Preserving Marriage for California's Future

Olympic Gold Medalist Steps Down Amid Prop. 8 Protests

2011-06-10T06:18:00.000-07:00

Photo used from The Orange County Register

Long time, no see, huh, readers? Life moves along at a swift pace, but my heart is still with the fight for religious freedom and seeking equality and tolerance for all - not just those in vogue in our ever-complicating world.

Like so.

Yesterday a friend posted this Orange County Register article to Facebook about how Olympic gold medalist - and Latter-day Saint - Peter Vidmar has stepped down from serving as chef de mission for Team USA in the 2012 Olympics amid outcries against his support of Prop. 8.

In the editorial piece, Register editor David Whiting provides a breath of fresh air by maintaining that while he disagrees with Vidmar's stance, he doesn't think that should bar Vidmar from serving in this capacity, one that has nothing to do with marriage, religion or politics.

I have a great deal of respect for Whiting, having worked with him a bit at the Register and read his work over the years, and I really appreciated his viewpoint. To me, this is what tolerance should be. You have your opinion, I have mine, they may be diametrically opposed - but that's okay. We can all respect one another and not let personal beliefs get in the way of public service.

Here's the email I penned to David that I wanted to share with you all. I would've left it as a comment on the article, but the system wouldn't log me in - feel free to add a comment on there as well:

Hi, David -

Just a note regarding your Peter Vidmar article: the name of the LDS Church should always be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on first reference, Mormon Church or LDS Church on subsequent references. "Latter Day Saints" is incorrect. Not to be nitpicky, but as a Reg alumna, I hate seeing errors go uncorrected. :)

And thanks for your piece, supporting Vidmar despite a differing opinion. I would've left this comment on the piece, but the system wasn't letting me sign in. Anyways, I, too, was involved with Prop. 8 with the LDS Church, and I have seen so many friends be basically blackballed for their participation. One friend was the gallery manager at Jonathan Adler in Newport Beach until the LGBT community threw such a fit that she was axed. It's discriminatory and wrong, and I find it so ironic, coming from a group that preaches "tolerance." It seems like that tolerance only goes one way. Personally, one of my best friends is gay, he's in a great relationship, and I couldn't be happier. I have another gay friend who is engaged and am happy for him to have found a great match. My reason for supporting Prop. 8 has more to do with religious freedoms and rights, something that might seem ancillary and secondary to the freedom to wed. There are so many instances where churches' hands have been forced in the name of "anti-discriminatory" rulings to act contrary to their beliefs, from a Christian church in New Jersey that views homosexuality as a sin being forced to allow gay marriage in its camp's chapel (even though they said the couple could wed anywhere on their site EXCEPT in the chapel, which they felt was inappropriate, seeing as the ceremony diametrically opposed their doctrine) to Catholic Charities in Mass. stopping their adoption services because they couldn't specify that children could only go to heterosexual couples (again, despite homosexuality being against their beliefs) to a Christian doctor being forced to personally treat a lesbian couple with IVF even though she said she was uncomfortable doing so because of her beliefs but would happily have another doctor at the practice help them. The list goes on and on.

When it comes to rights, the only "right" lacking for gay couples is to not have their union legally solemnized. Other than that, they have every right a heterosexual couple does, thanks to great equality laws on the books and the ability to give one's partner power of attorney. Beyond that, it's the social recognition they crave, and they can have a celebration and ceremony without scrubbing every reference to "husband and wife" on the books or altering the education curriculum to promote homosexuality as an equal if not preferable lifestyle, starting with kindergarteners (again, it's happened, I'm not pulling this from thin air). That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Regardless, I do respect and appreciate ALL people for the contributions they bring to the table, and I get tired of being labeled a "religious fanatic" or "bigot" for my viewpoint when I'm one of the most accepting, least discriminatory people out there. My heart goes out to Peter Vidmar for the same. I've had the privilege of meeting him on a handful of occasions and hearing him speak since my teen years. What a phenomenal, kind, big-hearted man! It's a shame that he's being stopped from serving in a way that would benefit the Team USA in the 2012 Games, just as it's a shame to see discrimination in any way, shape or form in the public arena (or private, really, for that matter).

Thanks again for your thoughtful, balanced piece, David. I hope all is well at my much-beloved Register!

Best,
Christa [LAST NAME]
(formerly of [the community papers where I wrote])

PS: Just an observation - the way you refer to the protests on every major intersection during Prop. 8 seems to imply that the protests were against it when, in fact, it was mixed (and more were FOR Prop. 8, if anything). It's a bit misleading. Perhaps interjecting something along the lines of "protests for both sides" would clarify?

Honestly, friends, it is disappointing - albeit not all that surprising - that we're still dealing with this. I don't think it will ever end, frankly, and that's a little harrowing, especially when I was so publicly on the front lines. As the balance leans more and more in favor of gay rights in our anything-goes society - ever-moving away from supporting religion, God, or so many of the foundational American principles I hold dear - we're just going to see this more and more frequently. May we all be able to stand firmly together and leave a record, for God and for our posterity, that we held our ground and did not flinch, no matter what.

Gay marriages halted during Prop. 8 appeals process

2010-08-17T09:53:00.000-07:00

This just in from the AP:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Gay couples who had been gearing up to get married in California this week had to put their wedding plans on hold once again after a federal appeals court said it first wanted to consider the constitutionality of the state's same-sex marriage ban.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed an emergency stay Monday on a trial court judge's ruling overturning the ban, known as Proposition 8. Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had ordered state officials to stop enforcing the measure starting Wednesday, clearing the way for county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"It's saddening just to know that we still have to keep waiting for this basic human right," Marcia Davalos, of Los Angeles, a health care advocate who had planned to marry her partner, Laurette Healey, said when the stay was issued Monday. "We were getting excited and then all of a sudden it's like, 'Ugh.' It's a roller-coaster."

Lawyers for the two gay couples who challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to fast-track its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.

"Today's order from the 9th Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop. 8 as quickly as possible," said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a group funding the effort to get the voter-approved gay marriage ban permanently overturned. "Our attorneys are ready to take this case all the way through the appeals court and to the United States Supreme Court."

Attorneys for backers of the voter-approved measure applauded the decision. In seeking the emergency stay, they had argued that sanctioning same-sex unions while the case was on appeal would create legal chaos if the ban is eventually upheld.

