Pages

Photobucket
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Indiana| Next Up For Marriage Amendment

Indiana Next Up for Marriage Next Up For Marriage: Indiana

by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Indiana wants the people to decide on a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

The Indiana Family Institute is at the helm of the drive. Spokesman Curt Smith admits efforts in the past have not been successful.

"We've met with a lot of legislative roadblocks," he shares. "But not to be deterred, we submitted new legislation, working with several very courageous state legislators -- and [we] hope that the Indiana General Assembly will pass it this session and allow the voters in the future to decide that marriage should be given the full protection of Indiana's constitution."

Under Indiana law, the measure would have to pass in two separately elected legislative bodies to go to the voters, which means a minimum of four years before it would appear on a ballot.

"But we're not going back off, and we're not going back down," Smith promises.
He believes the residents of the Hoosier State want the chance to make the decision. "I believe if given a chance to vote on this, Indiana would overwhelmingly pass it -- as have about two-thirds of Americans in the states where they've had the privilege of voting on this."

Currently, 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. Another 11 have statutes banning same-sex "marriage."

-----

Related Articles:

MSNBC: Some Want to Revive calls for gay Marriage Ban

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Obama Supported Gay 'Marriage' Before He Opposed It

obama for gay marriage

Obama Supported Gay ‘Marriage’ Before He Opposed It

by Jennifer Mesko

'Is this what Obama supporters meant by change we can believe in?'

A gay-activist newspaper in Chicago has discovered that President-elect Barack Obama supported same-sex "marriage" during his run for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Conservatives and liberals alike seem irritated by the flip-flop.

In 1996, Outlines newspaper, which merged with Windy City Times in 2000, surveyed candidates for all levels of elected office. Obama's answer was very clear: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

But with an eye on the White House, Obama quickly dropped his support for gay "marriage" in favor of civil unions. More recently, he has said marriage is a religious issue and a state issue.

"I wonder, is this what Obama supporters meant by change we can believe in?" asked conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity.

Obama's transition team has had no comment on the report.

Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said: "I wish this was a change in policy we could take seriously, but unfortunately, Mr. Obama's actions do not support the lip service he's given to marriage. He did not support the state marriage amendments that passed in November.
"His position on marriage seems to be one of political expediency rather than personal conviction."

Link

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

CA Lawyers File Lawsuit to Block Campaign Finance Records From Public View

I'm Scott Eckern! e coyote

Pro-Marriage Supporters Face Threats in California

by Steve Lawrence, AP writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions...and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California's Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

[Read entire article here]

 

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Jerry Brown, AKA Fish-Out-Of-Water

by Pearl Diver

"A flip-flop, flippty-flip-flip-flop you don’t stop…" says a community commenter at Michelle Malkin's blog. The little ditty accurately describes the shenanigans taking place at the Attorney General's office.


Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General, came gallantly to the defense of the people's Prop 8 vote immediately following the November 4th elections, vowing to uphold the constitutional amendment against his own personal beliefs. Now, however, in a perhaps-not-so-surprising turn of events, Brown has renounced his supportive position and fallen in with gay rights activists' "rainbow-love-change-civil rights-freedom" mantra, claiming that the amendment was "inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty." RIP, Jerry Brown, RIP.

Most outrageous is this quote from Brown himself that claims his change of heart was brought about by, "further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution." It is my humble opinion that the astute and capable Jerry Brown, would undoubtedly already be quite versed in Proposition 8 and every aspect of its Constitutional repercussions; he is the Attorney General, after all.

Pearl opines:

How to win a 2010 governor's chair? Jump ship on Proposition 8 in order to win popularity with the up-and-coming, "enlightened and progressive," young CA voter pool.

But really, can we really blame JB for being more afraid of the gay rights activists' reactions should Prop 8 be upheld than the traditional marriage supporters' reactions should Prop 8 be overturned? Hm? The answer is no, not if you've been following the blazing trail of GRA hate visible from outer space.

On a more positive note, joining the Yes on 8 legal defense team is the esteemed Kenneth Starr, Dean of Pepperdine University Law School, former US Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit, and former US Solicitor General who has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Obama & Warren Form an Alliance to Defend the DOMA

Really? No, of course not. But that's what you'd think has happened based on the blustering outcry of gay rights activists who are up-in-arms about the president-elect's inauguration invocation selection, Pastor Rick Warren. Have they conveniently ignored the fact that Obama also selected pro-SSM advocate, Joseph Lowery, to give the benediction? It would appear so. And it certainly lends further emotional appeal to their sad, minority "plight" when they fail to give proper recognition to that last fact.

