Clips of Prop 8 On Dr. Phil

Here are some clips of Prop 8 on Dr. Phil.

http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1172

Family breakdown costs New Zealand $1bn a year

Erosion of the family in New Zealand is costing the country at least $1 billion a year, according to new research commissioned by lobby group Family First. The report, The Value of Family, estimates for the first time the fiscal impact of single parenthood, divorce and decreasing marriage rates in the small, South Pacific nation, and finds that the cost over the past decade amounts to $8bn. New Zealand’s gross domestic product is around $211 billion (US$128bn), making the cost of family breakdown equivalent to about 0.5 per cent of GDP a year.

Family breakdown in New Zealand reflects trends in many developed countries, but the nation of not quite 4.3 million people has one of the highest rates of non-marital births -- ahead of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Canada -- and sole parents outnumber married parents among families with children. Some 49 per cent of children (65,000) live in a sole parent household, and such households have five times the poverty rate of couple households. The report, by Dr Patrick Nolan of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, is not the first to point out the toll that poverty takes on children’s health and wellbeing. But it is the first to go behind “child poverty” to the family breakdown that contributes to poverty. It also looks at the role welfare policies may play in non-marriage, family breakdown and “poverty traps”, but finds there is a lack of empirical research to go on.

However, it finds that married couples can also fall into poverty traps, thanks to taxation steps and the abatement of assistance as income rises. Under current tax schemes in New Zealand, married couples from low income families would be up to $15,000 better off in terms of income in the hand if they separated, because of the interaction of family assistance programmes. “The government has created a system which contains perverse disincentives for parents to get married or stay married,” says Family First NZ national director Bob McCroskie.

What the report also shows indirectly is a lack of interest on the part of government and researchers in the fate of the family based on marriage. Moreover, national elections are just two weeks away and yet hardly a word has been said by any party on this subject. The report calls for programmes and services to reduce unwed pregnancy and to help prepare couples for marriage and support them during marriage. It also recommends research on the relationship between government policy and family form. ~ The Value of Family, Family First NZ

Financial crisis sees divorce rates fall in Spain

After rising steadily for a quarter of a century, to more than 100,000 a year, divorce numbers in Spain went into a clear decline earlier this year, when the meltdown of the country's key property sector and the beginnings of the global financial crisis put an end to more than a decade of economic growth. With unemployment rising and house prices dropping, as many as 30 per cent of couples who might have divorced are hanging on. Some might even stay together permanently, says Madrid lawyer Antonio Prada. "The economic crisis would help to preserve marriages" in cases where the partners have at least friendly relations, he adds.

Couples who can't stand the sight of each other, however, are resorting to "internet divorces" based on standard contracts supplied by law forms charging low fees. These create problems, says Prada, because they do not deal with the details of dividing property, child custody and other specifics. Spain legalised divorce in 1981 and Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero's Socialist government made it easier in 2005, putting it on a no-fault basis. The economic slump is also bringing adult children back home as they lose their jobs or find difficulty obtaining mortgages or credit to start a business. The number of young people leaving home fell last year and the number of 30-somethings moving back has risen. ~ Deutsche Welle

Divorcing Italian couple charged with making their son suffer

A divorcing Italian couple who argued acrimoniously in front of their 12-year-old child and fought for his affection face prosecution for causing him psychological suffering. The charge, which carries a prison sentence of up to five years, was brought after a health visitor reported that the child was disturbed. Legal experts think there is no precedent for the case in Britain or Europe.

The prosecution reported that the mother and father blamed each other for "shortcomings and educational errors in bringing up the child", with each parent trying to "discredit, devalue and undermine the other" in front of him and "project their emotions onto him, above all anger". This caused the child to become anxious and depressed, unable to concentrate or do his schoolwork, confused him and instilled in him "the conviction that his parents hated each other". Both parents persisted in arguing in front of the child even though he told them it was "making him feel ill". They had "manipulated" the child in an attempt to make him decide between them" as part of their divorce battle.

A Milan judge will decide early next month whether to go ahead with the trial. If it does go ahead, it could have implications for countless other cases. The case is a sign of growing social alarm over the effects of divorce on children. ~ Times Online, Nov 8

Pray for one Justice on the fence

Prop. 8 is totally in the hands of our California Supreme Court. One judge in particular, Justice Joyce Kennard, is on the fence.

While both sides cheered the court’s decision to take up the cases, Kennard’s lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.Kennard is the court’s longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples’ rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.“It’s always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn’t warrant review,” said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, “I would not think it would be encouraging,” said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.

Indoctrinating Children WARNING: Contains Adult Material

Submitted by Laurie Higgins, Director of the Division of School Advocacy, Illinois Family Institute

Here are two examples of what public money has been used for: In the spring of 2006, some parents were able to get hold of the hard copy of the curriculum for the mandatory year-long Freshman Advisory class and discovered that the diversity section was deeply troubling. The crowning gloryof our Freshman Advisory "Heterosexism" unit of the "Diversity" section of the curriculum was the "Terminology Match-Up" game wherein freshmen were given either cards with terms or cards with definitions, and then asked to "mill about and find their matches." The terms included the following: cross dressers; down low, which refers to married men having homosexual sex on the side; gender queer; homophobia (complete with Freud's idea about repressed homosexuality); MSM, which means men having sex with men; transphobia; pansexual; androgyny, and sex reassignment surgery.

This past spring, our Senior AP English teacher taught for the second year the egregiously obscene, blasphemous, pro-gay screed entitled Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes by Tony Kushner. The play revolves around two couples: married Mormon couple Harper and Joe whose marriage is disintegrating in large measure due to Joe's repressed homosexuality, which he eventually acts upon: and a homosexual couple, Louis and Prior. Louis leaves Prior when hef inds out Prior has AIDS, and then has a month-long affair with Harper's husband Joe.

There's also Roy Cohn, the unscrupulous, foul-mouthed, closeted, Jewish, Republican lawyer, who dies of AIDS; the black, homosexual, ex-drag queen nurse with the heart of gold, Belize; and the Angel with "eight vaginae" whose visits prompt sexual arousal and orgasm. The play is replete with references to orgasms, fellatio, semen, ejaculation, and f******. It includes the line "Suck my dick, Mother Theresa."

And despite claims by public school administrators and faculty members that they value "diversity," "honor all voices," and are committed to including "multiple perspectives," public schools censor virtually all resources that articulate conservative views on the nature and morality of homosexuality. Almost two years ago, I searched Deerfield High School's library book collection using the search terms"homosexuality," "gay," "lesbian," and "sexual orientation." There were about 75 books. Ten of them were books used for debate like Opposing Viewpoints and Issues in Focus, which include both sides of controversial issues. Of the remaining six dozen-plus that embody a single viewpoint, all were liberal. There was not one from a conservative scholar. This untenable imbalance is universal in public school libraries.

Through Illinois Family Institute's new Division of School Advocacy, we hope to alert not only parents but all concerned citizens to both the nature and implications of continued efforts by activists both inside and outside of schools to use our money to indoctrinate children with their radical socio-political vision.

But even more important, we hope to equip community members to respond to these efforts. We plan on providing counsel, teaching seminars, and resources to help community members know what to look for, know how to obtain information, know what questions to ask, and know how to understand and respond to the specious secular arguments that are used quite effectively to transform cultural views through curricula and policy.

What I most want Christians to understand is that the stakes are too high forany of us to remain silent. What just forty years ago was utterly unthinkable and remains utterly reprehensible-legalized same-sex marriage-is just over the horizon in every state. Right now, public education is one of the central battlegrounds for the hearts and minds of our children.

So Sexy So Soon

(Found online here.)

Communication critical: Want to help your children navigate a sex-saturated culture? They'll need to learn your beliefs -- not those all around them.

For a generation, conservatives have discussed the dramatic and oftentimes negative effects of cultural changes on our kids. In So Sexy So Soon, liberals join in and talk about the pernicious effects of the “new morality” on children from the perspective of the other end of the political spectrum. [1] Diane Levin, professor of education at Wheelock College, and Jean Kilbourne, a senior scholar at the Wellesley Centers for Women, highlight the gravity of a hypersexual consumer culture: the insidious way in which advertisers and the media use sex to drive a wedge between children and parents, to create demand among children for provocative toys and clothes, and to redefine even kindergarten to include “sexiness.”

The authors describe a six-year-old, who asks his parents about pornography seen at a friend’s house, and a seven-year-old who cries in the bath because she thinks her body isn’t skinny or sexy enough. Issues that previously surfaced in adolescence are percolating down to kindergarten, and Levin and Kilbourne place the blame for this phenomenon squarely upon mass consumer culture.

Their response is a call for expanded government regulation and more time spent on “media awareness” at school. They also suggest scripts for opening conversations about how to enlist teachers and principals in the effort to keep classrooms and playgrounds free of sexual innuendo. Readers won’t agree with every suggestion, but common ground can be found with their emphasis on good parenting and good communication with kids.

Few parents are prepared to react appropriately to fairly explicit questions about sexuality from their kids in grade school—or younger. But parental response is crucial. Parents, horrified to hear that their five-year-old told a friend he wanted to have sex with her, (when asked, the child said he thought that having sex was the same as giving a hug), should use this as a springboard to a calm and loving discussion—one that builds the kind of relationship that will help transmit values.

If parents erupt in anger, children will still have the same questions and instead go looking to find explanations on TV and in the playground, the very places that presented poor information in the first place. Respectful but firm discussions with parents of children’s friends about media exposure for younger children during play dates and parental supervision at parties when children are older are also important.

Even the most cloistered upbringing cannot fully prevent exposure to popular culture. In fact, especially as children grow up, Levin and Kilbourne argue that this isn’t even really desirable, since young adults can only navigate successfully on their own if they have internalized their family’s values about sex, sexuality and moral behaviour. Children raised in a home with no television or internet connection are part of the broader, and increasingly vulgar culture.

Billboards and ads on buses are sexually suggestive when they are not actually explicit, as are magazines in grocery stores. Children internalize values more readily from their peers than from their families, and new research shows how powerfully media acts as a “superpeer,” shaping attitudes and behaviour among teens.[1] Levin and Kilbourne attribute weakening parental influence in part to the thorny nature of most discussions of sex and sexuality between parents and children.

Levin and Kilbourne are certainly liberal—they point approvingly to parents who take their daughter to a same-sex commitment ceremony as an example of open-minded parenting, for example. But as such, they are carrying a message to those who most need to hear it, those who have outright dismissed cultural concerns, pretending they are part of some conservative conspiracy. In the end, an increasingly sexual world affects all of us. “Culture warriors” must partner with liberals in order to effect change, whether in private life or public policy. So Sexy So Soon highlights some of the elements of the culture wars in which traditionalists and liberals can partner for the benefit of our kids.

Same sex marriage and its threat to religious liberty

By Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

(Found online here.)

Tactics used by gay marriage campaigners confirm believers’ worst fears.

As wildfires blazed in California last week, anger at the outcome of the state’s referendum on marriage blazed across the country. After a hard-fought campaign over Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a clear majority of California voters endorsed it, and the gay marriage lobby was enraged.

Now, as same sex marriage campaigners take the issue back to the courts, it is unclear what the outcome of this battle will be. Will their demands trump the democratic process? It has happened before.

What is clearer than ever is that same sex marriage threatens religious liberty. Disagreement over the extent of that threat played a key role in the debate over Proposition 8. As an independent consultant to the campaign, I must say that the post-election behaviour of the opponents of Prop 8 does not reassure religious believers.

The editor of a new book, Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this way: “All six contributors (to the book)—religious and secular, left, center and right—agree that same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” The demand for same sex marriage brings in its wake a demand for identical treatment of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Churches that resist this demand can have their tax exempt status challenged, can be investigated by “human rights commissions,” and can have parts of their operation shut down completely.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign applied this argument in print and electronic ads. “Churches could lose their tax exempt status,” we said. “People could be sued for their personal beliefs.” The opponents of Prop 8 replied by calling us liars. Their argument was, “No church will lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex weddings.”

Note the sleight of hand: we made a general statement that churches could lose their tax exempt status, as well as have other legal problems. The opponents of Prop 8 brought up the one issue -- refusing to perform weddings -- which they knew the court had specifically exempted from legal challenge. On this basis, they accused us of misleading the public.

I personally was asked many times whether pastors would be forced to bless same sex unions. I told people the pastors were probably safe for now, but that the trend was not encouraging. The most likely outcome, I consistently said, was that the zone of religious freedom would become steadily more constricted. We cited many cases to support this prediction.

Catholic Charities in Boston shut down its adoption agency, rather than comply with the anti-discrimination requirement for the placement of children. A Knights of Columbus chapter in Canada was sued when it refused to rent out its hall for a same sex wedding reception. A Christian marriage counselor lost her job when she referred a lesbian couple to another therapist, rather than counsel them herself. A Christian photographer was fined by a Human Rights Commission in New Mexico because she refused to take pictures at the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.

The No on 8 forces claimed that the cases we brought up had nothing to do with marriage. Gays had used anti-discrimination law in these cases, not marriage law, to sue and otherwise harass churches and religious people. (In fact, marriage was an issue in some of the cases.) In effect the gay lobby argued: “We already have all the legal authority we need to do all sorts of Dreadful Things that You Don’t Like, so vote no on 8.”

Oddly enough, people of faith were not reassured by this message.

But refusal to take the religious liberty argument seriously was not the only way the No on 8 forces showed their hostility to religion. On the Sunday before the election, our opponents ran a truly despicable hate-filled ad against the Mormon church. The ad ran the day before the election, when it was almost impossible to respond to it.

Proposition 8 won the election. Over six million people voted for it for a whole variety of reasons. It is safe to say that the religious liberty argument played a significant role. People waved signs that said, “Proposition 8 = Religious Liberty” and “Proposition 8 = Freedom of Speech.” Even though no one could predict the exact form the legal harassment might take, many voters decided the risk to their own churches was unacceptable.

In the aftermath of the election, the No on Prop 8 forces have taken to the streets, attempting to de-legitimize the election. Their behavior toward religious people amply confirms our worst fears.

The gay lobby targeted the Mormon church. Thousands of protesters surrounded Mormon temples in Los Angeles and in Salt Lake City in an obvious attempt at intimidation. Protestors carry signs saying, “Mormon Scum,” a sentiment that would be widely condemned as bigoted if directed at anyone else. Envelopes with suspicious white powder arrived at the Mormon church in Utah and the Knights of Columbus headquarters in Connecticut.

People have called for the LDS church to lose its tax exempt status. An enterprising reporter found that the LDS spent a grand total of less than $3,000 in an in-kind contribution. The other “Mormon millions” were small contributions by thousands of individual members of the church. Gay activists are scouring the election law, looking for minor violations the church or its members might have made.

This attempt to enlist the government for intimidation actually illustrates the point that concerned us throughout the campaign. If you cross the gay lobby, they will use the legal system to go after you. By passing Prop 8, the voters declined to give the gay lobby any additional legal tools.

The authors of Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty were not exaggerating. The drive for same sex marriage really does clash with religious liberty. The nation-wide post-election outburst gives Yes on 8 voters all the evidence they need that they did the right thing.

“hot, angry tears of betrayal”

Find this article here.

Inside Catholic (www.insidecatholic.com)
Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.(Inside Catholic) - Cardinal Stafford was the Archbishop of Denver before Archbishop Chaput. He was in the Vatican for many years and is now the Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. Last Thursday night he spoke at Catholic University of America.

I'm amazed his speech has not made the headlines, but then, give it time.

I have been told that most of the Vatican curia were hoping Obama would be elected. Well, Cardinal Stafford is definitely not one of them.

“For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Stafford said, comparing America’s future with Obama as president to Jesus’ agony in the garden. “On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.”

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

I've interviewed Stafford before -- he is a man who speaks his mind, always. Some of what he said to me, I didn't put in print, to protect him from a media backlash.

Again quoting from the very fine article in the Catholic University newspaper:

“If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion,” said Stafford, an American Cardinal and Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. “In the intervening 40 years since Humanae Vitae, the United States has been thrown upon ruins.”

This destruction and America’s decline is, in part, due to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the life-issue cases of 1973, specifically Roe v. Wade. Stafford asserted these cases undermined respect for human life in the United States.

“Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic,” said Stafford.

It's nice to know that there is someone other than Archbishop Burke [corrected] in the Vatican who understands the reaction of many American Catholics to the election.

Stafford pointed, as have many others, to the continued importance of Humanae Vitae in understanding the tide of contemporary culture:

Humanae Vitae (“On Human Life”) reaffirms traditional Catholic teachings regarding abortion, contraception, and other human life issues. Pope Benedict XVI said in May it is “so controversial, yet so crucial for humanity’s future…What was true yesterday is true also today.”

The article in the CUA paper has a nicely edited video of the Cardinal's address.

Congratulations to Catholic University, its president, Fr. David O'Connell, the JP II Institute for Marriage and Family, and all concerned for hosting Stafford's lecture.

I'm sorry I missed it.


Here is the full text of the Cardinal's address: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=780

Gay activists focusing on rights issues other than marriage

Keep an eye on the new gay rights projects....

Find this article here.

Gay rights advocates are rethinking their political strategy after losing the right to marry in California.

"There will be some hard questions asked about where marriage ranks on the list of possibilities and priorities" gays should focus on, says Steve Ralls of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

Votes in California, Florida and Arizona that bring to 29 the number of states whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage are likely to prompt more focus on passing legislation to include gays in laws covering hate crimes and discrimination, advocates say.


"Marriage is just an issue where the public is not there yet," says Clyde Wilcox, co-editor of The Politics of Gay Rights.

Many gays welcomed Barack Obama's victory. An Edison-Mitofsky survey at polling places found that 70% of gay voters chose Obama, compared with 53% of voters overall.