"Invalidating the people's vote based on just one judge's opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people's confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself," said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8.

Under the timetable laid out Monday, it was doubtful a decision would come down from the 9th Circuit before next year.

To read more, click here for the full article.

I'm pleased by this turn of events, simply because it would be a legal nightmare if, in the end, Prop. 8 is upheld - yet there are a huge number of people who wouldn't have been able to marry under Prop. 8. Even some of my anti-Prop. 8 / pro-gay marriage friends agree with this. What a relief! Now we get another round of wait-and-see...

One more thought

2010-08-04T14:50:00.000-07:00

A fellow marriage blogger directed me to this recent talk from Russell M. Nelson, an LDS leader. Regardless of your personal faith, his argument makes a lot of sense - it was too good to not share:

Even the definition of marriage is now a topic of heated debate. That is only the tip of a larger iceberg. Below this tip is the weightier matter of free exercise of religion. Contention is raging over two main issues: (1) Can marriage survive as the bedrock of our cultural heritage? and (2) Can our precious freedom of religion be preserved?...

If civil law were altered to recognize so-called "same-gender" marriage, you as believers in God, and keepers of His commandments, would then be regarded as exceptions to the rule. Your conscientious convictions would then be regarded as discriminatory. If you were a Christian school teacher, you could be charged with bigotry for upholding the Lord's law of chastity. In truth dear brothers and sisters, if you lose marriage, you also lose freedom of religion. Atheistic moral bedlam and religious repression go hand in hand. At stake is our ability to transmit to the next generation the life-giving and inseparable culture of marriage and the free exercise of religion.

Judge Walker Rules Prop. 8 Unconstitutional

2010-08-04T14:27:00.001-07:00

Hey, all -

Sorry to be so quick, but I am slammed at work today - couldn't not come share the news, though! Judge Walker did rule Prop. 8 unconstitutional. The AP reports:

A federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

So, a battle lost, but the war will keep waging. And I hate to paint it in such vicious and angry terms. I don't know that war imagery is right here. It's such a controversial, close-to-the-heart issue for everyone involved.

Honestly, there is a part of me that would be happy to see my gay friends marry happily. It's not a cut-and-dry, win-or-lose, love-or-hate issue. I wish people on both sides of the issue could see that! Even if we'd won today's ruling, I'd feel just sick for my gay friends. So many emotions, so many deeply held beliefs and completely differing views are involved with this. I've seen people argue that it's simply about right and wrong. Well, who's "right" are we advocating? Where it's "right" to treat this case akin to civil rights (a concept with which I disagree wholeheartedly)? Or where it's "right" to stand up for the ideal nuclear family unit? Who is to define right and wrong?

My deeply held belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, ordained by God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" in 1995, wherein it put a stake in the ground regarding its stance on what a family is meant to be. This proclamation is the basis for my views, and for what it's worth, I'd like to share it with you all. Come what may, I believe strongly in the family as the pillar of our society, and I hope to strengthen it always, regardless of what courts may decide.

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Prop. 8 Verdict Expected Today

2010-08-04T08:52:00.001-07:00

Just a heads-up - Judge Walker is expected to deliver a verdict on the Prop. 8 case this afternoon between 1-3 p.m. PDT. Check out the Wall Street Journal piece here.

Meanwhile... whatever happens, it's still not over, since the case is sure to be appealed. Update coming later...

Rational Conservatism: My New Project

2010-07-09T09:15:00.000-07:00

Hey, marriage fans! Just wanted to apprise you all that I'm expanding my blogging horizons from traditional marriage into overall conservative politics and current events as a member of Rational Conservatism, my friend Jeff's politics-focused team blog.

Per the mission statement:

I’ve long advocated a type of conservatism that I’ve not found to be nearly prevalent enough in society. I believe that Humans are both rational and emotional beings. I find no contradiction in this either. Indeed, it is the blending of the two that gives humanity its depth and its capacity for sustainable growth. By growth, I mean economically, personally, societally, spiritually and in other ways that are not coming to mind.

Pure reason is insufficient, and so is pure emotion. To be ruled by either is folly.

Rational Conservatism is to allow oneself to be informed by both, and to do so uncapriciously. The dispassionate consideration of values, reason, emotion and the impact of each before coming to a conclusion is the essence of Rational Conservatism.

This is not intended to become a dry collection of academic writings that no one wants to read. Instead it should serve as a window into not only the conservative mind, but the conservative soul. (Yes, conservatives have souls)

So, if you're interested, please add us to your Google Reader and join in the fun!

Also, we're still recruiting writers, so if this looks up your alley, let me know, and we can look into adding you to the team!

Federal gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

2010-07-08T17:13:00.000-07:00

This just in from the AP:

Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE
AP Legal Affairs Writer

BOSTON (AP) - The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
...
The Justice Department had argued the federal government had the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits—including requiring that those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
Opponents of gay marriage said they were certain the rulings would be overturned on appeal.
...
The law was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.
Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.
Boston College professor Kent Greenfield, a constitutional law expert, said the rulings could have a legal impact outside Massachusetts if they're appealed and a higher court with a broader jurisdiction agrees.
An appeal would be considered by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.
"One things that's going to be really interesting to watch is whether the Obama administration appeals or not," he said.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department is reviewing the decision.
Greenfield added the rulings might encourage other attorneys generals who oppose DOMA to sue to try to knock it down.

As you can see, I trimmed the article for length's sake - to read the entire thing, click here.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the implications will be. That's something I need to research, and I'm moving this weekend, so time and Internet connection will both be short. If you have any insight, I'm all ears.

As the article states, "The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples." For now, I think that's only in Massachusetts. However, this isn't a finished story. There will be a ripple effect.

One the one hand, I'm thrilled to see the courts honoring states' rights. I think that's vital to our republic functioning the way its Founders intended, with each state exercising the freedom to make rules that work for its residents.

On the other hand, this is a blow to the cause of marriage between a man and a woman. Or is it? Honestly, on the face of it, I support equal rights for couples, gay or straight. However, how do you validate that a couple is enough of a couple to access those benefits intended for a spouse? Plenty of straight couples opt to "shack up" without wedding these days - do they have to file paperwork to prove that they're somehow serious enough to merit those benefits? Something equal to a civil union? Wouldn't that defeat the point?