[Read more...]

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Gay Marriage. Robert and Gary. And Fred. And Martin

by LeftCoastVoter


A fact that the Main Stream Media hid (and quite well) during the Prop 8 battle is the fact that up to 75% of Gay males in a “committed relationship” or a “marriage”  accept their partner having open sexual relations with another male.
It seems a little incredulous, so let me break it down so that we are all on the same page.
Robert and Gary are married.  Or deeply committed to each other.  They are “partners.”
It’s OK with Robert if Gary goes out and has sex with Fred.  And Gary thinks its OK if Robert has a sexual relationship with Martin.
You don’t believe me?  Ask David Benkof over at the Jerusalem Post. He wrote a column about it.  Here’s the highlights:
“…many male couples, including those in “marriages,” have arrangements with each other that allow for mutually agreed upon infidelity under certain circumstances…”
“…many gay couples are quite open about their mutually approved “adultery.”…”
“…Even gays and lesbians in monogamous relationships tend to see nothing wrong with consensual adultery, even when a couple has children. …”
The entire article is here.  Do you need more?  Perhaps David Nimmons is a big enough name for you.  You know, the founder of Manifest Love and a Gay Leader in New York.
In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David cites numerous studies which document approximately 75%  of Gay Men in a “committed relationship” are not monogamous. They go out and have sex with other men.  And they both accept that.  Even when they have children in their “family.”
Remember Bob and Gary? And Fred?  And Martin?
That’s another reason why it’s Gay Marriage Gay Lifestyle is not OK.
I’d welcome your thoughts if they are on topic.  And if you want to say, “No, that’s not true,” then do some research first, perhaps contact David Nimmons (he’s Gay and will tell you the truth) or David Benkof (he got hate mail from Gays when he suggested that they try monogamy…and he is bi-sexual)
Stay tuned, much more to come.

Camel in the Tent: New Jersey Civil Union Findings

We found this post on Beetle Blogger.
We think people should know about it.


“What do we want?” “Equality!” “When do we want it?” Now!”
“All we want is to be equal!” “Stop Treating us like second-class citizens!

Oh…No Wait…Equal Isn’t Enough.
Let’s Call it Marriage!

Camel nose in the tent strategy rears it’s head in New Jersey.

A New Jersey commission on the legal equality of civil unions in that state has weighed in on the marriage debate. After talking to everyone under the sun and not being able to find a single case where the legal benefits of civil unions differed from the legal benefits of marriage, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has determined that their state should accept gay marriage because civil unions are “too hard to understand”. This is a new tact for same sex advocate groups who have previously stated that all they wanted was to be able to have the same rights as married couples. Now that civil unions are equal under NJ law, the commission says it’s still not good enough. They need to take it to the next level.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (NJ-CURC) was established by the New Jersey Legislature after the passage of the Civil Union Act in February of 2007. The Civil Union Act gave civil unions statewide, all of the legal benefits that were afforded married couples. The duty of the commission was to study all aspects of the Civil Union Act, which authorized civil unions. The Commission’s duties included evaluating the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the act.

There are two obvious problems with the credibility of this study. First, the commission was universally comprised of same sex marriage advocates who elevated anecdotal evidence over actual testimony, and second, they totally missed the boat on the purpose of their commission. They basically heard a bunch of private citizens and gay activist groups saying “it’s not the same… we want the word marriage”, and responded to that rather than just doing their job which was to make sure that there was no legal discrimination against civil unions.

They were supposed to come back with results like, “this law makes same sex unions and marriage equal under the law” or “same sex unions are unequal in the following areas.” What they did say was same sex unions are too complex for hospitals and others to understand so we should make Civil Unions into Marriages. This conclusion was based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely no firsthand testimony.
State Healthcare Facility Director, John Calabria who is responsible for responding to complaints from citizens of New Jersey about medical institutions testified directly to them that “We have received no complaints” regarding the compliance of medical facilities to the Civil Union Act. Although the agency receives 8000-9000 complaints per year, none of them was about being discriminated against in a medical institution.
New Jersey Director of the Division of Taxation, Maureen Adams was given the leading question, “If the state moved to marriage, how that might affect [the taxation of citizens with civil unions] that you’ve just testified to?” She responded, “There would be no fiscal impact, any filing impact, has all been realized with the Civil Union Law.” AKA you can’t give these people anything to make them more equal.

