had to be redefined, however, they turned the issue of marriage into a civil rights issue and gave official government endorsement to the idea that those who believe in husband/wife marriage are bigots. The Bob Jones case and many other laws teach us that the law does not tolerate those it considers to be bigots.
Proposition 8 would overrule the California Supreme Court's holding about marriage and allow those who believe in marriage to continue that belief without the official stigma of being considered bigots.
The marriage decision will have effects beyond religious liberty. One of the most obvious is that it requires schools to teach students of every age that there is no difference between marriage between a husband and wife and between same-sex couples. California law now requires that students in public schools from kindergarten on must be taught about “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” California Education Code 51890 Now that marriage has been officially redefined, any discussion of marriage must include discussions of same-sex marriage. Another provision of the law forbids discrimination in any school program on the basis of “sexual orientation” which reinforces this policy. California Education Code 200
This is not a hypothetical concern. In Massachusetts , the only other state to redefine marriage, this exact situation has arisen. Parents who objected to pro-gay curriculum at their children's elementary school lost their lawsuit seeking an injunction to exempt their children from the material, in part because a federal court said the public schools “ have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages.” See Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1 st Cir. 2008).
There are other religious liberty concerns as well. In Canada , where marriage has been redefined, a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was fined for canceling a reception for a same-sex couple's wedding. See Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus, 2005 BCHRT 544 (2005). The list could go on.
These concerns do not exhaust the potential harms to which Proposition 8 would respond.
When the California Supreme Court redefined marriage, they did so not only for the small group who might benefit from the change but for every citizen of the State of California . This change means that the law of California now strongly endorses three ideas: men and women are essentially interchangeable, children do not need a mother and father and those who disagree are bigots.
In reality, every healthy human society, across time and cultures, has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for those children and for each other. Marriage is fundamentally about children's needs, not adult desires.
Our society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to provide this opportunity.
California law now creates intentionally motherless or fatherless families where children will not experience the unique contributions of at least one of their parents.
Decades of social science research has effectively demonstrated that the best arrangement for children's well being is to be raised by their own mother and father who are married to each other. Even married couples that do not have children promote society's concern for children by providing an example to those that do and, by observing their marriage vows, preventing the creation of other motherless or fatherless homes.
Proposition 8 is not about taking people's rights away. It is a simple way to protect marriage. It is also the last chance California voters may have to get their say on this matter.
William Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Protect Marriage campaign in California or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Who Is Being Discriminated Against?
We need to be concerned. The consequences are real. Check out this story.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Quote for the day
“Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it.” Abraham Lincoln.
Family Policy Lecture
The free exercise clause in the Constitution will NOT protect our religious liberties without the passage of Prop 8. (Differing viewpoints are presented here.)
Family Policy Lecture
Download Audio (.mp3): Free
Panel Discussion on California Same-sex Marriage: The Impact on Religious Liberty
On July 10, 2008, FRC hosted a panel discussion on the California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage and its impact on First Amendment rights and religious liberty protections.
Press the 'play' button below to view video of the discussion: (go to the link to view video)http://www.frc.org/panel/california-same-sex-marriage-the-impact-on-religious-liberty
WHO:
Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Benjamin Bull, Alliance Defense Fund
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Nathan J. Diament, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Professor Chai R. Feldblum, Georgetown University Law Center
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
Family Policy Lecture
Download Audio (.mp3): Free
Panel Discussion on California Same-sex Marriage: The Impact on Religious Liberty
On July 10, 2008, FRC hosted a panel discussion on the California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage and its impact on First Amendment rights and religious liberty protections.
Press the 'play' button below to view video of the discussion: (go to the link to view video)http://www.frc.org/panel/california-same-sex-marriage-the-impact-on-religious-liberty
WHO:
Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Benjamin Bull, Alliance Defense Fund
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Nathan J. Diament, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Professor Chai R. Feldblum, Georgetown University Law Center
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Seven Points to Consider by Margot Schulzke
1. "Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults."
2. "Extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task."
3. "The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example ... government officials ... already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to ... place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services. Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public."
4. "When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide."
5. "Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?"
6. "As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality."
7. "Throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue."
2. "Extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task."
3. "The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example ... government officials ... already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to ... place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services. Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public."
4. "When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide."
5. "Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?"
6. "As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality."
7. "Throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue."
Auburn Journal Editorial by Jason Argenbright of Weimar
Homosexuality is a sin that degrades marriage:
In response to Tom Cavallero's letter that "God is powerful enough to handle gay marriage" (Aug. 31), I would like to say that you are absolutely right. God will handle gay marriage as he does every other type of sin: very justly.
Homosexuality is no different than any other sin. To God, sin is sin. He hates it all. We "keyboard preachers" as you call us, do not selectively interpret the Bible. It is very clear that God despises sexual perversion and homosexuality (see Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 19 for more details).
The real problem is when the gays try to make you believe that it is a completely normal way of life. According to God, that would be the same as saying murder is normal and acceptable! Thankfully, for all sin there is hope in Jesus Christ. We as a people have that choice.
Now, let's look at homosexuality scientifically. Let's say that there is no God. That the entire universe just happened accidentally. Wouldn't it seem logical to say that homosexuality goes against every law of sexual nature? (Hopefully I don't need to explain that to you.) And since that is logically true, how can it be a good thing?