Again, I'm not clear on all the ramifications of this, and I'm all ears for your insight. Meanwhile, keep watching for more news to come down the pipe regarding this ruling.

As for Prop. 8, there's been no ruling since closing arguments were made last month. According to ProtectMarriage.com, Judge Walker submitted several questions to attorneys on both sides; the pro-Prop. 8 side's answers can be found here. And, of course, we know that no matter what Walker rules, the case will likely be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court, and from there, it'll head to the Supreme Court. Neither side is going to settle for whatever ruling is handed down.

Today's the Day!

2010-06-16T15:25:00.000-07:00

Long time, huh, folks?

Well, I apologize for not being more on top of the unfolding of the Prop. 8 case. Meanwhile, today is the day - closing arguments have been made, and I'm eagerly awaiting the verdict. You, too, can follow along with the live-blogging at Prop8Case.com.

As of now, Judge Walker declared marriage as "a deeply rooted fundamental right. And a right that extends to all persons, whether they are capable of producing children, whether they are incarcerated, whether they are behind in their child support. There really is no limitation except a gender limitation."

Hmmm... that's not looking good. In the final exchange between Walker and Prop. 8 defending lawyer Charles Cooper, Walker intimated that sexual orientation is a suspect classification - also not good.

I've only been catching snippets of coverage during the work day - hopefully there'll be more to report shortly. It's so ridiculous, with the anti-8 side giving only emotional arguments, totally lacking in anything based on law. A judge's role is to rule on law, not to declare it or to decide based on his or her opinions. Too bad not many people get that!!!

In the meantime, please keep Cooper and the Prop. 8 team in your prayers!!!

Quick, feisty thoughts

2010-01-22T14:40:00.000-08:00

Bear with me, but there are about a million thoughts running through my mind re: the latest with the Prop. 8 trial, the current attack on religious freedom, and the vitality of the traditional family - but, alas, the last couple weeks have been crazy busy. I'll try to expound on these over the weekend, but for now, here's a rapid-fire, stream-of-consciousness take on what's been in my heart and mind lately re: the marriage fight:

First off, do people not see the massive ramifications that would come with stripping the LDS Church and other religions of their tax-exempt status because they supported Prop. 8? Let's remember that, for one thing, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not donate money. Individual LDS people did - people who are citizens of this amazing country and who have every right to support their beliefs with their wallets and their vote. Punishing an organization for (strongly) urging its members to be politically active in support of their beliefs is downright unAmerican (and, also, let's acknowledge the double standard - it's fine for Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the like to preach politics from the pulpit, so long as it fits the Leftist/Progressive agenda?). Holy crepe, if we move that way, it'll never stop!!! Do we really want to live in a society that promotes thought control by punishing dissenting voices? Where do you draw the line? It is a MASSIVE Pandora's box.

(In my opinion, too many of the issues with which we battle and struggle as a nation today started out as programs by "well-meaning" Progressives that spun out of control in the effect of a Pandora's box - government-funded aid for the poor, banking regulations, etc. If only we could go back to how the country ran 100 years ago... but that's a rant for another day...)

We HAVE to stand up for religious rights. We simply have to. Religion does not breed discrimination and hatred, despite what many a headline proclaimed this morning. Religion provides a tether to a moral foundation that's vital for our country to function. Remember what John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” It's the truth. And as we strip religion from the heart and soul of America, we will feel the effect of that vacuum. I don't want to see that happen.

And don't even get me started on the whole separation of church and state issue. Just reread what I penned about it in November 2008. (No, really, reread it. Totally merits it. Of course, I'm biased... but whatever.)

Okay, changing gears... The family is how we, as human beings, first come to figure out the world and our place therein. I've spent a lot of time pondering how crucial this is in the last week or two, and there's a lot I'd like to share - again, hopefully that'll come this weekend. But, for now, let it suffice to say that gender roles are a critical component of that learning. Our fathers shape our definitions of manhood from our earliest moments; our mothers do the same for our understanding of womenhood. Ideally, every baby would be born into a home where both parents take their God-given parental role seriously and provide love and security for that new life. Sadly, that scenario is becoming increasingly rare... but just because it's more the exception than the rule these days doesn't mean that we should lower our expectations and move away from that ideal. Let it be something for which we reach - not something we mock or tear down because it makes us feel better about our own failings.

Which could put me on another tangent about how our society is seriously lacking in work ethic and the understanding of how wonderful and soul-stretching hard work is... but, again, that's a thought for another day.

In closing, if you want some great day-by-day Prop. 8 coverage, check out what the great thinkers at The Opine Editorials are blogging. Great job, friends. Keep fighting the good fight, all, and please, please, please, pray that Prop. 8 will stick. I really think this issue will divide our country in ways we haven't yet seen... but I know that God's hand is still in this great nation of ours, so long as there are good men and women willing to stand up for truth and righteousness. I'm honored to have you standing beside me.

Sup Ct Rules Against Prop. 8 Trial Broadcast

2010-01-13T21:34:00.000-08:00

Good news, Prop. 8 proponents! The Supreme Court ruled today that the Prop. 8 trial will not be broadcast. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday afternoon ruled 5-4 that San Francisco federal judge Vaughn Walker, currently presiding over the Prop. 8 trial concerning same-sex marriage, erred in ruling that a video feed of the trial could be broadcast in a handful of other federal courts. In other words, the trial will not be televised. Click here for the per curiam decision.

The 5-4 vote was straight down those oh-so-familiar lines. The “conservatives,” Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, signed onto the opinion. Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

The signers to the per curiam decision ruled that Judge Walker failed to follow proper procedures in amending a local rule stating that proceedings should not be broadcast beyond “the courtroom or its environs.” ...

The dissenters saw it differently, however, finding that “Certainly the parties themselves had more than adequate notice and opportunity to comment before the Rule was changed.”

For more details, check out the WSJ coverage on their law blog. Sorry this is a quickie, but it's been quite the long day. More analysis/commentary on the week's proceedings to come over the weekend. Until then, keep fighting the good fight (and praying for the upholding of Prop. 8), my friends!

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Day One Recap

2010-01-12T07:46:00.000-08:00

Yesterday marked the first day of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the lawsuit in which a lesbian couple is suing the state of California over their inability to marry after Prop. 8's passage.