"We are very much a part of (Obama's) plan when he looks at the diverse patchwork that is America," says Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group.

Obama has voiced support for civil unions and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act so gays could enjoy the federal benefits, such as Social Security survivor payments, that married couples do. He opposes same-sex marriage but does not favor amending the Constitution to ban it. He has said he would work with the military to repeal the policy that bars gays from serving openly.

Amy Balliett, whose website, jointheimpact.wetpaint.com, mobilized thousands Saturday to protest the reversal of gay marriage in California, plans more demonstrations, but she says the economy must come first. "Barack Obama can't put his initial focus" on gay marriage, says Balliett, who wed her partner in California last month. "That is just not fair to our nation."

Gay advocates predict swift action on a federal hate-crimes bill that would allow federal aid to investigate crimes committed because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure, which then-senator Obama co-sponsored, passed Congress last year but was dropped from a defense authorization bill after President Bush threatened a veto.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would extend workplace protections to gays, also could resurface for an early vote, says Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Obama has favored the bill.

As for marriage, advocates say they will focus on education to sway not only lawmakers but the public. PFLAG plans programs in January in California, New York and Iowa in which parents of gays will talk to members of their churches, especially in minority communities where opposition to same-sex marriage is strong.

Most attention is on the Northeast, though. Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only two states where same-sex couples may marry. New York could be the next gay-marriage arena: The Human Rights Campaign spent $120,000 to help Democrats take control of the state Senate, whose Republican leaders have blocked gay marriage bills passed in the majority Democratic Assembly.

"The strategy," says Ken Sherrill, who teaches a course on gay politics at Hunter College in New York City, "is to get marriage equality on a state-by-state basis and demonstrate that each time it happens, the world doesn't come to an end."

Gay activists focusing on rights issues other than marriage

Gay rights advocates are rethinking their political strategy after losing the right to marry in California.

"There will be some hard questions asked about where marriage ranks on the list of possibilities and priorities" gays should focus on, says Steve Ralls of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

Votes in California, Florida and Arizona that bring to 29 the number of states whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage are likely to prompt more focus on passing legislation to include gays in laws covering hate crimes and discrimination, advocates say.

"Marriage is just an issue where the public is not there yet," says Clyde Wilcox, co-editor of The Politics of Gay Rights.

Many gays welcomed Barack Obama's victory. An Edison-Mitofsky survey at polling places found that 70% of gay voters chose Obama, compared with 53% of voters overall.

"We are very much a part of (Obama's) plan when he looks at the diverse patchwork that is America," says Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group.

Obama has voiced support for civil unions and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act so gays could enjoy the federal benefits, such as Social Security survivor payments, that married couples do. He opposes same-sex marriage but does not favor amending the Constitution to ban it. He has said he would work with the military to repeal the policy that bars gays from serving openly.

Amy Balliett, whose website, jointheimpact.wetpaint.com, mobilized thousands Saturday to protest the reversal of gay marriage in California, plans more demonstrations, but she says the economy must come first. "Barack Obama can't put his initial focus" on gay marriage, says Balliett, who wed her partner in California last month. "That is just not fair to our nation."

Gay advocates predict swift action on a federal hate-crimes bill that would allow federal aid to investigate crimes committed because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure, which then-senator Obama co-sponsored, passed Congress last year but was dropped from a defense authorization bill after President Bush threatened a veto.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would extend workplace protections to gays, also could resurface for an early vote, says Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Obama has favored the bill.

As for marriage, advocates say they will focus on education to sway not only lawmakers but the public. PFLAG plans programs in January in California, New York and Iowa in which parents of gays will talk to members of their churches, especially in minority communities where opposition to same-sex marriage is strong.

Most attention is on the Northeast, though. Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only two states where same-sex couples may marry. New York could be the next gay-marriage arena: The Human Rights Campaign spent $120,000 to help Democrats take control of the state Senate, whose Republican leaders have blocked gay marriage bills passed in the majority Democratic Assembly.

"The strategy," says Ken Sherrill, who teaches a course on gay politics at Hunter College in New York City, "is to get marriage equality on a state-by-state basis and demonstrate that each time it happens, the world doesn't come to an end."

eHarmony gives in to homosexuals

From OneNewsNow.com.

Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a heterosexual-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable "right" to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh?

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks -- heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. "Men seeking men" has now been enshrined with "I have a dream" as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

Neil Warren, eHarmony's founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A "Focus on the Family" author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all.

Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony's right to operate a lawful business that didn't give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great "sin" was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists -- and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model.

The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey's Civil Rights division "to cover investigation-related administrative costs." Oh, and that's not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:

Additional terms of the settlement include:

-- eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the "Diversity" section of its website as successful relationships are created using the company's same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

-- eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company websites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation";

-- The company has committed to advertising and public relations/marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the "fair, accurate and inclusive" representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because "litigation outcomes can be unpredictable." The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on eHarmony management's minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: more shakedowns of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.

Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.

Homosexual high school nixed until next year

From OneNewsNow.com.

The proposal for a homosexual school in Chicago has been withdrawn, but a pro-family advocate believes it will be submitted again next year. Social Justice Solidarity High School was supposed to be a safe haven for homosexual youth and would have featured homosexual-friendly curriculum, but the school ran into opposition from both sides. Pro-family advocates opposed the use of taxpayer money to fund the school, while some homosexual groups opposed the school because they claimed it amounted to segregation. (See earlier story)

Laurie Higgins, director of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute, says proponents of the school had watered down the proposal to focus on all so-called "disenfranchised" students. "Some of the people on the design committee were unhappy with the watering down of the proposal, and they hope to finalize some plans and resubmit them with a stronger proposal, which I think means more affirmation of homosexuality," she explains. "That was a very disturbing report."

She opposes the school on the grounds that it uses taxpayer money. Higgins contends that Chicago schools have other problems that the money would be better used to address. "Listen, we do need to make schools comfortable places as best we can for all students, but those means do not justify the ends of affirming ideas that are both fallacious and destructive to individuals and society," she concludes.

Homosexual advocates plan to introduce new plans for the school in 2009.

Prop. 8 opponents rejecting democracy

From OneNewsNow.com.

According to a conservative media watchdog, the mainstream media is completely ignoring a wave of quasi-fascism that has descended upon California and several other states by radical homosexual activists who don't respect the will of the people. Brian Fitzpatrick, senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, recently wrote a column called "Crouching Fascism, Hidden Media." He says on November 4, a majority of voters in liberal California approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment declaring that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in the state. But he points out that militant homosexuals have not respected that decision and have vandalized property, threatened people, and mailed white powder to Mormon churches. Fitzpatrick calls that "fascism."

"Fascism rejects democratic values. We see outright rejection of democracy in California. We see people trying to turn to the courts," he explains. "We see people trying to victimize or punish people who voted against them -- and this is not the American way. It's a very frightening cultural development."

The national media, Fitzpatrick adds, has been AWOL concerning these incidents. "All we've seen is continued coverage of this issue as a civil rights battle or this issue as a blow against homosexuals and homosexual couples. We see emotional pitches," he says. "We see no serious analysis of the significance of homosexual or same-sex marriage, whether it's good or bad for society."

Fitzpatrick, whose columns appear regularly at OneNewsNow, believes America has not yet seen political violence of the kind that led to takeovers of Germany and Italy by fascist elements before World War II. He contends if media outlets do not investigate these current incidents, expose the perpetrators, and pressure the government to press charges, only greater political violence can be anticipated -- even eventually against the media themselves.

They Won’t Know What Hit Them

Read it and weep. This is the guy who turned Colorado from red to blue. he also took down Marilyn Musgrave, a Congresswoman, in that state. Find it online here.

A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified. Carroll was among the dozens of targets of a group of rich gay philanthropists who quietly joined forces last year, under the leadership of a reclusive Colorado technology mogul, to counter the tide of antigay politics in America that has generated, among other things, a succession of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. Carroll had sponsored such a bill in Iowa and guided it to passage in the state House of Representatives, the first step toward getting it on the ballot.

Like many other state legislatures last year, Iowa’s was narrowly divided. So all it would take to break the momentum toward a constitutional marriage ban was to tip a few close races. If Democrats took control of the House and Senate, however narrowly, the initiative would die, and with it the likelihood of further legislation limiting civil rights for gays and lesbians. And, fortuitously, Carroll’s own reelection race looked to be one of the closest. He represented the liberal college town of Grinnell and had won the last time around by just a handful of votes.

Over the summer, Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics.

Carroll certainly didn’t catch on until I called him after the election, in which Democrats took control of both legislative chambers, as well as Carroll’s seat and four of the five others targeted by Gill and his allies. Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism. But Carroll was sufficiently intrigued to propose that we each log on to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board’s Web site and examine his opponent’s disclosure report together, over the telephone.

Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Shar­on. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”

To continue reading, click here.

Proposition 8 hostility 'got out of hand,' Assembly speaker says

Find this article on-line here.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said today she is "appalled" at the hostility that has been directed at African-Americans since the passage of Proposition 8.

According to exit polls, 70 percent of black voters supported the gay marriage ban measure, which has caused friction between gays and blacks.

But during a meeting with The Bee's Capitol bureau, Bass said that lost in the post-mortems over Proposition 8 is that black support for the measure was "a generational issue" that divided younger and older African-Americans.

The Los Angeles Democrat, who is California's highest-ranking African-American elected official, said she was "really appalled at how quickly (the issue) was racialized, and it wasn't even analyzed."

"I have friends in Los Angeles, who are African-Americans in the (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community, and they went out to protest the vote and had racial epithets hurled at them," Bass said. "A couple of them were fearful and they left because they were threatened."
Bass, who opposed Proposition 8, said she was "appalled at how quickly some members of the LBGT leadership went there, as opposed to saying, 'what did we or didn't we do in the campaign?'"

The No on 8 campaign, she said, failed to do enough campaigning in the black community "and the LBGT leadership is looking back at that."

"I do think that people have pulled back a way from some of the hostility - I mean it got out of hand," she said.

Bass said she was contacted by some LBGT "leaders who asked me if I would be helpful in terms of negotiating and mediating."

"I declined because I felt that they were bypassing black LBGT leadership," she said.The speaker said "there's a lot of healing that needs to take place."

"But I think the first place that the healing needs to happen is in the LBGT community - white and black," she said.

Bass said leaders in the gay community need to do a better job of outreach in the black community.

She said that while campaigning for an Assembly candidate in San Diego, she was surprised when a group of African-American ministers told her they supported Proposition 8 because of "liability" concerns.

The speakers said the ministers were worried they would be sued by gay church members if they declined to marry them.

But in a decision in May that sanctioned gay marriage in California - before it was repealed by the voters - the state Supreme Court ruled "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples."

Boycotting the New York Times for Unfair Prop 8 Coverage

Some of our readers may be interested in Don Feder's overall project of boycotting the New York Times:

NY Times Leaves Out Relevant Details in Coverage of Prop 8 Lawsuit (online here)

Don Feder, editor of the Boycott The New York Times website (BoycottNYT.com), noted that The New York Times intentionally left out most of the relevant details in reporting on the ongoing effort to overturn California's Proposition 8 (the marriage-protection amendment to the state constitution) in an article the paper published on November 18.

"Tuesday's story is a continuation of The New York Times' biased coverage of the entire Prop. 8 campaign," Feder wrote on BoycottNYT.com. "In evaluating The Times' coverage of any issue, what's not reported is as important as what is."

The Times story focuses on California Attorney General Jerry Brown's request that the State Supreme Court review the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in response to protests and lawsuits.

Among the facts The New York Times conveniently left out of the story are the following:

• Same-sex marriage was never part of the California Constitution. It was forced on the state in May, by an edict of the same court now being asked to rule on the legality of Prop. 8.
• Despite massive opposition by the mainstream media, including The New York Times, Prop. 8 passed by a vote of 52% to 48%. Now, citizens of 30 states have enacted marriage-protection amendments, by an average vote of 68%.
• In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Prop. 22, a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman. The Court swept that aside with its mandate, necessitating the marriage amendment.
• Those demonstrations by opponents of Proposition 8 the paper mentioned in passing are often aimed at the Mormon and Catholic Churches and are frequently violent. At one, an elderly woman was assaulted by an anti-Prop. 8 mob.

Feder's commentary on The Times' ongoing distortion of the California marriage debate is available here.

CA Supreme Court Grants Our Requests

On Wednesday, November 19, the California Supreme Court granted all of the requests submitted by ProtectMarriage.com regarding the three lawsuits filed against Prop 8. We are very pleased by this action. Specifically, the Court

• Refused to block the full implementation of Prop 8 pending the outcome of the litigation
  
• Accepted jurisdiction over the case, which will facilitate a speedier resolution
  
• Granted ProtectMarriage's request to have standing as the defender of the interests of the voters that passed Prop 8. Otherwise the defense would have been solely up to Attorney General Jerry Brown who opposed Prop 8 and tried his best to undermine its passage.
  
• Refused the request of Campaign for California Families and the Liberty Council to represent the voters in the case. Campaign for California Families opposed the qualification of Prop 8 and never cooperated with the campaign to pass it. To help undermine our efforts, Jerry Brown supported the participation of this outside group.

It is important to remember that we won Prop 8 because we worked together with a coordinated strategy and message. In this delicate post election period, it is important to continue to do so.

Many different organizations, some that were supportive of the campaign and some that were not, are sending out emails with conflicting messages and strategies. ProtectMarriage.com, of which CatholicsforProtectMarriage and CCG are members, is the only organization representing the team you were a part of to pass Prop 8. We need to continue to stick together. An update on current and future objectives for the coalition is posted below but I would like to emphasize two important points:

• We do not support efforts or suggestions to recall any judges.
  
• We discourage counter demonstrations and any acts that would incite our opponents.
  

Please continue to offer your prayers and suffering for people are committing acts of intimidation against the voters and supporters for Prop 8, for the political leaders who are instigating them, and for the many people who are suffering as a result.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

For the Common Good,Bill May, Chairman
Catholics for Protect Marriage
(415) 651-4171
http://CatholicsForProtectMarriage.com

Letter from ProtectMarriage.com Chairman Ron Prentice

Dear Friends,

Many people have asked what the Yes on 8 campaign has in mind for next steps. There has been, unfortunately, some chatter from outside groups who claim to represent the Yes on 8 campaign, that has resulted in confusion as to what we are doing. As you know, ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 is the only official campaign in favor of Proposition 8. It was our group that qualified the measure for the ballot and raised the approximately $40 million to pass the initiative. We had significant help from some critical allies like the National Organization for Marriage, Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. But ProtectMarriage.com is the only committee that passed Prop. 8. Some other groups are attempting to use the passage of Prop 8 for fundraising and publicity purposes. I’d like to address what we are focusing on, what we are not focusing on, and ask for your continued prayers in support of our efforts.

Legal Challenge. Our most important work now is to defend the People’s right to enact Proposition 8. We have asked the California Supreme Court to set a hearing to decide on the challenges that have been filed against Prop 8 because we are confident that the Court will do the right thing and uphold our right to enact the measure by initiative. By encouraging the Court to hear and decide these cases now, we are hoping to avoid years of costly litigation over Prop 8 as the cases would normally wind through the court system. We have also urged the Court to deny all of the requests for preliminary injunctions that would suspend Prop 8 while the cases are pending in the Supreme Court.

Since we, as the Official Proponents, were not originally named in the lawsuits, we have asked the Court to allow us to formally intervene as official parties, so we can vigorously defend Prop 8. Also, we are opposing the efforts of other groups to intervene in the cases, including the Campaign for California Families which actually campaigned against Proposition 8 until a short time before the election. Since we are the only organization representing the official proponents and the campaign committee that was responsible for passing Prop 8, allowing outside groups to participate in the defense of Prop 8 will only harm our chances of success.

Public relations. We continue to work vigorously in the court of public opinion to defend Proposition 8. Our campaign firm, Schubert Flint Public Affairs, is still on board and is working on long-term public relations strategies for consideration by the Executive Committee. Schubert Flint and members of the Executive Committee have given hundreds of media interviews over the past two weeks defending Proposition 8 from attack.

Future planning. Because we fully expect to prevail in court, we expect that, at some point, we will need to defeat a ballot proposal by advocates of same-sex marriage. Our opponents have threatened such a proposal as early as 2010. We are already beginning the planning process to lay the groundwork to defeat a future proposed initiative that would legalize gay marriage. What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us. We are fully confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, even if some members of the Court disagree with the issue. We encourage all supporters of Proposition 8 to set aside any discussions about the possibility of recalling any justice of the Court. We see no need for such discussion. For now we must allow the Court to make the correct legal decision. Making threats to recall justices from office is counter-productive and harmful to our chances of winning in Court.

Counter-protests. Many of our supporters have asked about holding events to offset the numerous protests that have been held by our opponents. We organized a press conference last Friday in Southern California that was heavily attended by the media. This event showcased the vast support that Proposition 8 received from a wide array of groups, including representatives of numerous faith traditions and ethnic backgrounds. Beyond that rally, we do not encourage supporters to organize local demonstrations or counter-protests. Doing so will only spawn further protests from our opponents and potentially spark street corner confrontations. Criticism of our opponents’ tactics is mounting daily and they would dearly love to provoke our supporters into a confrontation that makes us look like aggressors. Every protest our opponents launch features angry gays screaming at California voters. They call voters bigots and homophobes, and many of them have used racially derogatory terms in referring to African Americans and their strong support for Proposition 8. Their protests are doing great harm to their public position.

Fundraising. We currently have a campaign surplus which is allowing us the ability to continue defending Proposition 8 for a period of time. However, we will likely launch a new fundraising effort in a few weeks to ensure that we have the financial resources necessary to compete in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion. As you consider giving, please remember that our committee is the only committee that represents Proposition 8 – defending it before the courts and with the public.