I really don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's when they feel that they have to take something sacred, that was created by God. (aka marriage), and turn it into a perversion of what was intended. To that I take offense! Homosexuals can call their unions anything they like, as long as they don't call it marriage.
Vote yes on Prop. 8.
In response to Tom Cavallero's letter that "God is powerful enough to handle gay marriage" (Aug. 31), I would like to say that you are absolutely right. God will handle gay marriage as he does every other type of sin: very justly.
Homosexuality is no different than any other sin. To God, sin is sin. He hates it all. We "keyboard preachers" as you call us, do not selectively interpret the Bible. It is very clear that God despises sexual perversion and homosexuality (see Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 19 for more details).
The real problem is when the gays try to make you believe that it is a completely normal way of life. According to God, that would be the same as saying murder is normal and acceptable! Thankfully, for all sin there is hope in Jesus Christ. We as a people have that choice.
Now, let's look at homosexuality scientifically. Let's say that there is no God. That the entire universe just happened accidentally. Wouldn't it seem logical to say that homosexuality goes against every law of sexual nature? (Hopefully I don't need to explain that to you.) And since that is logically true, how can it be a good thing?
I really don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's when they feel that they have to take something sacred, that was created by God. (aka marriage), and turn it into a perversion of what was intended. To that I take offense! Homosexuals can call their unions anything they like, as long as they don't call it marriage.
Vote yes on Prop. 8.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails
Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails
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.
Lets work together to protect them.
Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.
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.
Lets work together to protect them.
Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Same Sex Marriage, Next Stop Polygamy
Polygamy: Next Stop, New York State
For a case study in where same-sex "marriage" can lead, look no further than the Netherlands. New reports are circulating that the Scandinavian country, which already recognizes counterfeit marriage, has opened its official registers to polygamists. Although the Dutch officially ban the practice of polygamy, they've agreed to make concessions for the country's immigrants. If Muslims or others move to the Netherlands with multiple wives, a new policy calls for the local leaders to register those marriages. Local registrars are recognizing polygamous marriages every week. This is exactly what social conservatives have argued all along. When a government redefines marriage, there's no limit to the perversity that will follow. While liberals insist that same-sex "marriage" is the ultimate goal, their demands only lay the groundwork for other relationships to demand the same entitlements. Of course, now that leaders like Gov. David Paterson (D-N.Y.) have agreed to open their borders to out-of-state marriages, what's to keep polygamists from petitioning for recognition in New York? If marriage means everything, then we are helpless to prohibit anything. Additional Resources Netherlands Recognises Polygamous Marriages of Muslims reports Dutch Newspaper
For a case study in where same-sex "marriage" can lead, look no further than the Netherlands. New reports are circulating that the Scandinavian country, which already recognizes counterfeit marriage, has opened its official registers to polygamists. Although the Dutch officially ban the practice of polygamy, they've agreed to make concessions for the country's immigrants. If Muslims or others move to the Netherlands with multiple wives, a new policy calls for the local leaders to register those marriages. Local registrars are recognizing polygamous marriages every week. This is exactly what social conservatives have argued all along. When a government redefines marriage, there's no limit to the perversity that will follow. While liberals insist that same-sex "marriage" is the ultimate goal, their demands only lay the groundwork for other relationships to demand the same entitlements. Of course, now that leaders like Gov. David Paterson (D-N.Y.) have agreed to open their borders to out-of-state marriages, what's to keep polygamists from petitioning for recognition in New York? If marriage means everything, then we are helpless to prohibit anything. Additional Resources Netherlands Recognises Polygamous Marriages of Muslims reports Dutch Newspaper
ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training
Food for Thought for Those Who "Don't Want to Get Involved" with Prop 8. This was written in 2005. But we can plan on a tidal wave of this, soon, if we don't get 8 passed. Pastors, priests and bishops will be attending mandatory sensitivity training, and probably paying fines as they have in Canada if they refuse to perform gay marriages, and kids will have mandatory homosexual appreciation sessions in school. There is already a bill passed by the CA state legislature establishing Harvey Milk Day, in memory of a gay activist -- establishing a statewide holiday that will be observed by a school holiday, with all "appropriate" discussion in school. All it needs now to become law is Schwartzenegger's signature. If you wish to donate to Prop 8, please go to www.ProtectMarriage.com. For those of you outside California, not to worry, it is coming your way. M.
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8541&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training 7/14/2005By Robert Knight
Group goes to court in California, Kentucky to promote the “gay” agenda in schools.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing school districts in California and Kentucky in an attempt to force them to conduct mandatory homosexual appreciation sessions for students and staff.
In south Los Angeles, the ACLU of Southern California, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), reached a settlement requiring mandatory attitudinal training at Washington Preparatory High School.
“The training is a model for the state,” said Christine Sun, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, in a press release.
The sessions, according to the NCLR release, include: “mandatory day-long faculty training on diversity, discrimination and harassment, focused primarily on issues pertaining to actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Some teachers, in discussions with students, reportedly called homosexuals “sinners,” “wrong,” “unholy,” “not supposed to live like this,” and “faggot,” according to the ACLU. The training will be conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, which produces materials that castigate Christians and others as bigots for not accepting homosexuality.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky, the ACLU went back to federal court on July 6, claiming that Boyd County High School has not lived up to a 2004 settlement that forced the school to conduct mandatory “anti-harassment training” focusing on “sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.”