The case is anticipated to be the watershed decision that will more or less set the precedent for gay marriage - it will likely hit the Supreme Court eventually, meaning its decision will have nationwide ramifications. If you want background on it, hop over to protectmarriage.com - they've got a bunch of valuable information, and they'll be updating their site more frequently and in depth than I'll be able to here (I'll do what I can, though). You can also follow them on Twitter at @protectmarriage.

Yesterday began with a victory for the Yes on 8 side: the United States Supreme Court stayed the order of Judge Vaughn Walker that would have allowed for streaming video of the courtroom proceedings. The stay is in effect until tomorrow (Wednesday) at 4 p.m. Eastern / 1 p.m. Pacific, at which time a decision on whether or not to broadcast the trial via YouTube is expected.

Although I'm all for transparency, after seeing the retaliation that hit so many Yes on 8 supporters during and after the campaign, I think televising the proceedings is a horrible idea. Justice won't be blind; people won't be able to be completely honest for fear of what will follow their truthful testimony. I understand how the No on 8 side wants their emotional appeal to pull weight... but, again, justice is supposed to be blind. After all, didn't Aristotle say "The law is reason, free from passion"? The court's role is not to made emotionally based decisions. They are to look at a scenario and decide how it fits into the laws of the land, whether or not it is permissible according to the framework of the Constitution. Granted, with judicial review, court cases have come to supplant the laws of the land via precedents... but that's a post for another day. (Er, rather, one I already wrote...)

Suffice it to say, I really, really can't stand activist judges. I don't care what you think is best - I care that you use your experience in interpreting the Constitution. Ugh. When I was a journalist, believe you me, I had opinions aplenty about the goings-on of the communities I covered, but I had the self-restraint to leave my ideas out and simply report on what the decision-makers had to say because I knew people didn't care what I had to say. It wasn't my job! If only judges (and the mainstream media) could exercise such restraint...

*Stepping off soapbox*

Okay, so, back to Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The Wall Street Journal's law blog had an excellent post recapping the day's events. The trial kicked off with three testimonies from the No on 8 camp - two lesbian women and a gay man - that reflected their legal team's strategy: place the case on par with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Their lawyer Ted Olson called marriage a "basic civil right" that Prop. 8 sought to take away.

(No matter that gay marriage was only legal in California because the courts improperly overturned the people's vote from Prop. 22... just sayin'...)

Then the Yes on 8 side got its turn, with the legal team arguing that marriage rights for same-sex couples undermines the "pro-child institution" aspect of marriage, redefining marriage's very nature to be a private relationship between two adults that's based on love. This chips away at the parent-child bond and will likely lead to an upswing in divorce rates.

Not surprisingly, most of the media coverage focuses on the No on 8 side. If you want to hear more on the strategy and perspective of the Yes on 8 legal team, General Counsel Andy Pugno is blogging - click here to read his post from Day One.

This is going to be an interesting ride, my friends. Let's just hope and pray that right will prevail - and even if it doesn't, well, let us at least leave a record of where we stood. I don't care if the Sean Penns of the world think we're on the wrong side of history. It's not their opinion that matters. The family is a critical institution established by God. It's the bedrock of every society - not to mention of the eternities. We must defend it with all we've got, because if it crumbles, so too will our society.

Judges uphold privacy of Prop. 8 proponents' communiques

2009-12-15T11:49:00.000-08:00

* Cool pic, huh? Can't take credit - I snagged it here.

Hey there, readers!

Been a while, hasn't it? Sorry about that - almost immediately following my last post, I lost my job, got walking pneumonia, moved out of state and started a new job and a new life (oh, and I did a production of The Sound of Music in there, too, as Sister Sophia). It's been a little nutty, to say the least, but now that the dust is settling, I'm hoping to get back into the swing of blogging here, even if it's just once or twice a month, to keep you apprised of the latest Prop. 8 / traditional marriage news.

And what better way to return than to share some great news! The Los Angeles Times reports:

Gay marriage supporters challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 lost their bid Friday to see the internal communications of those who supported the initiative when an appeals court ruled that disclosure would violate the 1st Amendment.

Lawyers for two couples denied licenses to marry because they are of the same sex had sought access to e-mails and letters among Proposition 8 backers, hoping to show that the campaign aimed to stir "discriminatory animus" toward gays and lesbians.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco had ordered the initiative backers to make available those documents that reflected the internal thinking of campaign organizers and key contributors.

The Yes-on-8 side, led by the Protect Marriage group, objected to disclosure and turned to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with their arguments that the request was irrelevant and unduly burdensome and that the communications are protected by the 1st Amendment...

"We reverse," the three 9th Circuit judges, all appointees of President Clinton, said in an expedited ruling released Friday afternoon. "The freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas lies at the heart of the 1st Amendment."

Disclosing the inner workings of the Proposition 8 campaign "would have the practical effect of discouraging the exercise of 1st Amendment associational rights," the judges said, adding that the initiative's foes had failed to show that their need to review the
communications outweighed the defendants' rights and interests.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage, said Proposition 8 backers were
"very pleased" with the appellate ruling.

Well, I agree with Andy Pugno - I, too, am very pleased with this ruling. The First Amendment is CRITICAL to preserving our nation's amazing freedoms. Whether or not you agree with people's politics, there are some things that should be sacred cows, and freedom of expression is paramount to that.

As I've always said - "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Trust me, it's something I came across aplenty as a journalist in Orange County's most liberal community. What I thought of the issues and decisions made in the town wasn't important - what mattered was that I provided a platform for both sides to make their opinions and views known. If only that courtesy would go both ways...

It's good to be back. :)

Harvey Milk Day Passes Assembly - Call Gov to Veto!

2009-09-04T09:59:00.000-07:00

From BeetleBlogger:

Today SB 572 passed the Assembly and now goes to the State Senate for a quick concurrence vote, then to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature or veto. He vetoed Harvey Milk Day last year, but it’s unknown what he’ll do this year.

SB 572 will declare every May 22 Harvey Milk Day in California. Milk was a San Francisco county supervisor and homosexual activists. According to SB 572, school children will learn about and honor Milk at school every May 22. There is hope that Governor Schwarzenegger could veto this bill again this year.