Prayers. Please keep the leadership of the campaign, our consultants and our supporters in your prayers. All of us have been targeted by gay activists with vile emails, phone calls and threats. We are praying for those like Scott Eckern, who was forced to resign as Artistic Director of the California Musical Theater because he gave our campaign a $1,000 donation, and for the owners of El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles who are being boycotted because an employee supported us. One supporting business was forced to shut down its Web site and send all phone calls to voice mail due to the disgusting harassment by our opponents. These are just a few examples of those who have been subjected to hateful actions by our opponents who, ironically, demand tolerance from others but seem so incapable of showing tolerance themselves. Thank you for your continued support of traditional marriage and Proposition 8.

Thank you,
Ron Prentice
Chairman, Yes on Proposition 8

Above the Hate

Please sign the petition below to join us as we stand together to say "Enough!" to the campaign of hate and intimidation being waged against the LDS Church and other supporters of California's Proposition 8.

Click here.

'Gay' activists engage in 'hate crimes' against Christians

From OneNewsNow.com.

Homosexual militants have been conducting legal demonstrations in opposition to Proposition 8's victory in the election; however, one Christian believes the increased attacks and harassment of supporters of traditional marriage are illegal and should be treated as such.

Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) is calling on law enforcement to provide protection in light of recent assaults on the Christian community. A Michigan church called Mount Hope was recently attacked by a self-titled homosexual anarchist group called Bash Back.

Homosexual activists, according to Cass, have made it a regular practice to protest outside of California's churches, and he contends something should be done about it. "We're calling for the police to protect people of faith for standing for traditional values," he says.

In a CADC article, Cass points out the blatant media bias by liberal news outlets. He believes, if the tables were turned and Christians were vandalizing the property of and physically assaulting homosexuals, "we would never hear the end of it in the media." He notes because the victims are Christians and not homosexuals, the pro-homosexual media covers it up.

Cass admits he wonders why the incidents have not been called hate crimes. "Had the same level of violence and rhetoric been directed toward homosexuals or their groups, there would be accusations of hate crimes," he suggests.

He is urging churches to protect their members, saying that since the people have "democratically affirmed marriage, the true violent colors of fringe homosexual activists are being revealed." Despite growing persecution, Cass contends this is no time for Christians to allow others to run down their rights.

"The rights of Christians to peaceably gather in worship is something that can be abrogated at will by anybody, including these most vociferous homosexual activists who have no qualms coming in and doing the most blasphemous and sacrilegious acts right in the middle of a Christian worship service," he says. "It's time that we stand up."

Cass is asking people to go to the CADC website and sign a petition that will be submitted to appropriate authorities.

The insane rage of the same-sex 'marriage' mob

From OneNewsNow.com.

Before Election Day, national media handwringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The right was, in the words of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by "insane rage." Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook with fear. But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued; no nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis and self-autopsy.

In fact, in the wake of campaign 2008 there's only one angry mob gripped by "insane rage": left-wing same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved Proposition 8, a traditional marriage initiative, by 52 percent to 48 percent.

Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 responded with threats, fists and blacklists.

That's right. Activists have published on the Internet an "Anti-Gay Blacklist" of Prop. 8 donors. If the tables were turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming "McCarthyism" faster than you could count to eight.

A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has been besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who have disrupted business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Out of fear for their jobs and their lives, workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the bullies.

Scott Eckern, the beleaguered artistic director of California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation to the Prop. 8 campaign. Rich Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, is next on the chopping block after the anti-Prop. 8 mob discovered that he had also contributed to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Calls have been pouring in for his firing.

Over the last two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website "JoeMyGod," are common across the left-wing blogosphere: "Burn their [expletive] churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."

Read the rest of this article here.

Legal battle over Calif. marriage amendment opens new chapter

From OneNewsNow.com.

California's Supreme Court has issued a temporary order upholding Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. (See video report)

On Election Day, voters in the Golden State -- 52 percent to 48 percent -- passed Prop. 8, amending the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage and turning back a summertime ruling by the state highest court legalizing same-sex "marriage." Now that same court will hear several legal challenges to the voter-approved measure.

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute explains that the court will keep Prop. 8 in place, but will hear three of six lawsuits filed to strike it down. "They're going to be hearing arguments on the matter, probably in January," says the attorney. "This is not good for the defense of marriage in that this state Supreme Court is willing to seriously entertain overriding the voice of the voters of California."

And overruling the voters' decision is a serious matter. Andrew Pubnow, an attorney for Yes on Prop. 8, wrote in legal papers: "When using the initiative process to amend the Constitution, the people exercise their sovereign power of self-government. The three branches of government must accord profound respect and great deference to that authority."

According to Dacus, there is another reason this week's ruling is a setback. "This state Supreme Court is the same court that legalized homosexual marriage in the first place," he points out. "And the fact that they have decided to go ahead and seriously considering striking it down is very disturbing." Homosexual activists, he adds, are trying to force on the peoplesomething that is against their will.

Constitutional authorities in the Golden State say it all comes down to the difference between and "amendment" and a "revision." Opponents of Prop. 8 argue it is a revision, which can only be accomplished legislatively -- through a constitutional convention or a proposal from the state legislature that is then ratified by the voters.

The state Supreme Court has refused to allow homosexual couples to marry before it issues a ruling, expected in the coming weeks.

Prop. 8 opponent: We want full civil marriage rights

Editor's Note: The following is based on a transcript from "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News," which airs on CNN at 10 p.m. ET Saturdays and Sundays.

(CNN) -- More than a week after voters in California, Arizona and Florida passed ballot initiatives outlawing same-sex marriage, thousands of people across the country protested the bans in simultaneous rallies Saturday.

In California, Proposition 8 overturned a May ruling by the California Supreme Court that struck down a 2000 ban on same-sex unions. It passed 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

CNN's D.L. Hughley spoke to sex columnist Dan Savage about the ongoing battle to legalize same-sex marriage in California. Savage is the author of the popular syndicated sex advice column "Savage Love."

Hughley: On November 4, the same day Barack Obama was elected president, voters in California approved the measure that makes same-sex marriage illegal in the state of California. Seventy percent of blacks and 53 percent of Latinos voted to ban gay marriage. So is the gay community holding minorities responsible for this? Here with me now is syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage. How are you doing, Dan?

Savage: Good. I want to jump right in there, because minority communities and the gay community aren't two separate things. There are gay and lesbian African-Americans and gay and lesbian Latinos, who have really done the most disservice by those folks in the communities of color.

Hughley: Now how do you feel? Election night, you campaigned hard for Obama, you worked hard for him. How did you feel after the election?

Savage: We were elated. I was ecstatic ... Barack Obama won. ... And then the next day, we had to sit down and open the papers and read about the approval of this measure. It was very, very bittersweet. And you know, my boyfriend and I, when George Bush won, we had a long conversation the day after. We talked very seriously about moving to Canada because we're just done with being attacked that way we're attacked in this country for our sexual orientation. And then we found ourselves having that exact same conversation the day after Barack Obama won the election because of what happened in California.

Hughley: Why do you think that so many -- the large percentage of African-Americans -- voted for Proposition 8, and Latinos?

Savage: Well, there is a lot of outreach that has to be done -- that falls to the gay community, to do outreach to voters of color. But voters of color also have to step up and take some responsibility. It's the responsibility of white people not to be racist. It's the responsibility of men not to be sexist. And it is a responsibility of all of us not to be homophobic.

Hughley: I have to say, honestly, I don't -- I'm not particularly homophobic. But when I read the bill the way it was written, it was a little confusing. When I read it, it asked me to make a decision that didn't -- that I couldn't quantify on the ballot. I can't, for whatever reason, is it my religious upbringing, I don't condone a gay lifestyle, but I also don't condone the government being involved in two people's affairs. So there was no place for me to vote. And I think a lot of black people I talked to found themselves in the same quandary. Had I been more religious, maybe I would have voted yes to ban.

Savage: It needs to be articulated around religion and homosexuality is that you can have your theology and also sign off on gay and lesbian civil rights and full enfranchisement, including marriage. You know, a lot of Christians think Jews are going to hell. Right? And yet Jews can get married in our culture. No one's attempting to strip Jews of their civil rights in our dominant Christian culture. ... Because you know what? If you're going to hell for being gay, ain't that enough? Ain't you going to suffer enough when it's all over? Do you really need to be persecuted here on Earth too?

Hughley: Here's what I think. I've seen a lot of people, gay activists, make the comparison of basically equating their struggle with the struggle of black people throughout the civil rights era. And that hits me even me kind of wrong.
Savage: And me too.

Hughley: Because historically, millions of people died and they were disenfranchised. Some of them couldn't have a name. This is about one segment, like to be married. And I think that that is none of my business. But I also think that what you asked -- I've never met a black atheist. I never have, because we are so rooted in theology, we are so rooted in all these things, that even me, who -- I'm not a regular churchgoer -- had a hard time going, this is -- this goes against what I was taught.

Read the rest of this article here.

Healing the gay/black divide

Gay-rights leaders seek to dampen animosity sparked by Prop. 8's passage.

In a letter addressed to "Dear Community," a high-powered coalition of gay-rights leaders is calling for an end to the scapegoating of African Americans for the passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California. Nine painful, anger-filled and vitriolic days passed before this request for calm appeared, and although the letter is sensible and encouraging, words alone will not undo the damage.

Since an election-day exit poll found that 70% of black voters supported Proposition 8, tensions between gays and blacks have exploded on the airwaves, in newspaper columns and on the Internet. The letter, however, notes that blacks make up a small part of the 52% of California voters who supported Proposition 8. Furthermore, it says, a recent analysis of that exit poll determined that it was too small to "draw any conclusions on the African American vote."

Many in the gay community believed, perhaps naively, that shared minority status would create a sense of sympathy between the two groups, and that casting gay marriage as a benchmark in civil rights history would cement that bond. Yet some African Americans were more offended than impressed by the comparison of the right of homosexuals to marry and the right of blacks to vote or to share public accommodations. Then there is the irony of one civil rights dream fulfilled the same night another was deferred. Much has been made of the possibility that a surge in support for Barack Obama helped pass Proposition 8, but according to political analyst Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, exit polls show that first-time voters, 83% of whom cast ballots for Obama, voted against the measure by 62% to 38%.

This has been a wrenching loss for advocates of same-sex marriage, but it should provide an opportunity to forge allegiances. Black people need to hear how denying gays the right to marry devastates families and diminishes us all. Gays need to know that they will find less "hate" and religious dogma among blacks than they imagine, but also a deep grief over the disintegration of the nuclear black family and fear that gay marriage will further erode it. Efforts are quietly underway in Los Angeles to initiate these conversations. We hope they create a truly broad, communitywide imperative for an end to discrimination and for equal rights for all.

Find this article here.

WALL: A mandate for traditional, not gay, marriage

Black voters sent a 'mixed' message

Homosexual marriage is not a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are. In fact, traditional marriage isn't even a civil right. But don't try telling that to the gay-rights activists who have descended upon the left coast to protest the passage of California's Proposition 8. Most telling is the outrage by these activists, the media and at least one washed-up celebrity being hurled at black voters in California. At the same time 95 percent of black Americans were casting their ballots for Barack Obama, black Californians, at a ratio of more than 2-to-1, rejected homosexual marriage by passing Prop 8. The "people" - not the politicians or the activist courts - have spoken. But liberals can't leave well enough alone.

In San Francisco, signs of protest read: "Marriage is for everyone." No, it is not. With that logic, we could marry off children (say 8 or 10 years old) or "kissing cousins." Marriage, as clearly defined through the ages, is between one man and one woman. You don't need a constitutional amendment for that - it is inherently implied commonsense.

Another protest sign read: "No on Hate." Disagreement does not equate to hate. Opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with discrimination and activists need to stop mixing the two. Whether a person's rights are violated based on discrimination is a wholly separate issue and should be handled that way. Tolerance doesn't preclude clearly defined lines between what is and is not acceptable in modern society.

Most fervent - and troubling - of this debate though is the bubbling race war between white liberals and black conservative Democrats. Comedian Roseanne Barr (who knew she still existed?) wrote on her Web site this week: "they [black Californians] are just as bigoted and ignorant as their white Christian right wing counterparts." And she is just as ignorant as the activists who equate civil rights and gay rights.

Black civil and religious leaders - rightfully - have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex. Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to "sit at the table." Whites - gay or not - already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison. Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is - is beyond the pale.
The media hasn't helped. One news headline trumpeted: "Who is to blame?" (for this apparent voter lapse in judgment). When the public has so clearly spoken on the issue of gay marriage (just as they gave Mr. Obama a mandate), why would the media suggest something is wrong with voters? Is there blame for voting for Mr. Obama?

Read the rest of this article here.

Why same-sex 'marriage' matters

Despite the fact that Americans just elected one of the most liberal presidents in history, they also voted to uphold traditional marriage in every state where it was on the ballot.

Gay activists (and a few Episcopal bishops) would have you believe that votes against gay "marriage" are a result of bigotry, the equivalent of racism or sexism. After all, they argue, what's wrong with two people loving each other and wanting to publicly proclaim it? Doesn't the world need more committed love, not less?

S.T. Karnick, writing in the autumn issue of SALVO magazine, points out that homosexuals may already "marry" in any number of places, under the auspices of any number of organizations. Churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and numerous others "either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex 'marriages' or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies."

No law prevents these religious organizations from conducting such rituals, nor would most Americans expect or want the government to dictate doctrine to churches. But if and when same-sex "marriage" becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it. And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals.

Right now, individuals and corporations may choose to treat same-sex unions the same way they treat traditional marriage, or not. As Karnick writes so succinctly: "This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position." What's at issue here is government-enforced recognition that same-sex "marriage" is legally identical to traditional marriage, no matter the individuals' or institutions' religious beliefs.

Government intrusion on religion is what's at stake.

Despite what proponents of gay "marriage" argue, there are serious and wide-ranging implications for society by redefining something so fundamental. Already in Canada and Europe, pastors have been threatened with legal challenges as a result of teaching traditional Christian doctrine on marriage. And what about parents who want the right to be the ones teaching morality to their children? Will they have a legal leg to stand on when public schools teach that gay "marriage" is okay? Already, thanks to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), homosexuality is being introduced in schools at younger and younger ages. Just a few days ago, kindergarten students at a California school were given pledge cards produced by GLSEN and asked to sign them to support a "harassment-free school." Parents protested. But is there a day coming when such protests would bring charges of discrimination, punishable by law?

"Equality" laws in Great Britain recently forced a Christian adoption agency there out of business. Like a similar case in Massachusetts (where same-sex "marriage" is law), a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Wales can no longer continue its work of placing abandoned and abused children in homes. Why? Based on its Christian beliefs, St. David's Children sought out only homes with a mother and a father. As one British MP pointed out, there are plenty of other adoption agencies gay couples could have used. The government, because of innocuous-sounding "equality" laws, has essentially told the agency it can no longer base its work on its Roman Catholic tenets because they are, in effect, discriminatory. That is frightening. Exactly who are these laws supposed to be liberating, or for that matter, protecting?

Read the rest of the article here.

Censoring political cartoons?

Not all of these cartoons appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune, even though their creator is the editorial cartoonist for the UT. I wonder why not???

Check them out.

STOP abortion from becoming a universal human right

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION!

On December 10th, pro-abortion groups will present petitions asking the United Nation's General Assembly to make abortion a universally recognized human right. The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute created an alternate petition drive that calls for government to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. They need at least 100,000 signatures by December 10th, the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.



http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.95/default.asp

An Articulate op-ed on Civil Rights

Read it here.


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a-marriage-mandate/

Easy and quick way to email your Legislatures

Use this website and type in your zip code. It will email your legislatures in a quick couple steps!

http://capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=12214531&type=ML

It is important to voice our opinions NOW!

Donor conceived person's "right" to know their genetic identity

Interesting commentary on donor conceived person's "right" to know their genetic identity.

http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2008/11/she-wants-to-know-who-her-donor-father.html

Take special note of the comments.

Substance sickens pro-lifers

From OneNewsNow.com.

Operation Rescue is concerned about the lack of investigation of an alleged chemical attack against pro-life warriors at a Wichita, Kansas, abortion clinic. Operation Rescue's headquarters is next door to the abortion clinic where the incident happened. Spokesperson Cheryl Sullinger was there.

"There was a chemical substance spread on the driveway near where pro-lifers pray at George Tiller's abortion clinic, and it made two women very, very sick," she explains. "They were vomiting; one had to be treated at the emergency room -- she had swelling of the eyes."

Doctors said the reaction came from exposure to a foreign substance and was not related to any viral or bacterial infection. Sullinger says two aspects greatly concern her.

"We think that this kind of attack against pro-lifers is shocking and it's cowardly," says Sullinger. "And the fact that the authorities don't seem to be interested in stopping this kind of thing really is troubling to us."

That alone, she suggests, encourages repeat performances. Operation Rescue has reported death threats recently, as well as vandalism at the property.

Homosexual activists accused of 'domestic terrorism'

From OneNewsNow.com.

SALT LAKE CITY - The Mormon church on Friday blamed opponents of California's homosexual marriage ban for sending hoax mailings containing white powder to temples, while a group that also supported the measure condemned "acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters." Investigators have not publicly cited any evidence that the mailings were linked to the Mormon church's support of the measure, and a gay rights group in Utah disputed that gay protesters were involved.

The letters were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the church, where powder spilled on a mail clerk's hand, and to a temple in Los Angeles. Both packages tested nontoxic, the FBI said Friday.