After the settlement, which also established a “gay-straight alliance” club, parents pulled many of the students out of school on days when training sessions were scheduled. The students were given unexcused absences and not required to make up the sessions. The ACLU noted that about half of middle school and high school students attended the mandatory sessions and that an hour-long video dealt with bullying issues in general instead of focusing on “sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Before the settlement, school officials who had opposed the “gay” club and the new policy said they would teach students mutual respect without focusing on homosexual issues.
"The ACLU continues to use a law license to bully school districts and harass parents in order to brainwash their kids about the 'normalcy' of homosexuality," said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's chief counsel. "Having them dictate the content of anti-bullying training makes as much sense as having Bill Clinton teach abstinence classes."
In February, the Alliance Defense Fund sued the Boyd County Board of Education over the settlement, contending that it amounted to a First Amendment violation of the rights of students whose faiths tell them that homosexuality is wrong.
Parents, led by the Rev. Tim York, pastor of Heritage Temple Free Will Baptist Church, called the training “a form of recruitment” for homosexuality, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. “They (the ACLU) want to control the district,” York told the newspaper. “They don’t believe in parental rights.”
For more on the ACLU, read ACLU: Guardians of Liberty or ‘Card-carrying Hypocrites’?by Jan LaRue, Sarah Markwood and Megan Roberts.
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=8541&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training 7/14/2005By Robert Knight
Group goes to court in California, Kentucky to promote the “gay” agenda in schools.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing school districts in California and Kentucky in an attempt to force them to conduct mandatory homosexual appreciation sessions for students and staff.
In south Los Angeles, the ACLU of Southern California, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), reached a settlement requiring mandatory attitudinal training at Washington Preparatory High School.
“The training is a model for the state,” said Christine Sun, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, in a press release.
The sessions, according to the NCLR release, include: “mandatory day-long faculty training on diversity, discrimination and harassment, focused primarily on issues pertaining to actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Some teachers, in discussions with students, reportedly called homosexuals “sinners,” “wrong,” “unholy,” “not supposed to live like this,” and “faggot,” according to the ACLU. The training will be conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, which produces materials that castigate Christians and others as bigots for not accepting homosexuality.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky, the ACLU went back to federal court on July 6, claiming that Boyd County High School has not lived up to a 2004 settlement that forced the school to conduct mandatory “anti-harassment training” focusing on “sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.”
After the settlement, which also established a “gay-straight alliance” club, parents pulled many of the students out of school on days when training sessions were scheduled. The students were given unexcused absences and not required to make up the sessions. The ACLU noted that about half of middle school and high school students attended the mandatory sessions and that an hour-long video dealt with bullying issues in general instead of focusing on “sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Before the settlement, school officials who had opposed the “gay” club and the new policy said they would teach students mutual respect without focusing on homosexual issues.
"The ACLU continues to use a law license to bully school districts and harass parents in order to brainwash their kids about the 'normalcy' of homosexuality," said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's chief counsel. "Having them dictate the content of anti-bullying training makes as much sense as having Bill Clinton teach abstinence classes."
In February, the Alliance Defense Fund sued the Boyd County Board of Education over the settlement, contending that it amounted to a First Amendment violation of the rights of students whose faiths tell them that homosexuality is wrong.
Parents, led by the Rev. Tim York, pastor of Heritage Temple Free Will Baptist Church, called the training “a form of recruitment” for homosexuality, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. “They (the ACLU) want to control the district,” York told the newspaper. “They don’t believe in parental rights.”
For more on the ACLU, read ACLU: Guardians of Liberty or ‘Card-carrying Hypocrites’?by Jan LaRue, Sarah Markwood and Megan Roberts.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
LDS Perspective for Involvement in Prop. 8
Recommended reading at lds.org: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage. It covers all the angles --answers lots of questions.