It is crucial that you contact Governor Schwarzenegger and urge him to veto SB 572!

Governor Schwarzenegger (916) 445-2841

Read SB 572

Ben & Jerry's Get Political with "Hubby Hubby"

2009-09-02T08:44:00.000-07:00

Hey, folks!

Well, it looks like our favorite Vermont ice cream makers couldn't resist getting involved in the political fray.

In honor of Vermont couples being allowed to wed as of yesterday, Ben & Jerry's redubbed its popular flavor Chubby Hubby to - you guessed it - Hubby Hubby.

From their Web site:

In partnership with Freedom to Marry we are gathered here to celebrate Vermont and all the other great states where loving couples of all kinds are free to marry legally. We have ceremoniously dubbed our iconic flavor, Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby in support, and to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality. Check out our press release.

If you live in Vermont, or visiting, you’re invited to celebrate the pride-filled occasion with an all naturally fabulous union of Peanut Butter Cookie Dough ice cream, fudge
and pretzels. Enjoy our Hubby Hubby Sundae for the month of September in participating Vermont Scoop Shops!

Thanks, but I'll pass. As much as I love me some Ben & Jerry's, I think my Cherry Garcia-eating days are done. I'm not a big boycotter by nature, but at the same time, I get squeamish at the thought of supporting businesses that throw their weight and their money behind causes diametrically opposed to my beliefs. Granted, I guess I cherrypick a little - after all, I still have my Disneyland pass, and they're hugely pro-gay rights - but still. Ben & Jerry's is one brand I can live without.

P.S.: If you want to make your voice heard, you can drop Ben and Jerry a line at http://www.benjerry.com/contact-us/.

Harvey Milk Day is still in debate

2009-08-03T17:10:00.000-07:00

Evidently, the Harvey Milk Day debate is not over. If you want background on the bill that sets gay activist/politician Harvey Milk on par with Washington, Lincoln and Dr. King with a spotlighted Gay Day in our schools, check out BeetleBabee's writeup here.

If you would like to block this legislation, please take time to make a phone call. It took me two tries to connect and then it took only about 30 seconds to complete. Call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at 916-445-2841. Listen to the recorded message and push enter in the following order:

1 (English)

2 (legislation)

1 (SB572)

2 (against)

We're fighting against a case of a silent majority here. According to SaveCalifornia.com, a recent poll found only 1 out of 5 Californians want a statewide “day of significance” honoring Harvey Milk.

If those 4 out of 5 who don't want it keep quiet, then a gay day will become a part of the standardized curriculum in our great state. Let's not let apathy win here!

Medved: "Gay Marriage Activists Won't Give Up, Insist Men and Women are the Same"

2009-07-27T12:24:00.000-07:00

Back in my college days six years ago (wow, has it been that long?!), I had the wonderful opportunity during an internship in Seattle to get to know Dr. Diane Medved, a brilliant, insightful woman for whom I have the utmost respect. If you haven't read her blog Searching for Bright Light, I highly recommend you check it out. Several of her posts have dealt with the politics and physiology behind the same-sex marriage debate, including her excellent latest post, in which she tackles many points we've discussed here (and much more eloquently, too!) With her permission, I'm happy to share it with you:

Gay Marriage Activists Won't Give Up, Insist Men and Women are the Same

I've been working on my project about marriage as the combining of male and female, and so, while enjoying some of the most perfect weather we've ever had here in Seattle, lying on a chaise my balcony and catching up on the paper, my attention went to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal of Monday, July 20: "Gay Marriage and the Constitution" by David Boies.

Boies explained why he and Ted Olson are suing the state of California to overturn Proposition 8, already confirmed by the state Supreme Court, that defines marriage in that state's constitution as one man and one woman.

Of course he takes the tack most gay marriage advocates do, trying to equate race and gender, saying it's just as wrong to deny two men marriage as it was to deny a white and a black; i.e. if people and courts now agree that all races should be interchangeable when it comes to marriage, so the two sexes should be, too.

And he pulls out that false but ubiquitous meme that it's just about freedom to marry the one you love: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it." He supports this by citing rulings that allow "child-support scofflaws" and imprisoned felons to marry.

...But only marry one of the opposite sex. Not to marry one of the same sex. In these cases, the Supreme Court didn't re-define marriage; it just said that breaking the law isn't in itself reason to stop a conventional marriage. The punishments for the offender's crimes are unaffected; the institution of marriage remains unchanged.

Nowhere is there a "right to marry the person you love." What if you want to marry your sibling? Your parent? What if you want to marry somebody who's already legally wed to someone else? What if the person you love happens to be six years old? Or has advanced Alzheimer's and can't consent? Or wants to join you and your present spouses in polygamy? Would the court uphold your right to marry one of these people, even if you swear your love is undying and pure?

Boies dismisses so called reasons to deny gay marriage. Heteros feeling threatened by gays is unable to "withstand discussion." He thinks it's "hard to envision" straights avoiding marrying or divorcing just because gays can. He rejects that forcing gays into straight marriages would help societal stability. Or that keeping gays from marrying each other will steer them straight. Who ever argued any of this?? Only Boies, so he can shoot down these dumb straw men.

Boies then says Californians' votes should be nullified because of that tired question, "how does it hurt YOUR marriage if two gays get married?"

Aside from legally widening the marital sexual "norm" from coitus to include homosexual sodomy (with big ramifications in terms of public school education), suddenly our language and understanding get stripped of any means to describe the unique combining of male and female. And that's dandy, because gay advocates' agenda is to insist that a man and woman--or biological mother and father--together form exactly the same "marriage" as two men or two women together do. Denying biology. Denying reams of scientific literature demonstrating the superiority of married natural parents raising their children over all other permutations of parenthood.

Boies doesn't address the fact that men and women are not interchangeable--and in fact are opposites--and that marriage exists to reconcile and mesh them. There's no way to deny fundamental gender differences; the difference is--unlike race--identifiable in every cell of the body.

Instead, he insists that "sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters." There's no biological evidence of that. There are, however, many people who say they have chosen one orientation and then later, chosen another. Perhaps they are bisexual--I envision sexual proclivity as a long continuum. And while I do think there are gays who are as repulsed by the opposite sex as most straights are unattracted to their own, these people can freely live according to their orientation, and, in California, form civil unions that by law (California Family Code, Section 297-297.5) receive exactly the same rights, privileges and obligations as heterosexual marriages do.