On the other hand, impassioned testimony from Peggy Sheahan-Knee who is the President of the New Jersey State Bar Association agrees with the commission. She claimed multiple people were discriminated against and denied access to their loved ones in medical institutions. The trouble is that she didn’t provide any specific examples in her testimony. Not only that but her integrity is somewhat in question since she also stated emphatically that, “The Civil Union Law fails to provide equal rights to same-sex couples” but was was unable to provide a single example of this. She provided several examples where the law was misunderstood by the public but none where the law failed to provide equal rights.

So what is the whole conclusion to this befuddled mess? “Since civil unions and marriages are the same, let’s give them the same name to reduce confusion.”

Here’s a newsflash for the Commission….reducing confusion was not on the menu, legal rights were. All this time we’ve been hearing ad nauseum about the gay community needing rights, wanting rights, demanding rights. Now they have them and they’re still not happy. Now we have to have the name, marriage, which is what the whole ordeal has been about from the beginning.

It’s not about rights.

The Associated Press release can be found here

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Why is Gay Marriage a 'Right' That is Being Denied?

Opinions submitted to The Wall Street Journal.



In regard to the Dec. 2 Letters to the Editor "Gays Are Fighting the Tyranny of the Majority," responding to William McGurn's Nov. 25 column "Main Street: Gay Marriage and the California Courts":
The correspondents obscure the absence of rational justifications for "gay marriage." Even if substantial majorities in many states are not fooled by phony argumentation and create laws that do not recognize "gay marriage," this does not provide any evidence that a right has been denied. Just because someone claims something as a right does not make it so.
The union of a man and a woman is the natural means by which procreation occurs, and it provides the opportunity for the optimal environment for delivering offspring to maturity with the interplay of male and female perspective. It does not take religion or even a belief in God to come to such a conclusion. And civilized societies free of confused and misplaced guilt recognize this.
Marriage does not discriminate. Whether people choose to marry or opt for an alternative lifestyle is their choice. Californians have been quite tolerant and have made substantial provisions in their laws for gay unions. Other systems (e.g., health insurance, Social Security, etc.) could be easily modified to facilitate the well-being of gay people without corrupting the primary unit of society. But this is not what advocates for "gay marriage" are pursuing. The debate is not about civil rights; it is an attempt to obtain total public acceptance through the pressure of political correctness and ultimately through the force of law.
Dan Pisenti
Mill Valley, Calif.

[Read more...]

Monday, December 8, 2008

And Then, Reality Left the Building

Posted by John Schroeder at the Article VI Blog.


The people behind that now infamous “Mormon Home Invasion” ad against Prop 8 spoke up in the form of an op-ed in the on-line edition of the LATimes this morning. The piece is full of distortions and perceptions born, as best as I can tell, of some sort of paranoia. I will leave it to Lowell to deal with this factually - as an active participant in the Yes on 8 campaign, he has a far better command of those facts than I do. However, there is one comment to which I must address myself:
Unfortunately, this failure to take public responsibility for leading the fight against same-sex marriage, as well as the masking of its efforts behind the shroud of an interfaith coalition, is nothing new for the LDS Church.
This is simply offensive. Think about the implications of that statement. It implies deep conspiracy, something virtually impossible to pull off. It implies that those of us other than Mormons were less than genuine. It implies that those of us other than Mormons were duped.

[Read more...]

Twisted Scripture - Newsweek Preaches to Christians

A Beetle Blogger response to Newsweek's cover story: Our Mutual Joy.

peace

Newsweek Sermon of the Week

In a “if you can’t beat’m join’m” approach, the would-be preachers over at Newsweek have taken the Sunday Sermon to the people in their new issue.

In a thinly veiled propaganda piece, Newsweek, the latest in a long line of same sex allies in the old media, tries to score points against marriage advocates by advocating the Bible…. sort of. Ignoring mountains of facts decrying the myth of healthy gay marriage, they attempt to reinforce the idea that the only thing standing in the way of true love and equality is religion.

This new attack on religious people is a cheap appeal to the sense of goodness and fairness that Christians have for the world, and especially for those who hold different views. Newsweek, take note: the bible teaches tolerance, not acceptance.