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
DNC Gives $25,000 to Defeat Amendment
Conventional Wisdom Lacking at DNC
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is putting its money where its mouth is. According to public records, the party, which last weekend unveiled the most radical platform ever seen at a national convention, gave $25,000 to defeat California's marriage protection amendment. As its nominee drifts even farther to the left, the DNC has been quick to follow with serious concessions in the platform, including the first-ever mention of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). With this $25,000 gift, Democrats are making an unprecedented statement that marriage is no longer a valued institution within the party. Although DNC Chair Howard Dean is an outspoken proponent of same-sex "marriage," he should know that a surprising percentage of the grassroots is not. At last count, 30 percent of California Democrats supported Proposition 8's definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman. Supporting counterfeit marriage is not a winning strategy. In a poll we commissioned, an overwhelming majority of Americans (58%) "would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports [marriage] amendments." To win, the DNC should stop trying to keep up with Obama and instead try to keep up with the Joneses--normal American families who, regardless of party, still place the utmost importance on man-woman marriage. Now that we know the DNC's priority is abolishing thousands of years of traditional marriage, I can't help but wonder where the RNC stands. Will we see a $25,000 check in defense of marriage? (frc.org)
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is putting its money where its mouth is. According to public records, the party, which last weekend unveiled the most radical platform ever seen at a national convention, gave $25,000 to defeat California's marriage protection amendment. As its nominee drifts even farther to the left, the DNC has been quick to follow with serious concessions in the platform, including the first-ever mention of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). With this $25,000 gift, Democrats are making an unprecedented statement that marriage is no longer a valued institution within the party. Although DNC Chair Howard Dean is an outspoken proponent of same-sex "marriage," he should know that a surprising percentage of the grassroots is not. At last count, 30 percent of California Democrats supported Proposition 8's definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman. Supporting counterfeit marriage is not a winning strategy. In a poll we commissioned, an overwhelming majority of Americans (58%) "would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports [marriage] amendments." To win, the DNC should stop trying to keep up with Obama and instead try to keep up with the Joneses--normal American families who, regardless of party, still place the utmost importance on man-woman marriage. Now that we know the DNC's priority is abolishing thousands of years of traditional marriage, I can't help but wonder where the RNC stands. Will we see a $25,000 check in defense of marriage? (frc.org)
For Letters To The Editor:
For your use (or that of others) in letters to the editor:Here are the names of the Justices on the California Supreme Court who voted with the majority opinion. It was authored by Chief Justice Ronald George and signed by Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
Three justices dissented. One who wrote a particularly strong argument against the majority decision was Marvin R. Baxter. (Yeah! He needs letters of appreciation) Associate Justice Ming W. Chin concurred in his dissenting opinion.
These individuals can be reached at the Supreme Court of California, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 and by phone at 415-865-7000 These four justices should know that they have over-stepped their authority and that their decision will not be forgotten. Likewise, the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, should hear from pro-family advocates. He actually favors the same-sex ruling, after saying for years that he believes in the exclusivity of marriage between a man and a woman. You can reach him at the State Capitol Builing, Sacramento, Ca 95814 and by phone at 916-445-2841.
Here is a press release from the Supreme Court's website which gives some more details.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF
We should be courteous in whatever letters are written, but people do have the right to know which justices are voting against them. The names of the justices come up for a vote I believe every four years.
Three justices dissented. One who wrote a particularly strong argument against the majority decision was Marvin R. Baxter. (Yeah! He needs letters of appreciation) Associate Justice Ming W. Chin concurred in his dissenting opinion.
These individuals can be reached at the Supreme Court of California, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 and by phone at 415-865-7000 These four justices should know that they have over-stepped their authority and that their decision will not be forgotten. Likewise, the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, should hear from pro-family advocates. He actually favors the same-sex ruling, after saying for years that he believes in the exclusivity of marriage between a man and a woman. You can reach him at the State Capitol Builing, Sacramento, Ca 95814 and by phone at 916-445-2841.
Here is a press release from the Supreme Court's website which gives some more details.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF
We should be courteous in whatever letters are written, but people do have the right to know which justices are voting against them. The names of the justices come up for a vote I believe every four years.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Editorial by Dean Forman
Editorial by Dean Forman:
In 1532 a very politically courageous individual by the name of Thomas More stood up to King Henry the 8th who sought annulment of his first marriage. Refused by the Pope he then installed himself as head of the Church of England and set up his marriage to Anne Boleyn. Many of the Bishops wanted More to join them at the coronation of Anne Boleyn. To this he wrote “For some there are who, by first getting your lordships to be present at the coronation, will then get you to preach for its legitimacy. These desire to deflower you, and when they have deflowered you, then will they not fail soon after to devour you. Now, my lords, it lies not in my power if they devour me, but God, being my good Lord, I will provide that they shall never deflower me.
There have been many such “deflowering” events in our day; witness the usurping of power by our Supreme Court over the voices of the people to install “gay marriage”. Deflowering events have persisted throughout the last few decades. Politicians, athletes and Hollywood abound with their indiscretions, no fault divorce, rise of the pornography industry (even exploiting children), living together without the marriage covenant, the teaching of normalcy of the gay lifestyle in our schools, the vilification of the Boys Scouts and their stance of being “morally straight”, some churches ordaining gay priests and solemnizing gay marriages, and the promotion of such in the media and movies. Now we are at the “devouring” moment of marriage, where this final act has been thrust onto the stage by a usurpation of the authority of the people by the Supreme Court and a loose cannon attorney general rewriting the marriage proposal. Proposition 8 will protect an institution that has built and sustained civilizations and children through the ages… marriage between a man and a woman. Should this devouring act by our Supreme Court and Attorney General stand we will soon find ourselves saying as More’s predecessor Cardinal Wolsey just prior to his execution, “If I had served God as diligently as I have done the king, he would not have given me over in my gray hairs." Let us stand against this devouring tide against natural marriage and family and vote YES on Proposition 8.
Dean Forman
Past President United Families International of Northern California
In 1532 a very politically courageous individual by the name of Thomas More stood up to King Henry the 8th who sought annulment of his first marriage. Refused by the Pope he then installed himself as head of the Church of England and set up his marriage to Anne Boleyn. Many of the Bishops wanted More to join them at the coronation of Anne Boleyn. To this he wrote “For some there are who, by first getting your lordships to be present at the coronation, will then get you to preach for its legitimacy. These desire to deflower you, and when they have deflowered you, then will they not fail soon after to devour you. Now, my lords, it lies not in my power if they devour me, but God, being my good Lord, I will provide that they shall never deflower me.