The two temples were sites of recent protests against the church's support for a California ballot initiative that superseded a court decision allowing gay marriage. The Mormon church, whose official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said it is stepping up security.

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few," church President Thomas S. Monson said in a statement.

The Utah Pride Center, a gay rights group, put out its own statement calling the powder hoaxes and acts of vandalism "deplorable."

However, the group said, "It is false to conclude that yesterday's suspicious package came from gay protesters. Overwhelmingly, gay and allied Utahns have expressed their pain, frustration and commitment to securing rights through peaceful demonstrations and marches."

The coalition that ran the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 also issued a condemnation Friday."

The NO on 8 campaign was about civil rights and seeking equality for all Californians. We have said time and again that the Mormon church deserves the same respect as any other religion," said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group.

The FBI is still investigating both cases, spokesman Juan T. Becerra said, noting that it's a crime to release a substance to threaten harm and stoke public fear.

"Even if you send a hoax threat, you're still in violation of federal law," Becerra said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to lawmakers and media members killed five people and sickened 17 in 2001. Since then, hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up but usually turn out to be harmless.

Separately, the coalition of religious groups behind the successful measure held a news conference to denounce protests carried out since Election Day.

The backlash has included calls for a boycott of Utah ski resorts and California businesses whose owners donated to the cause."

Our opponents do not like the outcome and that is to be respected. They fought hard and they feel defeated and that is understandable," said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign. "What they do not have the right to do, however, is to harass and intimidate people. And they do not have the right to commit acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

Meanwhile, five civil rights groups asked California's highest court Friday to annul the ban on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups, not just gays.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the state Supreme Court to prevent the change from taking effect.

The petition is the fourth seeking to have the measure invalidated. But it's the first to argue that the court should step in because the gay marriage ban, which overturned the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay unions, sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities.

Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.

"The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality," Paterson said. "Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?"

Calif. homosexuals try to 'gut democratic process'

An article from OneNewsNow.com.

Attorneys are getting set to square off before the California Supreme Court to protect traditional marriage. Voters decided earlier this month to overturn the state high court's legalization of homosexual "marriage," but activists have filed suit to overturn the outcome. Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, comments on the situation.

"We see the opponents of marriage and democracy trying to bypass the political process and use the courts to overturn the will of the people," he contends. "This lawsuit is nothing but a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process. It's really a reprehensible lawsuit."

Since it is the same court that legalized homosexual marriage, Lavy notes that activists apparently feel confident they can defeat the amendment vote. "If the court wants to overturn this amendment, they would be well advised in thinking about the power of recall that the voters in California would have because I would think the voters would exercise that," he adds.

Recall, according to Lavy, is the process voters can use to remove people from public office. In 2003, voters in the Golden State recalled Governor Gray Davis, replacing him with current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Also Write to California Supreme Court Justices!

Here are the California Supreme Court justices who will, once again, be deciding on the fate of marriage EVEN THOUGH the will of the people have overwhelmingly spoken TWICE in two elections by voting in favor of traditional marriage.

Please send them an email and let them know you expect them to uphold the will of the people by not overturning Proposition 8. Afterall, we are living in a democracy, governed by the will of the people. AND the people have now spoken TWICE in support of traditional marriage.

Please email equalaccess@jud.ca.gov and address each Supreme Court Justice by name in your email to ensure they each receive a copy.

Please spread this message! Let's all bond together with one loud voice in support of marriage.

In God we trust.

Here are the names of the justices: Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.

A Public Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger

Remember, you don't have to be a Californian to take part in this fight to protect marriage. In fact, the more letters received from around the country, the stronger our voice!

Please send a letter directly to the Governor, or your local paper. Please stay engaged. We are still battling for the sanctity of marriage.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

Perhaps you have forgotten what you stated in 2005 when you vetoed the two bills pertaining to gay marriage "out of respect for the will of the people". And also in 2005, you stated your position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. . . The will of the people should be upheld".

Well sir, "we the people" of California, the very people who voted for you, have not forgotten your statements, nor have we forgotten why we elected you into office in the first place: to serve the people, to uphold the will of the people.

In 2000, and now in 2008, we the people have voted in favor of traditional marriage. Our proposition 22 vote was overturned. Will our proposition 8 vote now be overturned also? Perhaps any future vote will be subject to overturn. Even a vote for you.

This is America, democracy at its finest. The people have spoken TWICE in favor of traditional marriage between only a man and a woman. Please respect and honor our vote, after all we are the people who voted for and elected you into office.

Sincerely,
Your Name Here

Research to counter document sent to school administrators

From a reader:

I have a son in public school in Kindergarten here in Colorado. Are you aware of this document below? I had read before that it was being sent to school administrators across the country. I hope I don't have to worry about this yet, but I want to be prepared for any future problems or try to steer the school in a better direction.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

Maggie Gallagher on Fox News on Prop 8 Intimidation

--I thought this would interest you. This is not a game to me. What we are hearing is very, very disturbing. Thanks for your support. ~Maggie

Fox News, America's Newsroom, "Prop 8 Protests," November 14, 2008.
Click here to watch the video.

Palm Springs Woman Presses Charges

The Palm Springs Police have urged the woman from the now-infamous Palm Springs "No on 8" protest to press charges and to identify suspects. They have requested a copy of the news footage as evidence.

Here is the article:
http://www.necn.com/Boston/Nation/Prop-8-supporter-to-press-charges-after-alleged-assault-/1226488669.html

Are you available to stand with your friends in support of marriage?

One of the Ruth Institute’s good friends in San Diego, Mary Kuyper, has organized this, peaceful, legal demonstration. Everyone, please consider going.
~Dr. Morse

Tomorrow Sat Nov 15 there will be a huge national day of protest against prop 8. Cities across the nation will be protesting at 10:30am pacific time.

Here in San Diego, there will be a protest/march against prop 8 starting at 6th and Upas to the SD Co Admin Bldg. At 1pm, there will be a no on 8 rally at the SD Co Admin bldg.

Please see details at this link: http://protest8sandiego.wordpress.com/

Are you available to stand with your friends in support of marriage?

This will be a peaceful and mostly silent stance to show the opposition/press that we stand-fast for traditional marriage AND the will of the people who recently voted for prop 8.

If you can join us at 12:30am near the Sd Co Admin Bldg. please email marykuper@cox.net for additional details.

For those of you receiving this email out of town, there will most likely be a protest in your City also.

Silence = acceptance. Not on my watch! Are you in?

There are penalties for blocking or damaging churches.

"FACE" stands for "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances" Act. There are both state and federal versions of this law, and they provide draconian penalties for interfering with access to abortion clinics. But, as a sop to conservatives, they also provide the same penalties for obstructing access to or damaging churches. There are both criminal and civil penalties, meaning that you don't have to rely on the DA to file charges; if you can catch the person or persons responsible, you can sue them and get statutory damages and attorney fees.

Envelopes with white powder were sent to the Knights of Columbus and the Mormon Church.

This is a terrorist act, no matter what the powder turns out to be: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081114/news_1n14region.html

Letters containing white powder were sent yesterday to Mormon temples in Utah and California.

The Los Angeles temple, site of a recent gay rights protest, closed yesterday after receiving the envelope.

In Salt Lake City, powder spilled from an envelope onto a clerk's hand at the downtown temple. The room was decontaminated. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the building was closed for more than an hour. Protests have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged its members to fight for the recently passed amendment banning gay marriage in California. Both incidents are under investigation.

Also yesterday, a California activist filed a complaint with the state agency that regulates campaign activity, accusing the Mormon church of not reporting the value of the work it did to support Proposition 8.

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705263061,00.html?printView=true

Preliminary tests have found that a white powdery substance found in an envelope mailed to LDS Church headquarters is not hazardous, the FBI said.

"There is no known toxins or biological agents," FBI Special Agent Juan Becerra told the Deseret News.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency issued a statement Friday urging respect and civility in public discourse. Gay rights groups are also condemning the threats.

Lab tests were conducted overnight to determine whether the powder that slipped out of an envelope opened in the annex of the Salt Lake Temple was ricin, anthrax, smallpox or any other deadly toxin. They came back negative, but further tests were being conducted on Friday by state health officials, Becerra said.

The FBI on Friday also said it has labeled their probe into the suspicious substances as a domestic terrorist investigation.

"Obviously it instills fear in the public eye and causes people not to feel safe," Becerra said. "It is illegal to mail something out and to threaten the use of a biological weapon or even pretend it's a biological weapon."

The LDS temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles received envelopes on Thursday containing a white powdery substance. So did the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization based in New Haven, Conn. Both organizations were heavy backers of Proposition 8, the measure in California that narrowly passed Nov. 4, banning same-sex marriage.

The FBI said it is a "strong possibility" that all three letters are linked, but federal investigators reiterated they have no information to point a finger of blame at the proposition and its opponents.

"The evidence does not lead to that right now and it would be irresponsible to say anything otherwise," Becerra said.

He would not say if federal agents had identified any suspects. No one has claimed responsibility for the mailings.

In a statement, the First Presidency of the LDS Church said that since the Nov. 4 election, places of worship have been targeted with protests and vandalism.

"People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation," the statement said. "The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America." The LDS Church said it was keenly aware of the "differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive manner," but the First Presidency expressed disappointment in what it has seen since Prop. 8 passed.

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other," the statement said.

In its own statement, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center decried the threats.

"While the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center organized a peaceful demonstration against the involvement of the leadership of the Mormon Church in the deceitful Yes on Prop. 8 campaign, we decry the use or threat of violence," said Darrel Cummings, the center's chief of staff. "Just as the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community seeks the right to be treated equally under the law, all Americans should have the right to live lives free from fear and violence."
The gay rights group Equality Utah also issued a statement Friday condemning violence, vandalism or intimidation.

"During such an emotional time, where wounds run deep, we must remind ourselves of the greater good," executive director Mike Thompson said. "We must make efforts to forgive where forgiveness is needed and fix what needs to be fixed. We must find ways to work together — families in our community are depending on us. As the LDS Church stated, we can build a better society. Equality Utah is committed to doing just that."

Thompson reiterated his call for the LDS Church to work with them on gay rights legislation including medical rights, housing and employment rights and domestic partnerships that past church statements said LDS leaders did not oppose.

"Equality Utah remains confident that the LDS Church will be true to its past public statements that it is not anti-gay," Thompson said.

LDS temples in California, Salt Lake City and New York have been the subject of mass demonstrations over the faith's heavy involvement in the campaign to pass Proposition 8. More demonstrations are planned this weekend over marriage and gay rights — including a pair of demonstrations in Salt Lake City.

"This is not how Americans behave."

Maggie Gallagher, the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, comments on the recent Palms Springs protest:
http://www.criticalmention.com/components/url_gen/play_flash.php?clip_info=708048533060%5e708049292060%5e708050405060&autoplay=1


The Sacramento Bee (which opposed Prop 8) is now saying that the protesters have gone too far: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1393123.html

Play tells British schoolkids 'it's OK to be gay'

A play commissioned by the homosexual lobby group Stonewall and aimed at 11- to 14-year-olds has been staged at more than 75 schools in Britain, upsetting some parents who believe their children are too young to be confronted with messages about homosexuality. The "hip-hop musical" Fit is based on two assumptions: that there is "homophobic bullying" in playgrounds and that there are budding homosexuals among the schoolchildren who need to hear the message that they should be proud of their sexuality. Teachers are encouraged to discuss the issues it raises in personal, social and health and health education lessons.

One mother who objects says, "When I was 11, I didn't even know what 'gay' was. It has come to something when our schools are worried about first year pupils making up their minds about their sexuality. What happened to the three Rs?" The father of a 12-year-old boy said he doesn't want his son seeing the play: "I could be wrong but I don't think it's normal to think about being gay at that age."

An east London council issued a press release praising the "pioneering anti-homophobia play", which tells the story of two boys who are the subject of gossip about their sexuality on a school bus trip, and also features two girls kissing. Showings are followed by a talk with the audience led by the author, plays a teacher in the performance. In 1988 the government banned schools from promoting homosexuality or distributing any material that depicted it as normal. The ban was repealed in England five years ago. ~ Telegraph (UK), Nov 10

*See MercatorNet article: "Coming out" puts adolescents at risk

'A Democrat who rejects gay marriage'

Social conservatives took heart in the 2008 elections with bans on same-sex marriage approved in three states.

Baptist Press, which looks at national news through the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest protestant denomination, has a detailed analysis today on where the battle over same-sex marriage will be centered now -- state legislatures.
Assistant editor Michael Foust, focuses on New York where three newly-elected Democrats say they may not even allow any gay marriage discussion to reach the state senate floor.

Foust's Election Digest cites comments from one of them, Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx, who is also a Pentecostal minister, in the Washington Examiner.

... Where is it written that if you do not support gay marriage you are not a good Democrat? I have always been a Democrat. I remain a Democrat, and I will continue to be a Democrat. A Democrat who rejects gay marriage and abortion based upon my beliefs.

It appears that the battle over same-sex marriage will be trench warfare for the foreseeable future. And you won't be able to tell who is on what side by the party "uniform."

Do you think people who voted "straight ticket" for Democrats or Republicans knew what might happen? Or have party labels become like religious denominational brands -- diluted by people who don't know or don't care about the "platform," the doctrines, of the faith?

Do you have any beliefs that don't line up what people assume your "identity" is as a Democrat, Republican, Baptist, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, etc.?

Methodist group ordains lesbian for inclusivity's sake

A religious watchdog organization says the recent unauthorized ordination ceremony for a lesbian and another woman who champions homosexual rights is evidence of the theological tailspin plaguing the historic United Methodist Church in Maryland. Last month, a so-called "extraordinary ordination" was held at Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church in Baltimore. Organizers said the ceremony was sponsored by the Church Within A Church Movement, a Methodist group which bills itself as being the "inclusive church" and plants churches with the objective of providing ministry opportunities for "sexual minorities." Annie Britton and Jenna Zirbel were "ordained" on Sunday, October 19. Britton is legally married to her partner in Massachusetts, and Zirbel says she had been denied ordination previously because of her stated support of "gay and lesbian people in the church."
United Methodist Church (UMC) officials noted the ceremony was unauthorized. Mark Tooley with The Institute on Religion & Democracy believes organizers have a clear agenda.

"The Church Within A Church Movement is hoping that they are doing what the church as a whole will be doing in the near future," he contends. "I am more hopeful that the church, having said no, will continue to say no to the acceptance of openly homosexual clergy."

Tooley believes the denomination will eventually have to deal with the issue at its General Conference. A retired Methodist bishop who participated in the ordination ceremony says those who stand against ordination of homosexuals are misreading scripture. "For too long, " said Bishop Susan Morrison, "selective reading of the Bible has meant that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and their supporters have been excluded and punished for their honesty when they reject the 'don't ask, don't tell' practices of the church."

Radical homosexuals plan day of 'intolerance'

Activist homosexual leaders are planning a day of protest this Saturday over losing the traditional marriage battles in three states. The homosexual movement for special rights has become louder, and in some cases violent, in the aftermath of losses at the ballot box in Florida, Arizona, and California.

Florida Family Association notes the increased intensity in rhetoric from the self-proclaimed "champions of tolerance" and diversity. The National Day of Protest's logo is a clenched fighting fist and features phrases such as "Fight the H8" (Fight the Hate) and "Ready to Rumble." Florida Family Association notes the irony in that the homosexual movement that formerly preached diversity and tolerance has now become increasingly disorderly and aggressive, even intolerant, of supporters of traditional marriage by vandalizing property and staging protests at and inside churches. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says the demonstrations ought to be taken seriously, especially this Saturday.

"There have been threats of church burnings. There have been threats of violence, even murder against Christians," he explains. "There has been vandalism already of a number of churches."

According to an alert issued by the Florida Family Association, the "radical gay leaders" have two goals in mind through the upcoming protest: one being to normalize homosexuality in all areas of American society, and the second being to "silence everyone who disagrees with them." The notice adds that the homosexual activists are refusing to accept the final vote as an expression of the will of America's people.

"It really amounts to homo-fascism, and so what we're seeing [is] they don't want to let the democratic process play out," Barber adds. "These people are anti-democracy, clearly."

Florida Family Association also believes the radical homosexual agenda is "unapologetically 'me' centered" and does not feature discussions about what is best for families, children, or the common good of society. Barber points out the Bible's contrasting view. "Scripture says specifically, of people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle, ...that they are given over to a reprobate mind," he concludes. (See Romans 1:27-29)

Elderly Prop. 8 supporter roughed up, filing charges

An elderly California woman will file charges against homosexuals who attacked her during a protest against the passage of Proposition 8. Last Friday evening, homosexual activists and their supporters gathered at the Palm Springs City Hall, protesting voter approved Prop. 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Phyllis Burgess went to the rally, and carried a Styrofoam cross through the crowd.

As ABC affiliate KESQ-TV carried that rally live, homosexuals surrounded the 69-year-old woman, began pushing her, reportedly spit on her, and grabbed the cross from her arms and threw it on the ground. (See video report)

Burgess remained calm throughout the melee. "I was really so overflowing with peacefulness in my heart that I just couldn't see this," she says. "It wasn't in my mind, it really wasn't." Initially, Burgess said she did not want to file charges, but changed her mind after authorities encouraged her to do so (see related video). She says she went to the rally "just to get my remarks across at my city hall, where I have lived for 30 years." She adds: "If it takes endangerment, should that stop me? I'm a senior -- we respect elder abuse in this city."

Police are reviewing video in hopes of identifying suspects. Charges would be assault and vandalism, both misdemeanors.