Boies notes that California law gives domestic partners all the rights of marriage. But instead of concluding that the purpose of the two categories is to elevate and encourage California's biological families, he insists it's "to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense, other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens."

Excuse me...gays are treated exactly the same: they too can marry one of the opposite sex. Or civilly join with one of the same sex. The only difference is...maintaining distinctions. Men and men together are different from men and women together, not only in the capability to procreate, but in their "God-given characteristics" as detailed in innumerable physiological, psychological, brain and hormonal studies. Men and women marry. Men and men, or women and women may domestically partner. It's not "separate but equal;" it's separate because the two are not equal.

Boies concludes that "Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors..." who are due "the basic human right to marry the person they love" (as long as that person is an adult, not a close relative, not already married, not seeking to be a second or third spouse, mentally competent and willing...). He says it is overdue that "the Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries [no, millenniums!] of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians."

He is not willing to argue about discrimination against polygamists or incest-philes. But he's right about one thing--this issue is about discrimination, in the positive sense--the notion of being discriminating, cognizant of distinctions. If scientifically advanced people cannot even admit obvious differences between males and females, and instead deem them interchangeable in marriage, then our society is in a sorry state, indeed.

(OK, I know I've written about this before, and I, too, am becoming weary of being forced to repeat the same arguments. But then another of these articles gets huge coverage and I just have to answer...again.)

What is America to me?

2009-07-24T17:58:00.001-07:00

Sorry I couldn't find a more visually interesting clip of this great song, but at least give it a listen - the words are fabulous and so well express how I feel about this land of ours. It's one of my favorite songs of all times.

What is America to me?

Boy, that's a question to which you'll get as many varied responses as the number of people you ask it to, but I think that these days, the American ideal is more fractured than ever.

When I was in college, one project that all American Studies majors had to do was the American Dream project - to ask five people what the American Dream meant to them, and then to take their responses and extrapolate an essay about what the American ideal meant to them. My five interviewees were my father, my grandmother, the American Heritage professor for whom I TA'ed (Brett Latimer) and two of my peers, my good friend Laura and my colleague Mark, a Marine veteran. Granted, all five and myself share some common foundations in terms of religion and politics, so the answers I got weren't as vastly varied as they'd be if you asked any five random people on the street, but I think that at the root of it, America means an opportunity to make your dreams come true and to pursue happiness.

Sadly, that opportunity is being diminished by those who would rather see equality of results enforced, making everyone's share of the pie equal with no effort expended - a recipe for disaster that will burden the backs of the hard workers with the labor of carrying the lazy. That is not America to me, and it's not the America our Founding Fathers set out to build.

Friends, I worry for this great nation of ours. I really, really do. I find that for the most part, my generation doesn't know its history. People don't understand the principles upon which America was founded. They don't study the primary sources, the words of the Founders themselves or the books from which the Founders got their ideas. They don't even go to the secondary sources that examine those ideals and quote from them directly. No, most people rely on what they read in high school or college general ed textbooks, information that is often a tertiary source at best. These great, ennobling ideas are watered down to summaries and synopses that lose so much of the heart and soul of this nation in translation. So many nowadays focus only on the rights of citizenship - not the responsibilities that accompany it like honesty, self-sufficiency, integrity and devotion to family.

It frustrates me so much to see our nation headed toward a trainwreck while so many people kick back and focus only on seeking entertainment and luxury. That's precisely the European attitude from which our Founders sought to break away in order to preserve the American character of a people who were "industrious, frugal, and honest," as Thomas Paine said in his great treatise Common Sense. In our land was a spirit of equality and public virtue because "the people of America are a people of property; almost every man is a freeholder," he wrote. Being part of the land somehow made people grounded, working hard for their sustenance. Today we're so far removed from that (myself included - I mean, I'm from L.A. Food comes from the grocery store, not the ground!). However, I think the Spirit of America can prevail even in our modern age.

But what will it take to survive and thrive in these trying times? It will take men and women like you and me, devoted in a return to the heart and soul of this nation, to put a stake in the ground and to make an effort to educate those around us as to what this country is really about, to study and to grow, to pick up the phone and be an engaged citizenry, willing to call our representatives and tell them if we disagree with a particular policy - not to sit around whining about what a terrible idea it is or, worse yet, to sit around ignorant of what's going on in Washington. Our nation is on a rapid track to change with a president at its helm who fundamentally believes in equality of results, not of opportunity, and whose platforms run diametrically opposed to what our Founders set up America to be.

After all, it isn't like the Founders were ignorant of how some things sounded great on paper - but didn't work in reality. As Samuel Adams wrote,

The Utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of wealth) and a community of goods (gov't ownership of commerce) are as visionary and impratical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideals] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.

Or we can turn to Jefferson, who wrote:

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.

Furthermore, Jefferson warned:

We shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority.

Please, friends, do what you can within your sphere to make a difference. Preserve this great nation of ours. Don't let it fail in the face of ignorance, laziness and self-centered pleasure-seeking. Follow yet another admonition of Jefferson's:

If a nation expects to ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... Preach... a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [of misgovernment].

If we don't stand up for the ideals of freedom and prosperity, we'll be enslaved by our very own government through taxation and limited liberty. That is not America to me.

As an extension of that project I did in college seven years ago, I'd like to ask all of you:

What is America to you? How would you define your version of the American Dream?

CA's SB 54 seeks to undermine Prop. 8 win

2009-07-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.

We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”

Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage -- and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.

It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver. That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.

Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.

Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.
SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.

But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly!

Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.

In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.

Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)
Assemblymember.feuer@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 285-5490

Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)
Trish.zanella@asm.ca.gov
(714) 668-2100

Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D - Calabasas, Oxnard)
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
818) 596-4141

Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)
Assemblymember.evans@assembly.ca.gov
707) 546-4500

Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
(916) 324-4676

Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)
Assemblymember.knight@asm.ca.gov
(661) 267-7636

Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)
Assemblymember.krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
(818) 558-3043

Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)
Assemblymember.lieu@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 615-3515

Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)
Assemblymember.monning@assembly.ca.gov
(831) 425-1503

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)
Assemblymember.nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
(530) 223-6300

Info courtesy ProtectMarriage.com

Mass. sues federal gov't over marriage definition

2009-07-08T11:38:00.000-07:00

I knew that the marriage debate would hit a federal level soon enough, but this isn't how I expected it to come up. According to the Associated Press, it appears that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has sued the federal government today, arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the state's ability to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit.