There have been many such “deflowering” events in our day; witness the usurping of power by our Supreme Court over the voices of the people to install “gay marriage”. Deflowering events have persisted throughout the last few decades. Politicians, athletes and Hollywood abound with their indiscretions, no fault divorce, rise of the pornography industry (even exploiting children), living together without the marriage covenant, the teaching of normalcy of the gay lifestyle in our schools, the vilification of the Boys Scouts and their stance of being “morally straight”, some churches ordaining gay priests and solemnizing gay marriages, and the promotion of such in the media and movies. Now we are at the “devouring” moment of marriage, where this final act has been thrust onto the stage by a usurpation of the authority of the people by the Supreme Court and a loose cannon attorney general rewriting the marriage proposal. Proposition 8 will protect an institution that has built and sustained civilizations and children through the ages… marriage between a man and a woman. Should this devouring act by our Supreme Court and Attorney General stand we will soon find ourselves saying as More’s predecessor Cardinal Wolsey just prior to his execution, “If I had served God as diligently as I have done the king, he would not have given me over in my gray hairs." Let us stand against this devouring tide against natural marriage and family and vote YES on Proposition 8.
Dean Forman
Past President United Families International of Northern California
Friday, August 8, 2008
Seeking Appeal of Prejudicial Language on Ballot
Proposition 8 to Protect Marriage Seeks Appeal of Prejudicial Language on Ballot Title & Summary
Attorney General Attempts to Slant Election toward Opponents of Proposition 8
August 08, 2008
Contact: Jennifer Kerns, 916-446-2956
Sacramento --- Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com will seek an appeal today in response to the Sacramento Superior Court’s decision to deny their writ requesting that prejudicial language assigned to the Ballot Title & Summary by Attorney General Jerry Brown be changed. While agreeing that Brown’s language could have been better and more completely drafted, the Superior Court found that the law gives the Attorney General discretion to rewrite ballot titles and summaries. “The language in the Ballot Title & Summary for Proposition 8 is argumentative and seeks to negatively affect voters,” said Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for Proposition 8. “Since the Superior Court would not exercise its authority to protect voters against misleading language, we will ask the Appellate Court to do so.” The California Election Code states that a ballot measure must receive an impartial statement. The Attorney General recently changed the ballot title & summary for Proposition 8, raising questions about the impartiality and fairness of the language. “We believe the Attorney General has attempted to influence voters against this measure,” said Pugno. “It is our goal to ensure that voters have a fair opportunity to decide this measure for themselves on Election Day.” In a review of the past 50 years of ballot measures, this is the only initiative among 250 initiatives that an Attorney General has assigned a negative verb for its Title & Summary. Proponents of Proposition 8 will file an Appeal today. They note that the measure simply seeks to restore the definition of marriage back to its original meaning of the previous 158 years of California statehood. For more information, visit www.ProtectMarriage.com.
Attorney General Attempts to Slant Election toward Opponents of Proposition 8
August 08, 2008
Contact: Jennifer Kerns, 916-446-2956
Sacramento --- Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com will seek an appeal today in response to the Sacramento Superior Court’s decision to deny their writ requesting that prejudicial language assigned to the Ballot Title & Summary by Attorney General Jerry Brown be changed. While agreeing that Brown’s language could have been better and more completely drafted, the Superior Court found that the law gives the Attorney General discretion to rewrite ballot titles and summaries. “The language in the Ballot Title & Summary for Proposition 8 is argumentative and seeks to negatively affect voters,” said Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for Proposition 8. “Since the Superior Court would not exercise its authority to protect voters against misleading language, we will ask the Appellate Court to do so.” The California Election Code states that a ballot measure must receive an impartial statement. The Attorney General recently changed the ballot title & summary for Proposition 8, raising questions about the impartiality and fairness of the language. “We believe the Attorney General has attempted to influence voters against this measure,” said Pugno. “It is our goal to ensure that voters have a fair opportunity to decide this measure for themselves on Election Day.” In a review of the past 50 years of ballot measures, this is the only initiative among 250 initiatives that an Attorney General has assigned a negative verb for its Title & Summary. Proponents of Proposition 8 will file an Appeal today. They note that the measure simply seeks to restore the definition of marriage back to its original meaning of the previous 158 years of California statehood. For more information, visit www.ProtectMarriage.com.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Sample Letter to Mail or E-mail to friends and family
Friends and Family,
Many of you are aware of the upcoming election in November, but may not be aware of proposition 8, the Amendment protecting marriage. Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:
· It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
· It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
· It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
For those of you who believe in the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, you should investigate this for yourselves. If you believe in restoring marriage and protecting California Children, then go to this web site ( http://www.protectmarriage.com/) and learn more.
To see who endorses this Amendment, click here: (http://www.protectmarriage.com/endorsements)
Be aware of the consequences and be prepared for the upcoming election. Send this to your friends and family who should learn more about this.