The 'true face' of opponentsRandy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families says the attack on Burgess is one of many incidents in California directed at supporters of traditional marriage. He notes that, among the rage and shouting displayed at the rally, protestors also used the "n-word" against black people. Thomasson equates their behavior with a toddler's temper tantrum, saying that homosexuals are demonstrating their deep intolerance for not only people who believe real marriage exists between a man and a woman, but also for people of faith and color. "

America needs to see the true face of the homosexual activists who are intolerant against people of faith and anyone who believes in real marriage between a man and a woman," he contends.

According to Thomasson, the peaceful marches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are drastically different than the recent violent displays, mainly because King was seeking natural civil rights and homosexuals are demanding public endorsement of their "unnatural sexual behavior."

Petition to Protect Prop 8 Outcome

YES on 8 supporters PROTECT YOUR VOTE!

If you are appauled by the recent appeals and attacks on the churches then please sign this online petition: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/protectyourvote

and write a letter to the Secretary of State Debra Bowen secretary.bowen@sos.ca.gov and Governor Arnold Schwarzenager http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Info at: http://hubpages.com/hub/Yes-on-prop-8-petition

Even if you are not from California, please sign. This is no longer about gay rights in California, it's about democracy in the US.

Protect what we worked so hard for and what is rightfully ours; PROTECT YOU VOTE.

More importantly pass the word. Every signature and letter helps. No on prop 8 supporters aren't waiting to make a move and neither should we.

When considering Proposition 8, remember Rose Bird

Find this article at Flashreport.

On May 15 of this year, four Supreme Court Justices - Chief Justice Ron George and Associate Justices Joyce Kennard, Carlos Moreno, and Kathryn Werdegar- put on their "judicial activist" hats and tossed out Proposition 22, which had been passed by California voters by a healthy majority, placing into California law that marriage shall only be between a man and a woman.

The decision by these four individuals set into motion the Proposition 8 campaign with the simple premise... "Fine, if the Justices are going to say that Proposition 22 violates the State Constitution, we will make an amendment to the State Constitution, making it clear what the will of the people is in this matter."

After what was the most expensive ballot measure campaign on a social issue in the history of this country, the people of California, by majority vote, passed Proposition 8, amending the Constitution itself, to protect the institution of marriage.

Within hours of the proponents of Proposition 8 declaring victory, advocates for homosexual marriage have gone back to the Supreme Court to try and get Proposition 8 struck down, no doubt hoping that the same four Justices will again, and in a much more egregious way than before (if that is possible), strike down a second vote of the people.

You have to take it with a healthy dose of cynicism that 44 Democrat legislators have sent a letter to the California State Supreme Court, in support of the motion to overturn Proposition 8.

Huh?

I accept that it is a role of the courts to review laws passed to determine if they are constitutional or not, though I disagree with the Court's May decision on Proposition 22. But what kind of hubris would a Supreme Court Justice have to show to justify overthrowing a Constitutional Amendment (Proposition 8) as... unconstitutional?

Oh wait, advocates of overturning Proposition 8 are saying that because of the violation of the rights of gay people is so extreme, a constitutional "revision" (requiring a two-thirds vote) not an amendment (majority vote) is required.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a Constitutional revision is for some wholesale changes in the state Constitution. The reason that an amendment process exists is so that the people can make relatively minor changes in the Constitution without calling a Constitutional Convention.

Here is the ENTIRE text of Proposition 8:

SECTION 1. Title: This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act.

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

If this short amendment is not an amendment, then what is? It's ironic that so many Democratic legislators oppose the democratic process.

That said, it really is all on the California Supreme Court members now. The previous ruling by George, Kennard, Moreno, and Werdegar throwing out Proposition 22 was egregious and wrong, and by passing Proposition 8, in some way the uber-activist court majority that canned Proposition 22 was given a pretty hard slap on the wrist.

If the Court overturns 8, I think you will be able to count the days before a very organized and well funded recall of the Justices voting to do that will begin. Given the passion on this issue, and the financial resources available, a recall of these Justices would be on the ballot lickety-split, and then the Justices who didn't believe in the primacy of the voters can understand what it feels like to feel their wrath.

I have spoken to many friends of mine who opposed Proposition 8 (yes, I have many of those) and most of them have told me that turning to the courts to try and overturn this measure is along the lines of being "sore losers" - that the people have spoken. As one of them said to me, "If opponents of Proposition 8 felt it was unconstitutional, why didn't they go to the Court to have it taken off the ballot before the vote?"

Good question.

Anyway, Justices, it's all on you. This is an easy call. If you insist on flagrantly abusing the authority given to you by the people, then be prepared for a battle. No government official is immune from the voters' will, whether they be in the executive, legislative or, yes, even in the judicial branch.

Remember Rose Bird?

Prop. 8 Lessons

[Publisher's Note: After the defeats suffered by the Republican Party in the General Election, we have reached out to some California leaders to ask them to reflect on this question, "What must the GOP do to once again be the majority party?" We are pleased to bring you this column from FR friend and esteemed political consultant Frank Schubert, who contributes weekly to this website. Most recently, Frank along with his business partner, Jeff Flint, managed the successful Yes on 8 campaign.]

I'm a lifelong Republican and I want to root for the home team. Problem is, I look out on the field of battle and I can't tell which team is wearing the white uniform.

What do Republicans stand for anymore? The GOP leadership in Congress has virtually destroyed the Republican "brand" and turned it into something of value only to white, well-off conservatives. They havevastly expanded federal government spending and influence. They've turned earmarks into an art form. They've walked down Main Street throwing cash into the air - in the form of economic stimulus plans -hoping that people can be bought off with a check from the government. And they've spent untold billions bailing out mortgage companies who made disastrous business decisions that resulted in unimaginable wealth for corporate executives.

Meanwhile the Democratic standard bearer (now the President-elect) runs on a platform of middle class tax cuts. Is it hard to see why Republicans have failed to connect with the electorate?

But despite the decade-long mismanagement of the Republican brand, the GOP still has an opportunity to reconnect with voters, if they are willing to devote the financial resources, manpower and energy necessary to do so. And assuming they have the commitment to develop a winning game plan, they will also need the discipline to implement the plan over a period of years.

So, what's the game plan? First and foremost, Republicans have to stand for things that matter at an emotional, gut level to average Californians and their families. We have to appeal to their hearts as much as their minds.

It's time to go back to the drawing boards and start talking to voters. The California Republican Party should launch an intensive voter research program beginning with focus groups across the state. A large part of this focus group research should be aimed at ethnic voters so that the GOP can develop policies that appeal to this critical constituency.

It was my great honor to manage, along with my business partner Jeff Flint, the successful Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California. This was not a partisan campaign - in fact we went out of our way to make sure it was not a partisan effort. Still, 84% of John McCain voters supported Proposition 8. More importantly, we got nearly one-third of Barack Obama voters on our side, including large numbers of minority voters the GOP hasn't courted in years. We learned a lot in the Prop. 8 campaign that can help Republicans reconnect with California families, especially in ethnic communities, because we spent considerable time and money talking with ethnic voters.
We reached out to them in their churches and neighborhoods. We talked with them on the doorsteps and in their homes. And we took the time to communicate with them in their own languages. Our campaign produced campaign materials in fifteen different languages.

According to exit polls, Prop. 8 was supported by 70% of African American voters, 53% of Hispanic voters and nearly half of Asian voters. If it weren't for the support we got among ethnic voters, we might very well have lost Proposition 8.

What we learned from these ethnic voters when we talked with them is that family, especially children, is the center of their universe. They are people of faith with conservative family values. They believe in God. They crave economic opportunity. They care deeply about how their children are educated. They are involved in their communities, and they want government policies that address the things they care about.

These are people who are largely ignored and taken for granted by the Democratic Party, who can be wooed by the GOP. There are also vast numbers of unregistered voters among these ethnic constituencies.

The focus groups I recommend should aim like a laser beam on identifying policies that appeal to ethnic voters. They might include obvious GOP themes like providing economic opportunity by making it easier to start a small business. But it may be less obvious, like tax policies that make it easier for families to afford day care, policies that encourage elder care, after school programs, or detailed reform of the school curriculum.

I'm not suggesting that Republicans become like Democrats and start proposing new government programs to appeal to certain constituencies. Rather, I am suggesting that the GOP align the party's core values with the values of these ethnic voters in ways that will connect with them in real and emotional ways. An example: ethnic parents want their schools to emphasize real educational excellence and achievement, they don't want kindergartners asked to literally sign cards pledging themselves to be allies of gay rights when they are not even old enough to write their name in cursive. Think I am making this up? It was part of "Coming Out Week" in the Hayward Unified School District and who knows how many other districts in California.

Once the issues have been identified and a game plan crafted, then the truly hard work begins. It is not easy to reach ethnic voters. It requires an extensive, concerted and continuous outreach program. It will cost real money to do this. Leaders in these communities have to be identified and recruited. Volunteers and staff must be deployed to community events, neighborhoods, churches and gathering places. Materials must be developed in native languages and distributed.

It won't be easy and it won't happen overnight. But it can and should be done. It's time for a new game plan that helps California voters know for which team to root.

California Musical Theatre director steps down

Sacramento Business Journal - by Mark Anderson Staff writer
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/10/daily40.html

Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, is resigning his post and leaving the organization.

A boycott of the theater was called Tuesday by some in the national arts community when news broke that Eckern contributed $1,000 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, which supported the ban on gay marriage.

The measure passed last week.

Scott Eckern said in a prepared release that he chose to express his view through the democratic process, and he was deeply sorry for any harm or injury he caused by doing so.

“I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community,” he said. “I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most.”

The board of directors of the California Musical Theatre on Tuesday morning set an emergency meeting for Tuesday afternoon and then later canceled it. The theater company and its board of directors were trying to find a way to react to a boycott called against its theater operations by gay and lesbian artists.

Eckern, a 25-year veteran of the theater company, took over as artistic director in 2002 following the retirement of Leland Ball. Eckern was also the company’s chief operating officer.

Any political contribution of $1,000 or more requires the donor declare home city and occupation.The Web site antigayblacklist.com [note: a BLACKLIST!!! Who's using McCarthy tactics?] published a list based on data by electiontrack.com of anyone who contributed more than $1,000 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. That disclosure led to a surge of calls for a boycott on the theater company, which puts on Music Circus shows, presents the Broadway Series at the Community Center Theatre and is just launching the musical show "Forever Plaid" at the new K Street performing arts venue Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

“I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved,” he said in his statement. “I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family.”

He goes on to say this is “a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues, and I am deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization.”

The theater company's board of directors released a statement about Eckern's resignation: "California Musical Theatre is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated only to the mission of providing quality theatrical productions. At no time does it involve itself in political issues or ever impinge on the rights of its employees to engage in political activities of their choice. The views and opinions of its employees do not necessarily represent those of California Musical Theatre."

The board said it appreciated Eckern's years of service.

Email or Call the Governator

Governor Schwarzenegger has opposed Proposition 8, even though he vetoed a bill in 2005 pertaining to same sex marriages "out of respect for the will of the people". And also in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger stated his position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."

YET now Governor Schwarzenegger is encouraging the California Supreme Court to overturn proposition 8, just like they did with proposition 22.

Please call and fax a letter to the Governor reminding him that he was elected to represent the will of the people and the people have spoken TWICE, with proposition 22 and now proposition 8, in voting for marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Please do not be silent on this issue, as silence = acceptance.

Please hold your elected officials accountable. You can also email at the following link: http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Governor's Office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160

Prop 8 Protesters Smash Woman's Cross

http://www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=3115942&at1=News&h1=Prop%208%20Rally%20Turns%20Violent%20-%20Live%20Report&rnd=69340694

Craziness! But the worst part is the news anchor saying, "There is obviously a lot of hate, on both sides." Uh, were you WATCHING this video?? The hate is only on one side.

Be warned: they're coming out on the 15th.

The LGBTQ Community is calling upon all its supporters to join them at their respective city halls across the country on November 15th at 10:30am PST /1:30pm EST. Their purpose is to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California and the similar poll results in Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas.

I hope you don't have any business at your city hall that day. If so, you may want to reschedule.

Victory over those who discriminated against Prop 8 Supporters

Thanks so much to all of you who were inspired to act on behalf of the Carlsbad, Ca. Knights of Columbus.

Sat. Nov 7th, the joint parish Knight’s Council - 9022, of St. Elizabeth Seton and St. Patrick’s, were in the middle of their annual Tootsie Roll Drive benefitting mentally challenged youth in the North County area, when they were kicked out of their La Costa Albertsons location by Store Director, Alan Meyers.

Alan told the Knights Sat. their involvement with Prop 8 supposedly bothered between two to four customers, so they needed to leave and not return Sun.

One of the Knights asked Alan, “What would happen when 2600 families stopped shopping at his store due to complaints re. the Knights eviction?”

Alan replied, “He’d have to cross that bridge when he came to it.”

There were no incidents at the many other local grocery stores the Knights patronized for their fundraising last weekend.

Thanks to all of you for your letters, phone calls, and prayers. To rectify this situation the very helpful P.R. Director, Stephanie Martin, at Corporate Albertsons, has agreed to the following four actions:

1) The Knights need to know they are welcomed to return to the La Costa Albertson’s store and any Albertsons store again in the future for their charitable causes. This is a relationship the Knights have enjoyed for the past 30+ years with Albertsons. Stephanie will put this in writing to the Knights Council 9022.

2) This afternoon, (Wed.) Stephanie will call the Knights who were involved with Saturday’s dismissal and apologize to them on behalf of Albertsons

3) Store manager, Alan Meyers, called to talk Barbara N. Tues. evening re. the incident. Stephanie also called the N.’s earlier Tues. evening.

4) Albertsons will make restitution to the Knights for the charitable funds lost this last weekend, so the funds can be passed on to ARC. We discussed the amount of $500. Barbara N. later visited with Stephanie & in their conversation Stephanie pledged $700. This check to ARC will be sent by Stephanie to Knights Council 9022 c/o Bruce N., so the Knights can include it with the rest of their collected funds for ARC. The letter mentioned in Item #1 will accompany this check.

Videos on Prop 8 Protests and Violence

Prop 8 Rally Turns Violent

Proposition 8 Protest Saddleback Church Lake Forest Nov 9th

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxagcNFyHyc&NR=1

Activist: 'Pastor to presidents' replaced by gay bishop

From OneNewsNow.com.

A conservative Christian activist says it's a sad omen for the Obama administration and the United States that Barack Obama has been seeking guidance from the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop.

The Times of London reports that the president-elect sought out New Hampshire homosexual bishop Vicki Gene Robinson for advice three times during his presidential campaign. Robinson, whose ordination in the Episcopal Church has caused a deep rift within the Anglican Communion, was reportedly sought out by Obama to discuss what it feels like to be "first."

Robinson notes in their three private conversations, Obama voiced his support for "equal civil rights" for homosexuals and described the election as a "religious experience." Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama's consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration.

"It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We're moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it's beyond post-Christian. Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience," he explains. "Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it."

LaBarbera suggests Robinson may possibly replace Jeremiah Wright as one of Obama's main spiritual advisers. Wright was Obama's Chicago pastor for 20 years before disassociating with the controversial preacher during the presidential campaign.

Networks promote Prop. 8 protesters

From OneNewsNow.com.

Network coverage of the victory of California's Proposition 8 has focused principally on the supposed denial of rights to homosexuals, rather than the public affirmation that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Last Tuesday, California voters upheld traditional marriage by approving Prop. 8, the ballot measure that overturned a state Supreme Court decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry. Though the victory of a socially conservative ballot initiative in a very liberal state, in a very liberal year, is a major story, the networks have preferred to focus on the homosexuals protesting the will of the people.

The networks covered Prop. 8 heavily between Nov. 5 and Nov. 9, the five days after Election Day. In a total of 13 network news stories, only four supporters of traditional marriage appeared on air, compared to 15 opponents. Only one story, a package aired on ABC's Nov. 9 Good Morning America, noted that Proposition 8 passed by a half-million votes. Six stories observed that 18,000 same-sex 'marriages' could be affected by the passage of the initiative.

Network coverage revolved around the battle cry of "equality" and the bruised feelings of Prop. 8 opponents. NBC aired footage of homosexual protestors shouting, "What do we want? Equality!" on the November 6 and November 9 Nightly News broadcasts. The November 9 Nightly News also featured an unidentified woman stating, "I had never felt such a sense of being less of a person."

ABC's November 9 Good Morning America featured rally organizer Ian Thompson calling Proposition 8 "discriminatory." Married lesbian Robin Tyler stated during CBS's November 7 Early Show, "We are a civil rights movement. We're entitled to full equality." Diane Olson, a "same-sex spouse," told CBS Evening News on November 5, "The fact that some people would like to undo our 'I do' makes me very sad."

No network stories discussed the moral and societal implications of changing the definition of marriage, nor did the networks allow any supporters to provide a detailed defense of Proposition 8.

In contrast, all three networks gave platforms to Prop. 8 opponents to assert that marriage is a "fundamental right." Star Trek's George Takei, who "married" his partner Brad Altman in September, told CBS's Maggie Rodriguez on the November 7 Early Show, "This is a fundamental right, all-inclusive, as the Supreme Court of California has ruled, and this is taking away that fundamental right." Ron Buckmire, a homosexual activist, told ABC's Bill Weir on the November 9 Good Morning America, "We had the fundamental right to marry in the state of California and by popular vote, the people of California decided to strip that right away from us, to carve out an exception that everyone in the state would have the right to marry except for same-sex couples." Later that night Lorri Jean from the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center appeared on NBC's Nightly News and said, "The majority should not be voting on fundamental rights." Not only did the reporters fail to challenge the assertion that marriage is a fundamental right, Rodriguez and Weir referred to the partners of Takei and Buckmire as their "husbands."

Homosexual 'marriage' -- New York on deck?