More from the AP story:

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa — have legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in Maine said Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures to put the state's new law on the November ballot for a possible override.

The Massachusetts lawsuit challenges the section of the federal law that creates a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.

As the article notes, Pres. Obama has said he plans to repeal DOMA. Going through the legal system is a different way to approach the issue - one that, as precedent holds, seems to be comfortable and familiar for the same-sex marriage camp. Not one state that's approved same-sex marriage has done so by the voice of the people; rather, it's been legislated from the bench or voted on by lawmakers (in spite of their constituents' views in some cases).

So, this case should be interesting to watch. What's the precedent for states suing the federal gov't? As far as I remember from college, it seems like in most state-federal cases, the court rulings tend to favor a stronger national government and diminish states' abilities to make decisions for themselves.

Personally, I love the federalism concept as established by the Founders, with states making the decisions their constituents need while the national government sticks with issues states can't, such as national defense. Alas, that view seems to be more and more the minority view. What do you think?

Great News!

2009-05-26T10:26:00.000-07:00

From the LA Times -

Prop. 8 upheld by California Supreme Court

By Maura Dolan
10:08 AM PDT, May 26, 2009

Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the state high court ruled today that the November initiative was not an illegal constitutional revision, as gay rights lawyers contended, nor unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right, as Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown argued.

Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the court's sole Democrat, wanted Proposition 8 struck down as an illegal constitutional revision.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who voted with the majority last year to give gays marriage rights, joined George and the court's four other justices in voting to uphold Proposition 8.

The case for overturning the initiative was widely viewed as a long shot. Gay rights lawyers had no solid legal precedent on their side, and some of the court's earlier holdings on constitutional revisions mildly undercut their arguments.

But gay marriage advocates captured a wide array of support in the case, with civil rights groups, legal scholars and even some churches urging the court to overturn the measure. Supporters of the measure included many churches and religious organizations.

The legal fight over same-sex marriage in California began in San Francisco in 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom spurned state law, and the city began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Long lines of couples showed up to marry and celebrated within view of the court with rice and champagne.

Those marriages sparked a national debate about gay rights and made the marriage question a political issue in an election year. Dozens of states later adopted constitutional amendments to bar same-sex marriage.

Those gay couples who wed in San Francisco later had their marriages rescinded by the California Supreme Court, which ruled that a city could not single-handedly flout state law. But the court said supporters of marriage rights could challenge the ban in the lower courts.

The legal fight moved to San Francisco Superior Court, where a judge struck down the marriage ban as unconstitutional. A Court of Appeal in San Francisco later overturned that decision on a 2-1 vote. The state high court eventually took up the case, which culminated in a May 15 ruling last year declaring gays could marry each other.

Before last fall, California was one of only two states -- the other was Massachusetts -- to permit same-sex marriage.

Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine have since legalized it, and lawmakers in New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire are considering bills of their own.

California's historic 2008 ruling, written by George, repeatedly invoked the words "respect and dignity" and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.

As soon as the ruling was final, thousands of gay couples showed up at city halls around the state to marry, and many flew in from elsewhere for California weddings. While the wedding business was brisk, opponents mounted a heated campaign with the help of churches and conservatives to overturn the court's action.

Even with the court upholding Proposition 8, a key portion of the court's May 15, 2008, decision remains intact. Sexual orientation will continue to receive the strongest constitutional protection possible when California courts consider cases of alleged discrimination. The California Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation to have elevated sexual orientation to the status of race and gender in weighing discrimination claims.

maura.dolan@latimes.com

I am so happy that our hard work was not in vain! The fight is far from over, but I'll savor this sweet victory for now. I would hope that it will set a precedent that will help our next battles and the battles going on in different states. ~Hizzeather

Sorry for the silence

2009-05-04T10:29:00.000-07:00

Hi, readers dear -

Just a quick note to say that I'm sorry things have been quiet around here lately. There are more and more marriage battles to be fought, but a girl's gotta pay the bills, so the main battle I'm focusing on right now is keeping my job in a shrinking economy.

Thankfully there are many talented bloggers listed in our blogroll who are carrying the marriage torch splendidly - and several of them are also listed on Facebook, which is a great way to keep up with the latest breaking news. I strongly encourage you to add them to your RSS readers if you haven't already.

As for the future of PreservingMarriage - I'll do what I can, but it's going to be sporadic at best for the time being. Know that my heart and my prayers are in the fight, though, even if my time can't be devoted to it like it was before. Thanks for fighting alongside us, and let's keep forging ahead!

Voice of the Nation to discuss Iowa and Vermont at 2 p.m. today

2009-04-09T13:44:00.000-07:00

Hey there, marriage fans!

It's been a disappointing week in the fight for traditional marriage as Iowa and Vermont both adopted gender-neutered marriage verbiage. The change in Vermont was the first of its kind, settling the debate through the legislature - and by ONE VOTE at that (see Beetle Blogger's great post recapping that unfortunate outcome).

I'll be getting into the power of one in a later post, but for now, be sure to tune into "Voice of the Nation" today at 2 p.m. Pacific via Blog Talk Radio.

Today's "Voice Of The Nation" will be discussing the recent same-sex marriage changes that have happened in Iowa and Vermont this week as the number of states allowing same-sex marriages actually doubled in a matter of days! Four states now allow same-sex marriages, is the tide of public support turning against family? or is the system being usurped? What’s the next step?

Guest Craig Bensen will be joining us to talk about what happened in Vermont as the votes actually went down this week. We lost the veto on Tuesday by one vote. It was a close fight!. Hear the inside scoop from the grass roots of Vermont this Thursday!

Craig Bensen is the President of Take It To The People, a Vermont Citizen Coalition for Traditional Marriage. His group has been working on this issue in Vermont since 1997. Dr. Bensen is a local church pastor, businessman and political activist.

Open Chat and Call lines: We’ll be taking your questions via online chat during the show and if you want to ask your own questions, feel free to call in! 347- 215-6801.