Thank you,
Many of you are aware of the upcoming election in November, but may not be aware of proposition 8, the Amendment protecting marriage. Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:
· It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
· It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
· It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
For those of you who believe in the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, you should investigate this for yourselves. If you believe in restoring marriage and protecting California Children, then go to this web site ( http://www.protectmarriage.com/) and learn more.
To see who endorses this Amendment, click here: (http://www.protectmarriage.com/endorsements)
Be aware of the consequences and be prepared for the upcoming election. Send this to your friends and family who should learn more about this.
Thank you,
Prop. 8 Voter Guide Arguments For The Proposition
Prop. 8 Launches New Web siteProposition 8 has launched their new vote YES on Proposition 8 Web site located at http://www.protectmarriage.com/. Visit the site today to join the Campaign’s email list, become a volunteer, obtain the latest news, donate, obtain resources and/or officially endorse the Campaign.
Vote Yes on Prop. 8 Arguments Published in Secretary of State’sNovember 2008 Voter GuideThis week, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen released the November 2008 Voter Guide. The guide includes arguments for and against each proposition. To view the arguments submitted by the YES on Proposition 8 Campaign, click on the links below. Final versions of the ballot arguments will be included in the election ballot pamphlets mailed to voters on September 25, 2008.
Argument In Favor of Prop 8
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 8
Vote Yes on Prop. 8 Arguments Published in Secretary of State’sNovember 2008 Voter GuideThis week, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen released the November 2008 Voter Guide. The guide includes arguments for and against each proposition. To view the arguments submitted by the YES on Proposition 8 Campaign, click on the links below. Final versions of the ballot arguments will be included in the election ballot pamphlets mailed to voters on September 25, 2008.
Argument In Favor of Prop 8
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 8
Prop. 8 Campaign Files Lawsuit
Prop. 8 Campaign Files Lawsuit to Overturn AttorneyGeneral’s Outrageous Change to Prop. 8 Ballot Title
In regards to the ballot pamphlet mentioned above, the Proposition 8 Campaign has filed a lawsuit against the outrageous effort by Attorney General Jerry Brown to rewrite the official “Title and Summary” of Proposition 8, which will appear on all Californian’s ballots and in the official ballot pamphlet.
The original Title and Summary, which appeared on the 1.2 million petitions that Californians signed to place Proposition 8 on the ballot, said:
LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTAmends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The new Title and Summary drafted by Jerry Brown says:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTChanges California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This is a very cynical manipulation of the official ballot pamphlet materials, which state law requires to be impartial and fair. In fact, long time Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters said Brown’s action was likely done at the behest of the No on Prop 8 campaign, and called it, “…a pretty cynical act. A referee shouldn't misuse the rules of the game to favor one side over the other. If he does, the outcome will carry an asterisk of illegitimacy.”
Because voters give great weight to the official ballot Title, we cannot allow Jerry Brown’s attempt to hijack the ballot succeed. The Proposition 8 legal team has filed a lawsuit to restore the original Title and Summary, just as Proposition 8 itself restores the definition of marriage in California.
In regards to the ballot pamphlet mentioned above, the Proposition 8 Campaign has filed a lawsuit against the outrageous effort by Attorney General Jerry Brown to rewrite the official “Title and Summary” of Proposition 8, which will appear on all Californian’s ballots and in the official ballot pamphlet.
The original Title and Summary, which appeared on the 1.2 million petitions that Californians signed to place Proposition 8 on the ballot, said:
LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTAmends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The new Title and Summary drafted by Jerry Brown says:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTChanges California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This is a very cynical manipulation of the official ballot pamphlet materials, which state law requires to be impartial and fair. In fact, long time Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters said Brown’s action was likely done at the behest of the No on Prop 8 campaign, and called it, “…a pretty cynical act. A referee shouldn't misuse the rules of the game to favor one side over the other. If he does, the outcome will carry an asterisk of illegitimacy.”
Because voters give great weight to the official ballot Title, we cannot allow Jerry Brown’s attempt to hijack the ballot succeed. The Proposition 8 legal team has filed a lawsuit to restore the original Title and Summary, just as Proposition 8 itself restores the definition of marriage in California.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Taking Sides In California
Taking Sides in California !
Wednesday, July 30, 2008Visit familyleader.net for more articles, news & issues.
From: Maurine Proctor Washington, D.C
In an overt attempt to sabotage Proposition 8, California's marriage protection amendment, Attorney General Jerry Brown has reworded the ballot summary. The initiative that 1.1 million California voters signed and was to have appeared on the ballot read "[Proposition 8] ! amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.""
With Brown's creative writing, the new ballot summary says that it "'changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." Further it claims that the state will be impacted with a potential revenue loss of several million dollars-an argument calculated to prejudice voters in these difficult economic times.
Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, told the LA Times that the new language was "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."
The LA Times also reported, "The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot. A! nd it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. "He is delivering something...that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote "no," said political analyst Tony Quinn.
That Brown panders to the gay community instead of believing he needs to take any note of those who support family is a demonstration of where the political clout lies these days. Social conservatives need to step up to the plate with money and time to support the causes they believe in.
The Protect Marriage Coalition, of which Family Leader is a member, will challenge this ballot summary next Tuesday in court. As citizens in California scramble to save marriage, a July 19th Field poll shows just how damaging this language change can be. With the reticence from the population to eliminate anyone's rights! , Prop. 8 falls behind when it is described as a measure to ban gay marriage, but pulls ahead by several points when its exact wording is known.