From OneNewsNow.com.

The leader of a conservative activist organization predicts the Empire State is on deck to become the next battleground state for homosexual "marriage."

Frank Russo of the American Family Association of New York points out that the state's Senate is now dominated by Democrats, and there is a majority in the assembly with a Democrat governor ready to sign a bill in favor of homosexual marriage.

"So now, we're going to see come to a vote, pretty certainly, a bill establishing 'gay' marriage," he explains. "The only reason it has not come to a vote up till now was because the Republicans in the Senate would not allow it come up to a vote."

Russo was asked about the chances for the bill to pass. "It's 50-50 because there are a couple of Democrats who are conservative-minded," he contends. "In fact, it might even be five or six Democrats who might vote against it, and there are also five or six Republicans who might vote for it."

Democrats have taken control of the New York Senate for the first time in 43 years.

“Coming out” puts adolescents at risk

From Mercatornet.com:

By Dale O'Leary

Encouraging adolescents with same-sex attractions to identify as gay has no scientific or ethical justification.

How should schools treat students who self-identify as homosexual? Today entire school systems in a number of states and counties promote “acceptance”. The demand for acceptance is based on the premise that patterns of sexual attraction – to the other sex or to same sex are determined at birth and unchangeable; therefore, everyone – the affected students themselves, their parents, teachers, and classmates – should be educated and when necessary pressured into accepting same-sex attraction (SSA) as normal and as healthy as the love between a man and a woman in marriage.

There is, however, no evidence to support the claim that SSA is genetically determined and unchangeable. If it were, one would expect that identical twins would always have the same pattern of sexual attraction. A study led by J. Michael Bailey based on the twins registry in Australia found that among male identical twins, when one twin had SSA, in only 11 per cent of the cases so did the other. This research virtually precludes genetic determination.

There is also no evidence to support the claim that SSA is unchangeable. There are numerous reports of people understanding the emotional conflicts that led them to SSA, successfully addressing these weaknesses and then experiencing a new pattern of sexual attraction. A large study of sexuality led by Edward Lauman found the percentage of people self-identifying as homosexual declining over time. Lisa Diamond found that patterns of sexual attraction are particularly unstable among women.

Those who support acceptance might argue that even if SSA is not genetically determined and changeable it would still be better for those experiencing these feelings to “come out” and be accepted as homosexual by the school community. This view ignores the very real risks that accompany coming out, particularly for males.

Vulnerable boys

Over 40 per cent of males who self-identify as homosexual (“gay”) before age 18 have been victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault. (Doll et al, 1992) An even higher percentage has suffered from untreated Gender Identity Disorder. (Zucker, Bradley, 1995) A study of the sexual behavior of 239 homosexually active males, 13 to 21, found that 42 per cent had a history of sexual abuse/assault. (Remafedi, 1994; Osmond, 1994) A study of 425 homosexual males, ages 17 to 22, found that 41.4 per cent reported an occasion of forced sex. (Halkitis, Wilton, Drescher, eds. 2005; Wainberg 2006) Forced sex rarely involves “safe” sex practices. (Kalichman, Rompa 1995)

Sexual child abuse and sexual assault have been linked to long-term psychological problems, including depression, sexual addiction, drug addiction, involvement in prostitution, and suicidal feelings. Some of these young men see their victimization as proof that they were “born” homosexual. Programs directed to acceptance rarely acknowledge or address these problems. When these serious emotional conflicts are not uncovered and treated, these males often act out in ways that are dangerous to themselves and to others. It is important to address this highly prevalent problem in young males with SSA.

At high risk of infection

Even if an adolescent male with SSA was not the victim of sexual abuse and did not experience untreated gender identity disorder GID, engaging in homosexual activity as an adolescent carries a high and truly unacceptable risk.

Read the rest of this article here.

Is this really any way to change peoples' minds?

I don't think so. Check out this article from Right Michigan.

Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation in the middle of Sunday worship

This is what we're up against.

On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers. They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers.

This didn't take place in some dystopian, post modern work of fiction and it didn't take place in San Francisco or Berkley. This was the scene at a Bible believing church in Lansing, Michigan...

On Sunday, November 9, 2008 Michigan liberals sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated, disgusting and repulsive attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing's Mount Hope Church.

The lefties were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (and none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an "action."

While many of the members claim to be anarchists (they drove on roads, ate non-garden grown foods, printed materials on products created by government protected free markets, wore clothing, talk incessantly about "organization," etc etc etc) their broader goal is stated plainly on one of their lefty blogs.

"I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment."

Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.

This is what Michigan liberals label a "radical right wing establishment," and over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday. Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the "go" from their ringleader and off they went.

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props? I'll let them tell you in their own words... from another of their liberal blogs: "(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric...yeh."

The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction. The image of the pink-clad folks above is one of theirs, stating in a picture worth more than a thousand words the goals of the Michigan left.

The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did). And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow. According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties. We'll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.

Props were readily on display too, though some of the condoms may have been put to even more nefarious use.

An hour after police and security had collected and removed who they thought were the last of the liberals, a volunteer security person discovered two more, hiding, together, in a public restroom. While their compatriots engaged in openly violent protest in front of everyone these two snuck away to potentially stage their own protest of sorts, and only by the grace of God did one of the hundreds of kids at the church not happen upon that particular restroom in those moments. Precisely how long they'd been there and precisely what they'd been up to we don't know.

The church's response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding.

Yesterday morning defined the difference between a church of believers and Michigan liberals.

It also illustrated in shocking, painful detail precisely what we're up against.

A Note from Ruth Institute

Bloggers:

I have no problem posting opposing comments to our blog. However, we will never publish blogs that use bad language or that disrespect a particular person, race or religion.

Thank you.

CA Governor encourages Supreme Ct to overturn Prop 8

We all know that Governor Schwarzenegger has opposed Proposition 8, even though he vetoed a bill in 2005 pertaining to same sex marriages "out of respect for the will of the people". And also in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger stated his position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."


YET now Governor Schwarzenegger is encouraging the California Supreme Court to overturn proposition 8, just like they did with proposition 22.



Please call and fax a letter to the Governor reminding him that he was elected to represent the will of the people and the people have spoken TWICE, with proposition 22 and now proposition 8, in voting for marriage as only between a man and a woman.



Please do not be silent on this issue, as silence = acceptance



Please forward this email to your friends and family throughout the state.



Please hold your elected officials accountable.


Governor's Office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )

District Offices:

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: 559-445-5295
Fax: 559-445-5328


Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-897-0322
Fax: 213-897-0319


Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 951-680-6860
Fax: 951-680-6863


San Diego Office
1350 Front Street
Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-525-4641
Fax: 619-525-4640


San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803


Washington D.C. Office
134 Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-624-5270
Fax: 202-624-5280

Pro-Marriage Support List

Here is a list of people the gay community is black listing for donating to Prop. 8. Let's use their list to support these people!

http://antigayblacklist.com/

In the Face of Hatred

From Meridian: A place where Latter-day Saints Gather

Editor's Note: As some of you know, Meridian was hacked into last week, apparently by Prop 8 opponents, and in the place of our content was placed a homosexual pornographic film. For free email updates from Family Leader on issues that affect family and religious freedom, click here.

It has been an interesting week.

The Chinese homily, “May you live in interesting times,” has its roots in a curse, not a blessing. As I said, it has been an interesting week.

The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 (the proposed amendment to the California constitution defining marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman) built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday's election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8's slim passage into law.

I am a Los Angeles Police Department detective supervisor running a sex crimes unit covering the western quarter of the city, which also includes the area where the Los Angeles temple is located. I have a fantastic crew of 20 detectives who are an amazing mixture of races and sexes. I have several detectives who are openly gay or lesbian. This orientation has nothing to do with their efficiency as investigators. I deeply respect and like these individuals. I enjoy working with them. My life is often in their hands when we serve high risk search or arrest warrants. I trust them implicitly.

Obviously, the types of crimes we investigate bring us into regular contact with victims who are of an alternative lifestyle orientation. It is incumbent upon us that our compassion for these victims be no less than for victims who are heterosexual.

Hard Choices

Working in such an environment, I found taking a position on Proposition 8 to be difficult. Even though I chose to follow the direction of our Church leaders in my voting decision, it was extremely hard for me to place myself on the line when it came to actively working to ensure the passage of Proposition 8.

Still, I watched in amazement as my fellow ward and stake members worked tirelessly, committing themselves full-heartedly to the cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Their faith strengthened mine, and I committed to participate in a sign waving public rally sponsored by our stake to be held at a local intersection.

By following through on this commitment, I found I had a greater stake in the battle than I had ever thought. I learned a number of hard and harsh lessons. And in the events following the election and passage of Proposition 8, I felt great anguish forcing me to drop to my knees in prayer – eventually coming to a more personal understanding of the Love of Christ and what he expects from me.

Read the rest of the article here.

In the Face of Hatred

From Meridian: A Place where Latter-day Saints Gather

Editor's Note: As some of you know, Meridian was hacked into last week, apparently by Prop 8 opponents, and in the place of our content was placed a homosexual pornographic film. For free email updates from Family Leader on issues that affect family and religious freedom, click here.
It has been an interesting week.

The Chinese homily, “May you live in interesting times,” has its roots in a curse, not a blessing. As I said, it has been an interesting week.

The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 (the proposed amendment to the California constitution defining marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman) built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday's election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8's slim passage into law.

I am a Los Angeles Police Department detective supervisor running a sex crimes unit covering the western quarter of the city, which also includes the area where the Los Angeles temple is located. I have a fantastic crew of 20 detectives who are an amazing mixture of races and sexes. I have several detectives who are openly gay or lesbian. This orientation has nothing to do with their efficiency as investigators. I deeply respect and like these individuals. I enjoy working with them. My life is often in their hands when we serve high risk search or arrest warrants. I trust them implicitly.

Obviously, the types of crimes we investigate bring us into regular contact with victims who are of an alternative lifestyle orientation. It is incumbent upon us that our compassion for these victims be no less than for victims who are heterosexual.

Hard Choices

Working in such an environment, I found taking a position on Proposition 8 to be difficult. Even though I chose to follow the direction of our Church leaders in my voting decision, it was extremely hard for me to place myself on the line when it came to actively working to ensure the passage of Proposition 8.

Still, I watched in amazement as my fellow ward and stake members worked tirelessly, committing themselves full-heartedly to the cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Their faith strengthened mine, and I committed to participate in a sign waving public rally sponsored by our stake to be held at a local intersection.

By following through on this commitment, I found I had a greater stake in the battle than I had ever thought. I learned a number of hard and harsh lessons. And in the events following the election and passage of Proposition 8, I felt great anguish forcing me to drop to my knees in prayer – eventually coming to a more personal understanding of the Love of Christ and what he expects from me.

Read the rest of the article here.

Prop. 8 gift gets theater's leader in a ruckus

By Marcus Crowder mcrowder@sacbee.com

Nov. 11, 2008 in the Sacramento Bee.

Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.

Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

Richard Lewis, the organization's executive producer, said the board of directors will conduct an emergency meeting on the matter this afternoon. He said it was too early to tell how this would affect Eckern's 25-year employment with California Musical Theatre.

In a statement released Monday, Lewis said: "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their longstanding support."

Links to Eckern's official donation information began appearing Thursday on sites such as the gay political activism site http://www.goodasyou.org/ and the more informal conversational forum www.datalounge. The measure was Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Local openly gay composer Gregg Coffin, who has written nationally produced musicals "Convenience" and "Five Course Love," found it initially difficult to express his feelings about the situation.

"I feel so sad that someone from within my field and someone from within my community, who actually knows me, would contribute to an initiative that reduces me to second-class citizenship," Coffin said.

Read the rest of the article here.

A letter from Pastor Jim Ortiz

Dear Whittier Daily News:

I’m so happy to be a citizen of this country where I have the right to freely exercise my religion, freely voice my opinions, peaceably assemble with others, and, when necessary, petition my government when I have a grievance.

Over these past many months we have seen the wonderful exercise of our democratic rights expressed through the various media and the ballot box. We have seen people on both sides of issues and political parties make their claims and woo the voters. And last Tuesday (Nov. 4) the people spoke and made their choices.

Now, we see candidates and political foes shaking hands and speaking magnanimously about each other. We see one administration graciously offering a hand of cooperation as it welcomes the transition to a new administration. Regardless of who got the fewest votes we all “win” when we accept the outcome and work together for the common good. And, this is how it has always been in our history and always should be.

Yet, sadly, we also see others who are not happy with the outcome of their particular issue marching in the streets, disrupting traffic, impeding travel and commerce, flashing finger epithets, picketing and threatening, yelling unprintable words of anger, bigotry, and hateful intolerance. They do all this while standing in front of houses of worship harassing parishioners as they enter to exercise their faith. And, they’re the ones holding the “Stop the Hate” signs!

Whatever your particular opinion is about the outcome of Proposition 8 (and this paper's opinion is well known!), the harassment of worshipers at churches and the threats against religious institutions, specifically the Mormon Church, is unacceptable and unworthy of a democratic people. This should be condemned! As an Evangelical Christian I do not share much common theological ground with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but, I do share our common love of natural marriage and traditional family. On this issue they are my Brothers and Sisters! The Mormons paid a hefty price disproportionate to their size for the passage of Proposition 8 both before and now after the vote. I commend them for their sacrifice and efforts. Yet, as significant as their part was they were only part of a coalition of millions of Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and other Christians and non-Christians alike. As well as Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisans, and ethnic groups of every color and hue who believe that only marriage between one man and one woman should be valid and recognized in California and is the most beneficial family structure for our children and our society.

On this issue I will stand with my Mormon brethren and other colleagues and friends and defend their right to petition their government, freely express their opinions, worship according to their conscience, and be free and protected from harassment and bigotry. For their right is my right, too! I call upon this paper to abandon its bias for a moment and do the same. Pastor Jim Ortiz, PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial AllianceSenior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God.

Pastor Jim Ortiz,
PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial Alliance
Senior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God

Gay Activist Opposes Church Protests

Last month, I posted this letter from fellow retired LAPD officer John Smith. He was one of the first LAPD officers to “come out of the closet” during the early 1990s. In his letter, Smith explained why he voted YES on Proposition 8 and gay protests at churches. John and his partner live in Southern California, and I am honored to consider him a friend.

Today, as I listened to the news talking about the Prop 8 protests, I dusted off my retirement shadow box which displays my retired police badge. I reflected back on the oath of office I took as a young man - the day I joined the Los Angeles Police Department. As I took this oath, I gave my word to “always live my life as an example to all.”

Although I am retired, these words hold deep significance to me. Like most cops, I know the how difficult it is to do the right thing – especially when “the masses” disagree with you. Just as the “gay community” expresses their outrage over the passage of Proposition 8, I also want my voice to be heard.

As a retired police officer who is also gay, words cannot describe my anger at the gay community’s violent response to the passage of Proposition 8. I am deeply offended by the hypocritical behavior of the gay community.

I am not an openly religious man. In fact, I have rarely (if ever) discussed my personal religious values. Until now.

I believe in God.

I believe in the American right to worship in peace and free from interference.

Find the rest of the article here.

Marriage Moves Voters

By William C. Duncan
Published at NationalReview.com.

Extending constitutional protection to traditional marriage is hardly a narrow partisan affair.

Beyond their practical effects, the very fact that 30 states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage in just over a decade is remarkable.

This week, Arizona, California, and Florida joined the 27 states with existing marriage amendments. The most interesting campaign was in California where voter approval of Proposition 8 reversed a May decision of the California Supreme Court. That decision had purported to discover a previously unknown mandate to redefine marriage as the union of any two people in that state’s constitution.

The Florida amendment had faced a difficult hurdle because it needed the support of 60 percent of voters for approval. Despite a much lower-profile campaign than California’s Prop 8, Florida’s Amendment 2 managed to garner 62 percent of the popular vote.

Voters in Arizona had narrowly defeated a proposed marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment had included a prohibition on marriage-equivalent statuses and the campaign against it seemed to have convinced voters that existing benefits for cohabiting couples were at risk. This time, the amendment (Proposition 102) merely defined marriage and was soundly approved.

Two practical benefits of the amendments are obvious. First, they will prevent (or, as in California, reverse) judicial decisions redefining marriage. Second, they make absolutely clear that the enacting state will not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

This second effect is becoming increasingly important. The recent repeal of Massachusetts’ residence requirement for same-sex marriage and the impending issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Connecticut mean that couples from other states can go to either of these to marry before returning home to seek recognition.

Typically, a state will recognize a marriage valid in another state even if it could not have been contracted in the recognizing state. There is an important historical exception, however, for marriages that violate that state’s laws — against incest and polygamy, for example. The marriage amendments certainly preclude any question as to what a state’s public policy on same-sex marriages is.

Read the rest of this article here.

Movie Clip by Catholics in Support of Mormons

Are straight girls' libidos shaped by gay men?

This was written by a friend of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, David Benkof.

--Next month, Playgirl--the skin mag aimed at women--will release the last issue of its 35-year run. The magazine's popularity with gay men points to a little-discussed phenomenon: that at least some of the women's sexual liberation over the last two generations that has aimed to show female desire as a mirror image of that of men has actually been fueled by gay men's arousal and aesthetic.

This unfortunate dynamic stifles women's natural inclinations and superimposes an artificial male-male sexual model on heterosexual relations. Women--and men--deserve better.
When Playgirl first began publishing in 1973, it aimed to serve a parallel function to the similarly named (but separately owned and published) Playboy, which had been providing erotic pictures and stories as well as serious interviews and fiction to men since 1953. Early issues featured articles and short stories by noted authors including Maya Angelou and Margaret Atwood. But the most distinctive feature of the magazine was the pictorials, featuring good-looking men in various states of undress.

