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.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)