"This is a complete about-fact from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures," Kern said.The Wall Street Journal's John Fund has written an intriguing article called "The Far Left's War on Democray" which details how opponents use sometimes outrageous means to derail ballot initiatives. It is worth reading.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008Visit familyleader.net for more articles, news & issues.
From: Maurine Proctor Washington, D.C
In an overt attempt to sabotage Proposition 8, California's marriage protection amendment, Attorney General Jerry Brown has reworded the ballot summary. The initiative that 1.1 million California voters signed and was to have appeared on the ballot read "[Proposition 8] ! amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.""
With Brown's creative writing, the new ballot summary says that it "'changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." Further it claims that the state will be impacted with a potential revenue loss of several million dollars-an argument calculated to prejudice voters in these difficult economic times.
Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, told the LA Times that the new language was "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."
The LA Times also reported, "The dust-up reflects the fierce battle being waged over the question of same-sex marriage in California, the most closely-watched social issue that will appear on the November ballot. A! nd it has raised suspicion in some circles that Brown, a possible candidate for governor in 2010, was influenced by politics. "He is delivering something...that is very important to the gay community, and that is a title and summary that is more likely to lead you to vote "no," said political analyst Tony Quinn.
That Brown panders to the gay community instead of believing he needs to take any note of those who support family is a demonstration of where the political clout lies these days. Social conservatives need to step up to the plate with money and time to support the causes they believe in.
The Protect Marriage Coalition, of which Family Leader is a member, will challenge this ballot summary next Tuesday in court. As citizens in California scramble to save marriage, a July 19th Field poll shows just how damaging this language change can be. With the reticence from the population to eliminate anyone's rights! , Prop. 8 falls behind when it is described as a measure to ban gay marriage, but pulls ahead by several points when its exact wording is known.
"This is a complete about-fact from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures," Kern said.The Wall Street Journal's John Fund has written an intriguing article called "The Far Left's War on Democray" which details how opponents use sometimes outrageous means to derail ballot initiatives. It is worth reading.
Society's Fabric Is As Strong As It's Marriages
Woven Together
Society’s fabric is as strong as its marriages.
by Jenny Tyree
The strength of any fabric — from the sheerest muslins to the sturdiest upholstery — is its pattern of tightly woven threads. Similarly, the social institution of marriage is a pattern that strengthens the fabric of families, churches, communities and countries.
The words social institution may seem like an academic way to describe what we often think of as a private, romantic relationship, but marriage has deep cultural meaning in nearly every human society. In The Future of Marriage, scholar David Blankenhorn writes that a social institution is “a pattern of rules and structures intended to meet social needs.” Though marital customs, traditions and responsibilities vary by country and culture, Blankenhorn writes that nearly everywhere “marriage at its core is a woman and a man whose sexual union forms the basis of an important cooperative relationship.”
This “cooperative relationship” creates a framework for meeting the physical and relational needs of women, men and children in a way that is healthy for and protective of the next generation. Marriage has been so effective that other institutions, such as the government and the church, recognize and support marriage as essential to the well-being of families.
Higher purpose
Marriage has thrived cross-culturally because its purpose surpasses the meaning that any one couple, religion or government chooses to give it. A couple entering marriage willingly commit their bodies, wills and lives to each other, as well as to an established relational design for men and women.
The public vows of marriage make a clear statement to family and friends about the commitment of the spouses — that their sexuality is exclusive and their lives and worldly goods belong to one another. The vows also make an indirect statement to the community. The couple’s willingness to enter marriage indicates that they are capable of trust and duty.
The sexual aspect of marriage underscores its procreative purpose — not just the creation of a child, but the permanent bonding of the couple. The couples’ sexual bond is of critical importance, as Blankenhorn writes “so that the mother and father will stay together to raise the baby.”
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, emphasizes what marriage does for fathers. “When a baby is born, there is bound to be a mother somewhere close by. If we want fathers to be equally involved in their children’s lives, biology alone won’t get us very far. The word for the way cultures attach fathers to the mother-child bond in . . . virtually every known human society is marriage.”
When marriage fails
Our need for the social institution of marriage is most visible when it unravels. Unfortunately, those who suffer most are frequently the least prepared to bear that burden. If a marriage breaks up — or never occurs — children lose the financial and emotional stability provided by a married mother and father. Often, financial support for these fractured families comes from taxpayers.
One Rutgers University researcher estimated that the cost of a single divorce to the state and federal governments is about $30,000. This includes the cost of food stamps and public housing following a couple’s split, as well as the costs associated with increased bankruptcy and juvenile delinquency that often descend upon a broken family.
Sociologists continue to find evidence that marriage makes a difference for families — especially children. The Center for Law and Social Policy says most researchers now agree that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships.
Marriage is the only human institution that uniquely interweaves our private needs with the public need for commitment to the next generation. The tapestry of a society will be only as strong as the pattern of its threads. Marriage must be celebrated and supported by communities, families and individuals who depend upon it.
This article first appeared in the February, 2008 issue of Focus on the Family magazine..
Jenny Tyree is an associate analyst for marriage at Focus on the Family.