Playgirl's appeal to gay men has fluctuated over the years, but men have been estimated at between 30 and 75 percent of the magazine's readers. In the early years, the magazine insisted its audience was overwhelmingly female, but in the last 10 years Playgirl's leadership has acknowledged that gay men make up approximately half its readership.

Former Playgirl editor in chief Judy Cole once suggested that Playgirl appeals to gay men precisely because it is supposed to be for women--the same reasons that lead "drag queens to haunt exclusive women's designer boutiques, rather than stores that carry merchandise specifically for them. Ignoring the gay audience may turn out to be the most savvy marketing strategy of all."

Yes, some women enjoy pictures of naked men. But the magazine made it as far as it did only because gay men, too, enjoy pictures of naked men.

Playgirl is not an isolated phenomenon. The male dance revue Chippendales also got its aesthetic from a gay man. Recently, original Chippendales choreographer Nick DeNoia was revealed in the 2008 book "Master of Ceremonies: A True Story of Love, Murder, Roller Skates and Chippendales" to be a closeted homosexual. DeNoia was most responsible for selecting the first dancers and setting the tone of the show.

Read the rest of the article here.

Encouragement from a Reader

Jennifer - I just read your article in the National Review and I want to applaud you for a great article. I live in Wisconsin and it is sad to read all the bad that is happening in response to the victory for the sanctity of marriage. Do you have direct contact with the church's that were involved with passing Prop 8? After reading about the targetting of the churches by the pro homosexual groups, I wanted to say thank you and commend the church's and people involved in getting Prop 8 passed. Pass the word on to stay strong and thank you.

Indian tribe bans abortion

An Indian tribal council in North Dakota has approved a resolution that would ban abortions on the tribe's land. The resolution, adopted by four of eight members of the council, states that, "under no circumstances will abortions be performed and allowed within any private or public facility within the boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation and other lands under the jurisdiction of the tribe." It says that the "Governing Body faithfully believes that life is sacred and begins at the moment of conception" and that "pro-life is a universal issue of common sense, moral righteousness for the common good of life." It also states that the majority the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians are Christians.

The resolution makes sense not only from a moral point of view but from the perspective of the tribe's survival. However, its validity has been questioned by one of the tribe, and an official of the local Indian Health Service, which runs the only hospital and clinic in the area, has said the facilities are not subject to tribal resolutions. However, no abortions had been performed there in recent years, he added. ~ Daily Women's Health Policy Report, Oct 29

Election night craziness

From a friend:

We went down to Election Central in San Diego on Tuesday night and things got a little "lively", especially with regard to Props 4 and 8.

My son and his friend got in the thick of things. They stood proudly and loudly supported life and traditional marriage. At one point, it got a little too intense for this mother's heart, so I went over to my son and said, 'Hey, let's go. Let's find where dad is.' He replied, 'Hey, it's ok mom. Remember, I play football.'

Later, Bishop Cordileone and Fr. Saroki came into the hall and I felt peace and protection. Thank you to our Bishop and the priests who courageously led us during this campaign!

Around 10 p.m., a large number of teens and young adults came in holding signs that read, 'Keep our teens safe. No on Prop 4'. Keep teens safe? How so? I asked an older woman who appeared to be "in charge" of the group of teens, how does this keep teens safe. She replied, 'I don't have kids. I really don't know and I don't care'.

God help us.

Winning Proposition: Marriage success.

By Jennifer Roback Morse

Find this article at NationalReview.com.
I can hardly believe the campaign for Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, is over and that we won. I will miss the cheerful yellow signs with their happy blue family people on them. Now that it is over, it is worthwhile to reflect on the significance of what the Protect Marriage coalition achieved. The people of California did not do anything rash or drastic here. They simply voted to enshrine the definition of natural marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution.

What does this victory mean?

The people of California want to wrest control of the legal definition of marriage from the judiciary.

The people of California are deeply troubled by the idea of small children being taught about homosexuality in the schools without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

The people of California do not want dissenters from the gay-marriage ideology to be treated as if they were racists.

The people of California want religious groups to be free to operate within their own value systems. People don’t want to unleash discrimination suits and other forms of legal harassment against religious bodies which hold that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It doesn’t mean:

Over five million Californians are bigots.

Gay couples will have their homes raided, (contra the outrageous anti-Mormon advertisement.)

Gay couples will lose their domestic partnership benefits.

Gays are second-class citizens.

Why does the victory of Proposition 8 matter?

A coalition of ordinary people pushed back against the gay lobby and its allies. Those allies include all the major newspapers, Hollywood, the judiciary, the governor, the attorney general, and academia. These allies did not hesitate to abuse their power. For instance, Attorney General Jerry Brown rewrote the title of the proposition in a way that cost us 5 to 10 percentage points in the polls.

But Proposition 8 proponents got more than it bargained for: ordinary citizens are sick of being pushed around. They aren’t going to take it any more.

The coalition of religious groups who worked for Prop 8 will not dissolve the day after tomorrow. Passing Proposition 8 required an unprecedented level of interfaith cooperation. Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews all worked together. I could feel mistrust melting away as we worked together to protect natural marriage. The solidarity we created will continue long after this particular election.

Interracial solidarity was strong on the marriage issue. Blacks and Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. Los Angeles County voted for Prop 8. That wasn’t Hollywood and Beverly Hills talking: it was the urban minority communities. They don’t seem to feel the need to be politically correct. Pro-marriage advocates of all races met and worked together, and will continue to do so.

The public is much more aware of the promotion of homosexuality in the schools. People will be monitoring the content of school curriculum in a way they had not done before. And since they now have the experience of being successful cooperating with others and promoting their views in the public square, they are much less likely to back down. If the gay lobby could have contained itself and lain low for a little longer, they might have been able to slip a lot of things past the public. Those days are over.

The public was disgusted by the grotesque bullying tactics of the No on 8 coalition. Although the anti-Mormon ad was produced by an “independent” group, no one from the official campaign condemned the ad. The media gave very little attention to the vandalism against Yes, but publicized the few isolated incidents of vandalism against No. But this media spin can’t work when the incidents are happening in your own neighborhood, under your own noses, to people you know. The No campaign should have distanced itself from people who were keying cars, egging houses and spray painting graffiti on churches. But it didn’t.

In short, the success of Proposition 8 is the success of a broad-based coalition of citizen activists who cared passionately about the meaning and future of marriage. The Protect Marriage campaign had literally a hundred thousand volunteers and over 70,000 donors. What Proposition 13 meant to the cause of citizen-generated tax reduction measures, Proposition 8 may mean to the cause of defending and defining marriage.

The judges who created same-sex marriage awakened a sleeping giant. And we won’t be going back to sleep any time soon.

— Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute.

On Human Life--An Anniversary

Check out Father Schall's latest article on the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae

Prediction!

The Ruth Institute excepts your prediction: Bet you a California alfalfa sandwich a CA court will find that Prop 8 violates the US constitution!


J Dolan

Prop 8's passing secures confidence in Canada

Jennifer,

Congratulations for the extraordinary efforts you and so many others deployed!


Failure to pass the amendment would have also dealt a severe blow to efforts in other jurisdictions, including Canada, to re-establish the rightful place of the child within man-woman marriage.



The battle is not over. It would be very surprising to see opponents of man-woman marriage abandon the fight. If public support for ssm was to increase in time, could they not launch an initiative to reverse yesterday’s gain at some future election? This means we have collectively been given a reprieve, much like France with last year’s election of Sarkosy. This is why it will be necessary to establish, in law, the rights of the child to a mother and a father.



Sincerely and gratefully,

A Ruth Institute Marriage Champ

Marriage Champions!

California did it! Marriage defined between one man and one woman is restored!

Our appreciation and graditude for all those who donated their time, prayer and money to make this possible!

Ruth Youth Proclaim International Mormon Appreciation Day!

In response to the truly despicable, bigoted advertisement, Home Invasion, produced to defeat California’s Proposition 8, the members of the Ruth Youth proclaim November 5, 2008 to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.

Whereas: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are exercising their legal first amendment free speech rights by participating in the political process, rights that are dear to all Americans of all religions.

Whereas, the advertisement was generated by an “independent” group calling itself Courage Campaign Issues Committee.

Whereas: the ad has been condemned by representatives of Catholic and Protestant Churches.

Whereas: the Protect Marriage, Yes on Proposition 8 campaign has called upon the No on 8 campaign to repudiate the ad.

Whereas: the No on Proposition 8 has been completely silent in the face of this outrageous display of anti-religious bigotry.

Whereas: the No on 8 Campaign has shown very clearly that they want the exclusive right to define what counts as discrimination and hate.

Whereas: the campaign to protect natural marriage by passing California’s Proposition 8 has been called the largest grassroots political campaign in history.

Whereas: attacks on the religious freedom of one group threaten the religious freedom of all religions.

Whereas: Ruth Youth is an international, interfaith coalition of youthful souls of all ages who support natural marriage, in law, culture, media and academia.

Whereas: we are grateful to the members of the LDS Church for their participation in the campaign to protect marriage from being radically redefined by unelected judges.

Whereas: We are proud to have been part of said campaign, and we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the members of the LDS Church.

Therefore, be it proclaimed:

We, the members of Ruth Youth, hereby declare and proclaim November 5, 2008, to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.

We hereby express our gratitude toward and solidarity with our LDS brothers and sisters.
No matter how the election for Proposition 8 turns out, we are grateful to the courageous, dedicated, and always cheerful members of the LDS Church.

Our friend Leland strikes again

The man with the refurbished Prop 8 sign (shown in the "Going Green" post below) has protested one of his favorite websites, BoardGameGeek, for blocking ads from ProtectMarriage.com after some regulars complained.

He writes:
"After seeing how afraid the enemies of traditional marriage and family are of open expression of opinion even in this one very small and cloistered neighborhood of the web, I just have to wonder what we can expect if Proposition 8 fails and they then feel like they have the mandate they need to completely reorder society in general according to their own self serving preferences. I hate to even think about it."

Here is what he posted on the website's thread:

"Now I’m the one who is shocked, Aldie. You’re actually kowtowing to the politically ‘correct’ thought police on this one, are you?

As far as I’m concerned Barry’s objection is made in the same spirit as the folks who’ve been going around stealing or destroying people’s Prop. 8 yard signs or besieging people’s homes when Prop. 8 signs are posted on their house out of reach (to keep it from being stolen or defaced) or vandalizing the homes and/or cars of people who dare to display Prop. 8 signs or stickers...

Barry, what I think of your attitude is best exhibited by what I did with the yard sign someone destroyed in my front yard.

PS: I'd be just as incensed if an anti-Prop. 8 advertisement led to this kind of censorship. This is the exact opposite of being “an open, welcoming community”. But for the record, an anti-Prop. 8 ad would have at most only caused some people to voice disagreement, not a request for censorship."

The Return of Open Attacks on Religious Minorities: Prop 8's Legacy

Maggie Gallagher's response to the vicious ad mentioned in the previous posting. Find it online here. Gallagher is the president of NOM--National Organization for Marriage.

Well this is certainly change.

The voices of tolerance in California are concluding their campaign against Prop 8 with this TV ad, which engages in a level of blatant religious hatred I've never seen in American politics. Ever.

I don't think its been seen in American politics since the late 19th Century attacks on Catholics, which may be why the Catholic Conference in California was so quick to denounce the ad.

It depicts two young Mormon missionaries (they are identified as LDS) invading a home and ransacking their belongings. It's ugly in the extreme.

Remember, a vote for Prop 8 in California leaves same-sex couples protected by full marriage-equivalent civil unions. None of that matters. If you think marriage means a husband and wife you are just like a racist and you can be treated any way they want.

Apparently people who think they are the civil rights movement of the century do not think they have to behave with even minimal decency towards those of us who disagree with them. These are not some outliers in the wacky blogosphere.

These are the leaders of the gay marriage movement in America who made and ran this ad.

A very revealing (and scary) moment.

Every decent voice needs to stand with the LDS folks against this kind of vicious attack on their faith community because as American citizens, they have exercised their civil rights to vote, organize, and donate.

Truly Awful Ad from the No on 8 Campaign

Vote now for Prop 8. Get all your friends and family to the polls today.

Gay marriage activists have sunk to new lows: they are running this ad, which makes a disgusting, vicious, attack on Californians who happen to be members of the LDS Church who have peacefully organized, voted, spoken and donated in order to protect marriage.

Right now they are going after Mormons, but don't think they won't come after you and your rights too. This vile ad expresses the contempt our opponents have for religious liberty and for the very idea of tolerating people who disagree with their views on marriage.

Every faith community in America--every decent voice in America--needs to stand up now and express our solidarity with the LDS Church against these outrageous attacks. Stand up and fight for marriage, for our rights, and for the very idea of tolerance and decency in American political life! (Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, just weighed in on National Review Online, click here).

If you don't live in California, call up a friend or relative who does. Tell them to get to the polls and vote Yes on 8. Write a letter to the editor to your local paper, and protest this ugly outburst of blatant religious bigotry on a small faith community in America. These powerful politicians need to know: This is an attack not on one small church but on all of us in America who believe in religious liberty and basic human decency.

(In Florida, vote Yes on 2, in Arizona, Yes on 102, and in Connecticut, Yes on Question 1).

Most important, let me repeat: get to the polls. Vote for Prop 8 like your life--or at least your religious liberty--depends on it.

God bless you,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242

California supporters of same-sex 'marriage' losing money

From OneNewsNow.com.

Many teachers and utility consumers in California are angry over campaign contributions made by a teachers union and a utility provider in support of homosexual "marriage." Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been keeping tabs on the California Teachers Association (CTA) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and working with American Family Association to expose the companies' support of same-sex marriage. Both companies made large financial contributions to fight Proposition 8, which would restore California's definition of traditional marriage and overturn the recent court ruling legalizing homosexual marriage in the Golden State.

"After Pacific Gas & Electric gave a quarter of a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, and after the California Teachers Association gave over a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, they are now financially taking a hit," Dacus explains.

According to the attorney, more than 5,000 people -- many of them teachers who are disenchanted with CTA's political donation -- have cancelled service with PG&E and are now obtaining service from companies that generally charge less as well as support family values.

"Countless numbers of public school teachers [who are] outraged with their teachers union are contacting the Pacific Justice Institute and downloading information from ChooseCharity.org in order to switch from this union and have all of their union dues given to a charity that's in agreement with their faith instead of the union," Dacus adds.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, Dacus hopes the campaign against the two organizations will continue. More information about California utilities that support traditional marriage is available at NOtoPGE.com.

Another good video

http://www.marriagematterstokids.com/

Social justice requires voting pro-life

by Dr. J. David Franks
St. John’s Seminary, Boston

It is our moral obligation to vote. Yet there are no perfect candidates. So, how do we decide? We must be guided by the bedrock principles of social responsibility. In the language of Catholic social doctrine, we must always make a preferential option for the poor. (Remember the decisive criterion at the Last Judgment: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me” [Mt 25:40].)

The preferential option for the poor demands that in every vote we cast we always have as our formal object to advance the cause of bringing about the restoration in law of the right to life of the innocent, because the unborn child threatened by the regime of legal abortion is surely the “least of these.” If this is not always our motivating criterion, all our talk of “social justice” is airy nothing. Precisely to the extent that someone is weak and vulnerable, that person should be the focus of our moral responsibility. The more powerless the human life, the more we owe that person. This means that the unborn have the first claim on us, being the most powerless, most vulnerable, most innocent human life of all.

Very few have served the materially poor as completely as did Blessed (Mother) Teresa of Calcutta, and out of the clarity of her holiness, she dispelled the fog of the ideology of death: “I find the unborn child to be the poorest of the poor today—the most unloved—the most unwanted, the throwaway of the society.” If we are serious about solidarity, we must start with the weakest. (The disabled and the elderly face similar challenges to having their right to life respected in law; euthanasia is being fueled by a eugenic “quality of life” mindset.)

The preferential option for the poor makes clear that integral and solidary humanism begins with the “life issues.” These must take priority over all else in political life. If we are serious about making the preferential option for the poorest of the poor in our lives, we must be seriously, intelligently, politically (not just “personally”) pro-life. The preferential option for the poor begins with the unborn—else it’s being twisted into a socialist slogan.

We know without a doubt, as a matter of science, that the unborn child is human life. About a century and a half ago, embryology entered its modern phase precisely with the discovery that human life begins at conception: the union of a male gamete (sperm) and a female gamete (egg) produces a new, self-organizing individual of the human species, chromosomally identifiable as male or female. This is the scientific reality. The only question is, will we recognize the moral claim that powerless human life makes on us?

Solidarity with the poorest of the poor requires that we act prudently for the restoration in law of the right to life of the innocent. Generally, this means voting for the most pro-life of the major-party candidates. (A “protest” vote for a non-viable candidate is imprudent and thus lacking in the intelligence necessary for real solidarity.) No civilized society can long survive legalized private executions of the most powerless, a private war against the most innocent human lives. If our laws don’t recognize the right to life of the unborn, they fail in their first purpose: to be a bulwark against the depredations of the powerful.

Intrinsic to moral responsibility in a democracy is voting. That is, voting is a serious moral act. And one of the axioms of our freedom is that we have a moral obligation in each of our free acts not to act out of ignorance. To vote morally, we must intelligently distinguish between negotiable and non-negotiable issues. People of good will can disagree about how best to serve the common good when it comes to geopolitics, to tax and healthcare policy, etc. These are all debatable. But abortion is not. Yes, we must also work to reduce the actual incidence of abortion, especially by supporting pregnancy care centers. But changing the law is more fundamental: the law is a teacher; it is how we as a society communicate our sense of reality to the young. As long as abortion is “safe and legal,” it will never be “rare.”