Imagine the outrage if the media were to start parsing the Torah or Koran to change votes! No, it would never happen, that’s acceptable diversity. It’s only politically acceptable to rage from the bully pulpit at those hateful, bigoted, lousy Christians right?

Twisting scripture to fit a political agenda is nothing new, but I have to say, this is a new low for Newsweek and the mainstream media.

—Beetle Blogger

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

A Case For Morality

By William K. Vogeler, Esq.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

It is such a simple declaration, but seemingly necessary as a matter of law today. Gay rights advocates rage that it is bigoted; activist courts claim it is discriminatory. But it is neither. It is, rather, an indication of moral confusion. Joyce Kilmer, a soldier and poet, stated the problem in the contradictions of his time. He recognized the greatness of God and the smallness of man. "Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree."

We as human beings have made many marvels, but we will never create better than God has created. Or if your god is Nature, you will never do better than evolution. Whatever our philosophical persuasion, we know this is true: we cannot create a universe, a planet or a person. And we cannot survive as a species without heterosexual relations.

The principle --- the supremacy of God or Nature --- underlies all human endeavors. We can change, even improve, the human condition. But ultimately we must recognize our very being depends on certain, self-evident truths.

One saving truth is that we are still moral beings. It defines and guides our conduct as individuals and as a society. If we deny our morality, we deny our humanity. In the realm of government, morality is center stage. But she has become more like a dreary background than a leading lady. Because of our limited ability to appreciate the real drama of life, we have lost sight of the fact that life is a morality play.

So the same-sex marriage issue --- without morality at its center ---has divided good people, independent states and a great country. The United States have defined marriage as between a man and a woman many times. But courts increasingly have overturned these laws, focusing on
notions of equal protection over democratic processes.

A handful of judges have called traditional marriage laws unconstitutional. At the same time, these non-elected jurists have frustrated millions of voters and fueled hate across the country. The arguments have pitted heterosexual rights against homosexual rights, civil rights against children's rights, and set in conflict many other public policies. And in the crossfire of this battleground issue, morality has been dismissed.

But morality cannot be ignored in this debate. Same-sex marriage laws raise the same moral questions as laws against bigamy, incest, prostitution, bestiality and pedophilia. As a country and as people, we have consistently outlawed these behaviors on moral grounds. We justify them to preserve families, protect children, promote health and otherwise bring order to society. But we do so ultimately because we know it is right.

For those of us who chose divine intelligence, we act on faith. For those who prefer human intelligence, we act on reason. In either case, we make a choice consistent with our belief about what is right. That is the essence of morality. This dynamic is more than a philosophical perspective. It is the engine of human progress. It is natural selection and faith in action --- opposite sides of the same coin.

So it is time for Americans to make another decision based on a moral conviction. We must hold this truth to be self-evident: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Like our Founding Fathers, we must enact a national constitutional amendment to ward off an encroaching aristocracy --- those courts that have overruled the will of the people. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, enumerating certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In so doing, we will regain our democratic right to govern ourselves. We will assert our sovereign power to act according to the dictates of our conscience and our moral choices. In the words of Abraham Lincoln:

"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."


Tuesday, December 2, 2008

An Ugly Attack on Mormons

By Jonah Goldberg
December 2, 2008
As printed in the LA Times


Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.

As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

[read more...]

The Need to Keep Our Voices Heard

*Another excellent submission! We're on a roll!*


by Heather at Make My Vote Count


This afternoon I received the agenda for my local town council meeting to be held tonight and on it was a speaker against proposition 8. Okay, two thoughts popped into my head: 1) Prop 8 has already been voted on; 2) How is this an issue that the town council needs to address?

I could not attend due to prior commitments, but my mom did attend. Two people spoke, one was a lesbian who voiced her troubles in getting child support after separating from her partner 10 years ago; the second was a bisexual lawyer who felt that if you love someone, you should be able to marry him/her.

The woman said that all of the ads in favor of prop 8 were lies and it made her sick to her stomach to see all of the signs in favor of prop 8.

When it was time for questions, someone asked if domestic partnerships don't allow the same rights as marriages. The woman said a domestic partnership is for second-class citizens. The lawyer said that domestic partnerships provide for the same benefits as marriage but domestic partnerships are only recognized in California and not in other states.