Society’s fabric is as strong as its marriages.
by Jenny Tyree
The strength of any fabric — from the sheerest muslins to the sturdiest upholstery — is its pattern of tightly woven threads. Similarly, the social institution of marriage is a pattern that strengthens the fabric of families, churches, communities and countries.
The words social institution may seem like an academic way to describe what we often think of as a private, romantic relationship, but marriage has deep cultural meaning in nearly every human society. In The Future of Marriage, scholar David Blankenhorn writes that a social institution is “a pattern of rules and structures intended to meet social needs.” Though marital customs, traditions and responsibilities vary by country and culture, Blankenhorn writes that nearly everywhere “marriage at its core is a woman and a man whose sexual union forms the basis of an important cooperative relationship.”
This “cooperative relationship” creates a framework for meeting the physical and relational needs of women, men and children in a way that is healthy for and protective of the next generation. Marriage has been so effective that other institutions, such as the government and the church, recognize and support marriage as essential to the well-being of families.
Higher purpose
Marriage has thrived cross-culturally because its purpose surpasses the meaning that any one couple, religion or government chooses to give it. A couple entering marriage willingly commit their bodies, wills and lives to each other, as well as to an established relational design for men and women.
The public vows of marriage make a clear statement to family and friends about the commitment of the spouses — that their sexuality is exclusive and their lives and worldly goods belong to one another. The vows also make an indirect statement to the community. The couple’s willingness to enter marriage indicates that they are capable of trust and duty.
The sexual aspect of marriage underscores its procreative purpose — not just the creation of a child, but the permanent bonding of the couple. The couples’ sexual bond is of critical importance, as Blankenhorn writes “so that the mother and father will stay together to raise the baby.”
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, emphasizes what marriage does for fathers. “When a baby is born, there is bound to be a mother somewhere close by. If we want fathers to be equally involved in their children’s lives, biology alone won’t get us very far. The word for the way cultures attach fathers to the mother-child bond in . . . virtually every known human society is marriage.”
When marriage fails
Our need for the social institution of marriage is most visible when it unravels. Unfortunately, those who suffer most are frequently the least prepared to bear that burden. If a marriage breaks up — or never occurs — children lose the financial and emotional stability provided by a married mother and father. Often, financial support for these fractured families comes from taxpayers.
One Rutgers University researcher estimated that the cost of a single divorce to the state and federal governments is about $30,000. This includes the cost of food stamps and public housing following a couple’s split, as well as the costs associated with increased bankruptcy and juvenile delinquency that often descend upon a broken family.
Sociologists continue to find evidence that marriage makes a difference for families — especially children. The Center for Law and Social Policy says most researchers now agree that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships.
Marriage is the only human institution that uniquely interweaves our private needs with the public need for commitment to the next generation. The tapestry of a society will be only as strong as the pattern of its threads. Marriage must be celebrated and supported by communities, families and individuals who depend upon it.
This article first appeared in the February, 2008 issue of Focus on the Family magazine..
Jenny Tyree is an associate analyst for marriage at Focus on the Family.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
We're making them nervous!
This is a news posting from FRCaction (Family Research Council)
Don't Believe Everything You Read
As California families fight tooth and nail to preserve marriage in November, the state's attorney general made no secret of which side of the debate he was on when he launched a surprise attack on the language of Proposition 8, the initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Attorney General Jerry Brown sabotaged the amendment's description in an obvious attempt to influence voters. Rather than use the original text, which states, "[Proposition 8] provide[s] that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Brown's version makes sweeping claims that banning same-sex marriage would have a negative impact on the state's economy. He editorializes the description to state: "[Proposition 8] changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, like little fiscal impact on state and local governments." Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a "right" to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges). Brown speculates that there will be "revenue loss... in the several tens of millions of dollars," which is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. Knowing how the economy looms on voters' minds, Brown is using people's pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment. To cloud the issue with Brown's personal bias is simply indefensible. ProtectMarriage, the coalition on the ground in California, announced this morning that it will file a lawsuit seeking to block the biased summary from appearing on the ballot. We will keep you updated on the case as it develops.
This is the link to the above referenced new article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage29-2008jul29,0,7313757.story
Don't Believe Everything You Read
As California families fight tooth and nail to preserve marriage in November, the state's attorney general made no secret of which side of the debate he was on when he launched a surprise attack on the language of Proposition 8, the initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Attorney General Jerry Brown sabotaged the amendment's description in an obvious attempt to influence voters. Rather than use the original text, which states, "[Proposition 8] provide[s] that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Brown's version makes sweeping claims that banning same-sex marriage would have a negative impact on the state's economy. He editorializes the description to state: "[Proposition 8] changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, like little fiscal impact on state and local governments." Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a "right" to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges). Brown speculates that there will be "revenue loss... in the several tens of millions of dollars," which is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. Knowing how the economy looms on voters' minds, Brown is using people's pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment. To cloud the issue with Brown's personal bias is simply indefensible. ProtectMarriage, the coalition on the ground in California, announced this morning that it will file a lawsuit seeking to block the biased summary from appearing on the ballot. We will keep you updated on the case as it develops.
This is the link to the above referenced new article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage29-2008jul29,0,7313757.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)