So, to vote in a morally responsible fashion, it is crucial to know where the candidates stand on abortion. The best resource here is the National Right to Life Committee . The most significant vote is the one for the presidency of the United States. Mr. Obama is a pro-abortion extremist. As a state legislator, he even worked against a law that would have protected babies who had survived abortions, and he wants to eliminate federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers (so much for being “pro-choice”).

In the name of social justice, we must ask ourselves, as we stand in the voting booth, which of the two major-party candidates will defend the most powerless. Which of the candidates would nominate pro-life judges? (We have fought so long to move a Supreme Court that was 7-2 against life to one that is just one vote shy of reversing Roe. It is now that we are supposed to give up?) Who would keep in place the Mexico City policy, which removed America from the pro-abortion population-control imperialism of the Clinton years that sought to “reduce” the numbers of babies of people of color? (42 million abortions are performed worldwide each year; this scale of deliberate destruction of human life has never been approached in the history of the world. In America alone, around 1.3 million children are aborted each year.)

There has never been a more consequential election concerning the right to life in history. Indeed, Mr. Obama has promised to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would roll back all of the hard fought incremental pro-life legislation of the last decades—which has saved tens of thousands of lives. FOCA would require taxpayer funding of abortion, decriminalize partial-birth abortion, eliminate parental notification laws, etc. Enshrining as it would a “fundamental right” to abortion, making it sacrosanct and legally untouchable, FOCA would very likely bring about a day, in the not too distant future, when the Catholic Church would have to relinquish her involvement in health care because the price of such involvement would be to perform abortions.

No pro-lifer should ever apologize for defending the most powerless human life, for being “single issue,” for standing up to fight in this, the greatest human rights struggle in the history of the world. And no pro-lifer should apologize for appealing to the consciences of every person, calling all to meet the demands of true love: there is something far more important than where you or I stand on the environment, on geopolitics, on economics. Indeed there is something far more important than where you and I stand on these prudential matters all put together: what social “progress” is worth being bought at the cost of even one little child killed—and killed legally?

The weakest deserve our first consideration—not our second, or third, or… Solidarity with the most vulnerable is the first requirement of true love and social justice.

'President Obama' could overturn marriage amendments

From OneNewsNow.com.

California, Arizona, and Florida have constitutional amendments on the ballot to ban homosexual "marriage." Liberty Counsel examines the Florida amendment as well as the repercussions of the federal election.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the stakes are high in Florida because passage of a constitutional amendment requires 60 percent of the vote. "Right now the polls show about 57 percent in favor of the amendment. The good news is only 34 percent oppose the amendment," he explains. "There is an undecided factor in there. I believe that factor will swing for us when they go to the polls."

However, he also points out the national election could affect all states in terms of homosexual marriage. If elected president, Barack Obama has promised to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which currently means states cannot be forced to recognize homosexual marriages that are legal in other states.

"Now if that happens, that will be like removing the dam and same-sex marriage will flood across the country, notwithstanding the fact that a state even has a constitutional amendment," he contends. "A state will be required to recognize either Massachusetts or California or some other state's same-sex marriage law. That means same-sex marriage will literally rush across the borders of all 50 states."

Staver urges people from every state to think carefully before they cast their votes on Tuesday.

More news on the marriage front in Florida

On the very eve of the election, a front group for the radical homosexual agenda called "Florida Red and Blue" has filed a frivolous lawsuit against leaders of the pro-marriage movement.

The attorney representing Florida Red and Blue is Benedict P.Kuehne, who was indicted in February for conspiracy, money laundering and obstruction of justice relating to money from the Medellin drug cartel in Colombia.

Liberty Counsel is representing the defendants and will be in court today in Miami seeking sanctions against Florida Red and Blue.

With polls showing support for the state marriage amendments gaining, this is a blatant attempt to taint voters against marriage in a last-minute "election surprise."

But the key will be voter turnout -- not just in Florida but also in California and Arizona!

+ + Alert your friends and vote!

This is just the latest in a long line of underhanded efforts to defeat marriage in these three key states.

Your vote for marriage on Tuesday will have national ramifications. If marriage loses it could mark the end of marriage as we know it.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel

Another video

Watch it here.

Tuesday is our moment to vote YES on Prop 8. A Yes vote will restore traditional marriage in our state.

For your steadfast support of traditional marriage, the No on 8 campaign has called you "intolerant" and "offensive." But a recent string of attacks on Yes on 8 supporters shows that opponents of traditional marriage are anything but tolerant and respectful of others.

On Tuesday, you can send them a message by volunteering for our historic, 100,000-strong get-out-the-vote effort -- and most importantly, voting YES on 8.

School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

Alright. Let's admit it. Things are definitely getting out of control here.

From Fox News:

A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."

The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights.

Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken.
"We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not," said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.

Val Joyner, a school district spokeswoman, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that when deciding what to teach on this subject matter, educators "gather materials from community agencies and other education groups" and that "the materials have grade level indicators which help determine what is age-appropriate."

The district said the pledge cards were intended for middle school and high school students.Asked last week if the district planned to take action against Miller, Joyner said she would have to look into the incident. On Thursday she told FOXNews.com that she did not have an answer for the question and that she would no longer be doing any media interviews.

Joyner said in an e-mail that Miller, the teacher, "planned to teach students how to become an ally and conflict-mediation through various activities." She added that the district doesn't advocate for a specific cause and/or lifestyle, and it has "no curriculum for gay, lesbian and transgender lifestyles."

The district employs a "Professional Learning Specialist: Equity," who is in charge of gathering material and helping teachers decide what should be taught on the subject matter.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, the group representing Voelker, said parents at the Faith Ringgold School weren't notified of what was going to take place in the classroom.He said that teaching students as young as pre-school about gay, lesbian and transgender issues is common in California, but that there are "all kinds of material the average parent could find highly objectionable or potentially harmful" to their children.

When asked if the school district did anything wrong, he said, "possibly," but he declined to go into detail or say whether Voelker would sue the district.

Dacus would not comment specifically on whether children who signed the pledge could be held responsible if the school determined that they were not honoring it. He said they are minors and there are certain degrees of limited liability, but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame.

"[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said.

Meanwhile, opponents of gay marriage are up in arms over the incident, which occurred as California voters prepare to vote Tuesday on Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage.

"How do you teach a 5-year-old to sign a pledge card for lesbian, gay and transgender issues without explaining what transgender and bisexual is?" asked Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California.

Some Handy Arguments You Can Use

Written by Matthew B. Mack, Counselor at Law

It’s No Surprise that Some of Us Prefer Cats and Some Dogs . . . While Tolerating Both

While some of us prefer cats and some dogs, most of us agree they are both domesticated animals that are to be tolerated and protected in our society. However, we all understand that dogs and cats are different, and it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that a cat is the same as a dog or that dogs have actually always been cats . . .

Similarly, while both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are to be tolerated and protected in our society, it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, or that same-sex relations have actually always been “marriages”.

While I happen to prefer dogs, it neither makes me prejudice toward or intolerant of cats, nor does it require that I must now pretend that dogs and cats are exactly the same. In our home we have room for both dogs and cats. People can and should support Proposition 8’s clarification of the definition of marriage and still love, respect and tolerate everyone!

1 Potato, 2 Potato, 3 Potato, 4 . . . Neither People nor Potatoes Are all the Same

Previously, human history has defined “marriage” as a protected civil–societal-spiritual relationship between a man and a woman. Today, gays and lesbians assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their sexual preference for homosexuality is a matter of genetic predisposition void of free choice, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include any 2 same-gender people.

Tomorrow, bisexuals will assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their simultaneous sexual preference for heterosexuality and homosexuality is a matter of genetic predisposition void of free choice, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include 3 people, 2 of the same gender and 1 of the opposite gender. Later, people will assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their genetic predisposition for group relationships, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, is simply validating what society has already accepted, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include polygamy, polyandry, etc.

Ultimately, the term “marriage” will be “some relationship between some people”. Definitions, particularly legal definitions, are used to help society clearly understand and communicate what something is and what it’s not. Ultimately, allowing “marriage” to become anything results in it being nothing . . . and how does that help anyone? As a society we currently acknowledge and protect the preferences defined by the terms “heterosexuality”, “homosexuality” and “bisexuality”, and everyone knows each term involves unique relationships. How does society benefit from suddenly ignoring those unique differences by using the same legal term, “marriage”, to define all human sexual relationships? We acknowledge and protect various defined races, ethnicities, etc., without ignoring their unique differences, why must it be different when we look to sexuality?

We are not a “one size fits all” society, and the courts should not be allowed to so broadly define “marriage”, that it means nothing and protects no one. I’m voting Yes on Proposition 8 to protect and preserve each of our rights to be uniquely different, and I am against government trying to make us all the same!!

Will the Passage or Defeat of Prop 8 Really Change what California's Schools Teach?

I simply want both sides to tell the truth. Opponents of Proposition argue that while “HIV/AIDS Prevention Education" is mandatory in California schools [Education Code Section 51931(d)], “Sex Education is not. Opponents of Proposition 8 admit that "Sex Education" includes teaching "healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family" [Education Code section 51933(a)], but argue that because “Sex Education” is not mandatory it will not affect students or families.

The truth is that 96 % of California schools teach Sex Education, and 93% of the 96% teach both “HIV/AIDS Prevention Education" [mandatory] and "Sex Education"[not mandatory] in the same class thereby depriving parents of advance Notice and the right to Opt-Out because the class contains mandatory education! [see report entitled “Sex Education in California Public Schools” dated August 2003 which was published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California - [link]

The result is that under California’s current law which legalizes both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, schools will in fact teach over 90% of the time “the knowledge and skills necessary” to encourage and protect same-sex "gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family" [Education Code section 51930]. The effective teaching of skills in schools often involves role play in the class, and therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that students will role play asking another class member to participate in social interaction (dating, dancing, holding hands, kissing, sexual consent, etc.), which would mandate that boys and girls practice asking for such social interaction with those of the same-sex.

If Proposition 8 passes, schools will neither support nor oppose same-sex marriage, such concerns would be left to the parents, just where they belong . . . . Now that would certainly change what California's schools teach!

Prop. 8 outcome key for America's future

From OneNewsNow.com.
Homosexual activists are paying close attention to the outcome of the upcoming election.

The results are crucial to the pro-family, traditional marriage foundation of America, and a wrong outcome could make things tough, according to Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality."

More and more the Democrats are pushing for a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Nancy Pelosi's on record for that," he explains. "Barack Obama is calling for a full repeal of DOMA, the law signed by Bill Clinton that protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state gay marriages."

LaBarbera believes the California vote on Proposition 8, which would protect traditional marriage, would have national repercussions if it fails. "And if that doesn't pass, it's a bad sign for the pro-family movement, and the gay lobby would just be overjoyed and go into overdrive to promote their agenda across the country," LaBarbera contends.

In fact, if Prop. 8 fails and Democrats gain the White House and a congressional majority, a same-gender marriage bill is likely to pass in Washington, DC, in January, according to activists and city hall insiders. Evan Wolfson, executive director of the same-sex marriage advocacy group called Freedom to Marry, told The Washington Blade, "Where California goes, so goes the nation."

Going green? Destroyed Prop. 8 sign gets re-used

8 Is Not Hate: The meaning of a proposition.

Prop. 8 is about courts being out of control.

Check out Dr. J's article at NationalReview online or below.

In Fresno, a Catholic priest who recently came out to his parishioners asked them to imagine they have just discovered they are gay: “How would you feel when you saw a car with a ‘Yes on 8’ bumper sticker?” In San Diego, a group opposing Proposition 8 calls itself “Californians Against Hate.” In San Jose, two women parked in front of a house that had a large “Yes on 8” banner. They spray painted their own car to turn it into a billboard saying “Bigots Live Here.”

Given all these episodes, I would like for the gays and lesbians of California to know what I mean by the “Yes on Proposition 8” sign in my yard. I want you to know what I am saying, and what I’m not saying, by driving around with a “Yes on Prop 8” sticker. Some opponents of Proposition 8 seem to view it as a referendum on whether we like gay people. I do not share this view. From my perspective, it would be tragic for the gays and lesbians of California to believe that every house with a Yes on 8 sign in the yard is inhabited by someone who hates them.

I’m voting “yes” on 8, not because of my views of gays and lesbians, but because of my views about marriage. I view marriage as a gender-based institution that attaches mothers and fathers to each other and to their children. Those of us who support Proposition 8 believe that children deserve at least the chance to have a relationship with a mom and a dad. That isn’t hateful toward anyone.

We have watched as the small children of Massachusetts were taught about homosexuality in their public schools. We believe parents should decide when and what to teach their children about homosexuality, in accordance with their values, and their perception of their child’s maturity. We have trouble believing that the well-being of gays and lesbians really depends on children reading King & King in kindergarten.

We believe the California supreme court greatly overstepped its bounds. Their decision did more than legalize same-sex marriage. The Court declared that requiring spouses to be of the opposite sex counts as discrimination. Religious groups that act on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman are henceforth engaged in unlawful discrimination.

The Court also changed the jurisprudence of sexual-orientation discrimination cases, giving same-sex couples the highest possible level of protection. This means that in contests between religious liberty and sexual-orientation discrimination, religious liberty would almost always lose. The Court’s ruling gave gays and lesbians new grounds on which to sue religious people, and a higher probability of winning than before. Fair-minded Californians of all political persuasions don’t want every church-related activity threatened with legal harassment. Every marriage-preparation class, every pre-school, every adoption agency, every high school, every teen youth group is potentially covered by the Court’s ruling. Voting Yes on Proposition 8 is one of the few ways ordinary citizens can protest. They are not saying they hate gay people: They are saying the Court is out of control.

Millions of people are going to vote Yes on Prop 8. People of every religion and no religion are going to vote Yes on Prop 8. People with gay loved ones are going to vote Yes on Prop 8. It would be tragic, and completely unwarranted, for gay men and lesbians to conclude that all these people hate them.

The Call in San Diego a Success

From Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse:

The Call, the Pentecostal gathering at San Diego's QualComm football stadium this past Saturday was incredible. My family and I went to the Mass at the Mission San Diego prior to The Call. For those who are unfamiliar with California history or Catholic lore, the Mission San Diego was the first of the Missions founded in California by Father Junipero Serra back in 1769. Padre Serra is consider the “Father of California.” You might say he is “The Original San Diego Padre.” We felt his presence there at the Mission as our Auxiliary Bishop, Salvatore Cordileone, said Mass for us on the Feast of All Saints. The bishop had invited Pastors Jim Garlow and Chris Clark, to do the readings. Thus, the Evangelical and the Baptist churches were represented at the Catholic event.

We then had a procession from the Mission San Diego, over to QualComm stadium, for The Call. The Call was a major Pentecostal prayer rally, hosted by Lou Engel. Approximately 30,000 people attended the event, which ran from 10 AM to 10 PM.

Around 3 PM, the pastor introduced Bishop Cordileone to the mostly Evangelical crowds. He said that when we've been at battle for hours it was always a relief to see fresh troops. Bishop Cordileone was introduced as “the leader of fresh troops.” Bishop Cordileone then told the crowd that at that very moment there were 1.8 million Catholics (that would be all of the Knights of Columbus) all over the world praying with them for the fight on 8. He then lead the crowd in a beautiful prayer to stop abortion, end pornography, return morals and values to our nation, and for the unity of all Christians in this spiritual war.

People from around the country should know that the struggle for marriage in CA has enlisted the support of all the major religious groups, as this particular rally demonstrates. Over the months of my involvement, I have worked with members of the Mormon church and the Orthodox Jewish community. This past week, I was on a Spanish language radio station. Win, lose or draw on Tuesday, I consider it an honor and a privilege to be part of this great ecumenical effort to preserve natural marriage. I will treasure the friendships I have made over the course of this campaign.

The final Prop 8 video from John Paul the Great Catholic University

America is at a crucial juncture.

Prop 8 really comes down to what is right and wrong concerning marriage. Tuesday, it will be written into law: we will either be a state that supports free religion or free sexuality. One of them will be judged as less important.

Watch this video, pass it on to your friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY9YAeksPSY

This is not an issue that anyone can remain silent on.

YES ON 8 CHALLENGES SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JACK O’CONNELL TO LIVE DEBATE

Yes on 8 Says Debate Will Make It Clear: If we do not Pass Proposition 8, Gay Marriage Will Be Taught in California Public Schools, and that is Already Happening

SACRAMENTO – The Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign today challenged Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and the No on 8 campaign to a live, televised debate this weekend so voters can learn the truth about the issue of gay marriage being taught in California public schools. The Yes on 8 Campaign, in a letter from Campaign Manager Frank Schubert to No on 8 Campaign Manager Steve Smith, said the more substantive forum will settle the issue once and for all and prove that gay marriage will be taught in public schools if Proposition 8 fails.

“The No on Proposition 8 campaign has been airing television and radio ads featuring Jack O’Connell accusing us of running a ‘shameful’ campaign,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8. “There is nothing shameful about telling the truth. This is the most critical issue of the campaign. Voters deserve an opportunity to hear for themselves what will happen, and indeed what is already happening, if we do not restore traditional marriage in California on Election Day. Given his strong statements, I’m sure O’Connell will have no problem accepting.”

The debate challenge comes as it becomes increasingly clear that indoctrination of young school children about gay marriage is already happening. The so-called “public relations nightmare” of a San Francisco first grade class being taken on an official school field trip to a lesbian wedding was followed last week by a Hayward elementary school having a “National Coming Out Day” for kindergarteners, instruction in which parents were told they could not opt-out according to recent news accounts.

From ProtectMarriage.com.

YES ON 8 VIDEO

Yet another great video!