A side note, this was the lowest attended town council meeting in a very long time, with only 20-25 people in the audience.

I felt this is important to post because I think it is important that we are aware of what is going on in our local communities. The question was raised, "How did we let it get this far?" By not knowing what is being said at our town council meetings, by not telling our city council people our thoughts, by not voting because we think our vote doesn't matter.

Here is what we need to do NOW:
Voice our opinions in our local communities.
Reach out to our neighbors.
Write letters/make phone calls to our political leaders.

Now is not the time to sit back just because one issue was voted in our favor. Now is the time to stand up with the other 6 million Californians and reach out across the nation. Our grassroots effort is not over... it has just begun!

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Same Sex Marriage and Schools

*Our first e-mail submission! Keep them coming, folks. Marriage needs us.*




Teachable Moments and Unintended Lessons
by California Crusader


As I listen to the debate rage on about whether overturning Proposition 8 will affect our public schools, I’d like to weigh in as an elementary school teacher. I remember a debate I listened to recently between protect marriage’s Chip White and No on 8’s Andrea Jackson.

Prop 8 Debate

One of their discussions was about Rob and Robin Wirthlin, the Massachusetts parents who were told they couldn’t opt out of instruction about gay marriage. Ms. Jackson argued that this case doesn’t apply to California because we have the strongest opt-out laws in the nation, so that parents can always choose what they will allow to be taught to their children. I had to snicker. Ms. Jackson just doesn’t understand the dynamics of the public school classroom.

One of the most powerful tools teachers use are what we call “teachable moments.” These are times during the day when teachers stray from their lesson plans because of a comment, question, or action by a student. THEY HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, especially with younger students. Here are a few examples from my own experience:

1. A boy in my class used the N word. We had a long talk about why we should never discriminate against anyone because of the color of their skin. I even read them the book Martin’s Big Words as a follow-up the next day.

2. A student stole a classmate’s snack and ate it. We had a class discussion about honesty and how it feels when someone steals from you.

3. As I was teaching a reading lesson, we heard a loud clap of thunder outside from a rainstorm. Based on the frightened faces of some of the students, we stopped and talked about thunder and why we don’t have to be afraid of it.

Now, the problem with all these teachable moments is that they catch you off guard. You don’t have time to fall back on a prepared lesson plan; you just open your mouth, and hope you say the right thing. So, what if in the middle of a math lesson, a student asks, “Teacher, I heard about a girl that has two moms. Why doesn’t she have a dad?”

The teacher’s response would vary widely, depending on his/her personal views. Because I feel that discussions of same-sex marriage have no place in school, I personally would respond,

“That’s a good question. Why don’t you go home and ask your parents?”

But, how about a teacher who feels that giving marriage to same-sex couples is an equal rights issue? You might hear a response like this,

“That girl’s family is different than yours, but that doesn’t mean it’s not as good as yours. Her two moms love each other, so they decided to get married. Marriage doesn’t have to just be between a man and a woman. If two ladies love each other, they can get married too.”

Or, from the teacher who feels extremely passionate about same-sex marriage,

“That girl’s mothers are what we call lesbians. They are two women who love each other very much, just like your mom and dad love each other. In California, we are lucky to have laws that let them get married. Kids, I know we were right in the middle of math, but let’s take a break. I want to read you a very important book called, Heather Has Two Mommies.”

Parents, can you see why the whole question of opting out of instruction is really kind of silly? There is no time to send a permission slip home to ask if you can answer a child’s question. That’s why it’s so important to protect Proposition 8. If marriage stays defined as between a man and a woman, then teachers who feel that same-sex marriage is a civil right will be more careful during those teachable moments. But opening the door to same-sex marriage in California is basically opening the mouths of thousands of teachers who already want to teach that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. Don’t believe it? Ask the teachers you know how they voted on Proposition 8. Don’t expect them to tell you they voted yes. I’m telling you, approving same-sex marriage will have EVERYTHING to do with schools. In case you have forgotten, here are links to articles about two schools that already have decided to extend teachable moments in ways that many parents find inappropriate:

Coming Out Day at Public School

Class Field Trip to Lesbian Wedding

Here’s a great quote from an article by Dr. Laura Haynes . She expresses it much better than I could:

“At present, California curriculum includes units about families,
beginning in kindergarten. The legalization of same-sex marriage opens the
door for children from kindergarten on up to be taught that the state of
California validates that marrying someone of the same sex is as legal and
acceptable an option for them as marrying someone of the opposite sex. How
would this impact required curriculum units such as family, health, values,
child development, sex education, and history? Based on present research
showing that the liberal sexual attitudes in colleges not only allow but actually
elicit homosexuality, we should expect that extending education about liberal
sexual attitudes down through kindergarten will elicit many more of our
children to go down the path of homosexuality. Some parents who have raised
their children in traditional sexual values have been shocked at how much
those values have changed when their children went to public high school or
college. The same effect will begin in kindergarten if same-sex marriage is
allowed to stand in California, and the strong precedent in California will be
used to extend the changes across the U.S.”

Please consider the unintended consequences of approving same-sex marriage. They are real, and they are already happening!

P.S. Thanks to The Journalista Chronicle for pointing me to the Dr. Haynes article!

N.H. Civil Union Sponsor Will Push for Gay Marriage

As reported in the Boston Herald


C
ONCORD, N.H. - The legislator who sponsored New Hampshire’s civil union bill will push next year to legalize same-sex marriage.

But Portsmouth Democrat Jim Splaine will face a fight, as those opposed to civil unions vow to try to pare the law down.

Splaine says civil unions give same-sex couples about 90 percent of the benefits and obligations that heterosexual couples get through marriage. He says same-sex marriage is the only way for same-sex couples to attain full equality. Splaine describes the bill as necessary to propel debate.

[read more...]

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Intolerance and High School



Another guest post from my friend Mary. She teaches an early-morning mormon seminary class for high school students (it starts at 6:10am). Her students are studying the new testament this year.

Hello friends and family,

I thought you might like to see what it is and has been like here in San Diego as we have tried to advocate for traditional marriage and work to pass Proposition 8.

Though our family has experience plenty of prejudice and hateful commentary, I think the experiences of my Seminary students (ages 14-17) best illustrate the atmosphere that surrounds us.

Their strength in the face of immeasurable peer pressure has amazed me during the entire campaign season and continues to do so as activists wage war on LDS beliefs as the scapegoats for their anger.

My question to myself throughout this entire ordeal has been, would I be as strong as I see these teenagers being? Have I given as much socially and emotionally as they have to the cause?

Fighting for your beliefs is never about selfish martyrdom, but it may often be about personal sacrifice. That these kids have been asked to give such a personal sacrifice at such a young age should strengthen all of our resolve (meaning those of us who can vote) to protect their tomorrow.

We talked on Election Day about tolerance. I encouraged them to have tolerance toward and love everyone no matter what their belief. And for all intents and purposes, they had already been following that principle. But it prompted discussion regarding what they are asked to do in the face of intolerance and hatred directed AT them, and they wrote the following anonymous experiences on slips of paper.

These are from them, in their own words, when asked: “How have you seen or experienced prejudice or intolerance in your life?” I did not ask them specifically about Prop 8 but their answers are telling:

  • “People won’t talk to me because of my opinion of Prop 8.”
  • “Called a bigot at school.”
  • “A girl in my CPU class yesterday was saying bad things about the guy who was dressed up in Yes on 8 stuff. I defended him.”
  • “People are calling me bigoted and judgmental for my beliefs in the sacredness of marriage.”
  • “Eggs thrown at me for my beliefs.”
  • “People in class wouldn’t hear my side about Prop 8. Wouldn’t even listen to my opinion and got mad at me for not agreeing with them.”
  • “Everyone gangs up on me in class for my political beliefs.”

If you want to know how the same-sex marriage agenda will effect religious beliefs, you need look no further than the local High School.

I am very proud of the work that everyone did in California to pass this Proposition.

It may only buy us time, but it will allow us to look further into the consequences of such a decision.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Iowa's Gay Marriage Ban Goes Before High Court

As reported in the LA Times

The state Supreme Court will hear arguments next month about whether the Defense of Marriage Act - briefly struck down last year - is unconstitutional.
By P.J. Huffstutter
November 27, 2008

Reporting from Fort Wayne, Ind. -- The national fight over same-sex marriage is coming to a peak in Iowa, where the state's highest court will hear arguments next month over whether the state's ban on gay unions is unconstitutional.

The debate over the future of Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, a decade-old law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, comes after a ruling by a lower court judge last year.


[read more...]