The show's been bumped up to a full hour now; archives are available through http://blogtalkfamilyvalues.wordpress.com/.

Iowa next for same-sex marriage?

2009-04-02T14:40:00.000-07:00

Looks like the Hawkeye State is next in line to tackle the same-sex marriage question tomorrow. If the ruling favors gay marriage, then Iowa would join Massachussetts and Connecticut as states where same-sex couples can wed.The Des Moines Register reports:

An Iowa Supreme Court ruling that could change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is likely to be issued Friday morning.
The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling.
The case could have consequences outside the state’s borders. Iowa could become the first Midwestern state, and the fourth in the nation, to allow same-sex marriage if the court sides with the gay couples.
A ruling that favors the county would reinforce Iowa’s decade-old marriage law, which social conservatives say is critical to preserving traditional families. Legal experts say such a decision would echo across the country and strengthen the gay rights movement.
But the justices could also throw the issue to the Legisature, which is already embroiled in high-profile fiscal issues as the clock ticks toward adjournment. Or the high court could decide that the Polk County lawsuit should proceed to trial. The decision could include further delays, or produce a results that neither side will be completely happy with.
Openly gay state Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, said he doubts lawmakers would take action on gay marriage “in the final, waning days of the session, because there’s so many other issues involving the budget and taxes.”
“But that would be a decision for the leaders to make,” he said.

If you want more details, I recommend a thorough read of the Register's piece - it gives a great scope and context to how the same-sex marriage debate has been handled in Iowa. They're a little off in how they report California's history with the issue - I wouldn't say that California allowed it until voters banned gay marriage so much as that Californians reinstated the law they passed that was overturned by a 4-3 court decision - but, hey, that's just me.

Voice of the Nation on now!

2009-03-26T12:05:00.000-07:00

Hi, all -

Sorry for the delayed post - I meant to get this up earlier. Voice of the Nation's time changed to noon today this week - which is, um, like, NOW. If you want to tune in, click here. To call in, the number is 347- 215-6801.

Today's Voice of the Nation will discuss same-sex marriage initiatives that are taking root across the country, most notably in Vermont as the state Senate and House are voting on same-sex marriage legislation this week. Will the Governor Veto the legislation? Does he have the votes to hold?

Also, William Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, will be a guest on the show this week to talk about the dangers of legalizing same sex marriage.

William C. Duncan is director of the Marriage Law Foundation. He formerly served as acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and as executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he also served as a visiting professor. He has published numerous articles on constitutional and family law issues in a variety of legal journals.

VT senators approve gay marriage 26-4

2009-03-23T17:03:00.000-07:00

Update on the Vermont same-sex marriage vote from Beetle Blogger: state senators approved S. 115, which replaces civil unions and traditional marriage with gender-neutral marriages across the board, by a 26-4 vote this afternoon.

What's next: the bill goes now to a House committee for approval before heading to the full House for a vote later this week. Although Gov. Jim Douglas has said he's against same-sex marriage, he hasn't indicated whether he'll sign or veto the bill, according to 365gay.com.

What this means: If Vermont lawmakers approve same-sex marriage, the state will be the first in the country to legalize gay nuptials through legislative means and not through litigation in court.

As a rule of thumb, I always worry when legislators take power into their own hands that is not granted to them in the state or nation's founding documents. I can appreciate the state-to-state distinctions of federalism, but if in California the pro-gay marriage contingent argued (unsuccessfully, but still) that reverting from same-sex marriage to traditional marriage was such a radical, drastic change that it should have been handled with a referendum, not an amendment.

(Honestly, I never bought that logic, because then wouldn't the courts have been overstepping their bounds by shooting down Prop. 22? Anyways...)

The people of Vermont should have in what their legislators do. After all, it's the people's vote that put them in this position of power in the first place. Are you a Vermonter? Do you agree or disagree with what your representatives are doing?

Make your voice heard, Vermont!

You can track down your local representatives via The State of Vermont Legislature online. Go here to look up your local representative or state senator.

If you want to hear what's going on, tune into the proceedings online via Vermont Public Radio.

Vermont marriage vote to come TODAY

2009-03-23T09:58:00.000-07:00

Hi, folks!

Today the Vermont State Legislature will vote on S. 115: An Act Relating to Civil Marriage, a measure that would change Vermont's same-sex unions from civil unions to marriage while making all marriages in the state gender neutral. The bill will be voted upon sometime after 3 P.M.

Unlike most states that have put the issue of gay marriage to a public vote, Vermont lawmakers are circumventing the vox populi and defining marriage themselves without the input of their constituents.

However, Senator Kevin Mullin will likely offer an amendment to the bill that would require a public referendum. If you're a Vermonter, your Senator(s) need to know that you support the referendum and that you expect them to support it.

Please CALL your Senator(s) about this (emails are not as effective). Briefly and politely ask them to support this amendment -- whether they are for or against Same-Sex Marriage. It's only fair that the issue be put before the voters. After all, they do "trust their constituents" to do the right thing, right...?

Senators who could use a little extra "encouragement" to support this include:

Mazza from Chittenden/Grand Isle: (802) 863-1067

Choate and Kitchel from Caledonia: (802) 748-2629 (Choate) & (802) 684-3482 (Kitchel)

Scott from Washington: (802) 223-5135

The contact info for all 30 Senators is included below. A call to the Statehouse at 1-800-322-5616 allows you to leave a message for them during business hours.

Senator(s) Contact: Remember to Call—It’s more effective

The Vermont Legislature
Legislative Directory
Senators by County
2009 - 2010 Legislative Session

ADDISON DISTRICT (2)
(D) Ayer, Claire D. (802) 545-2142
(D) Giard, Harold (802) 758-2577

BENNINGTON DISTRICT (2)
(D) Hartwell, Robert M (802) 362-5757
(D) Sears, Richard W (802) 442-9139

CALEDONIA DISTRICT (2)
(D) Choate, Matthew A. (802) 748-2629 & (603) 650-4268
(D) Kitchel, M. Jane (802) 684-3482

CHITTENDEN DISTRICT (6)
(X) Ashe, Timothy, (802) 318-0903
(D) Flanagan, Ed, (802) 862-3203
(D) Lyons, Virginia "Ginny" V., (802) 863-6129
(D) Miller, Hinda,(802) 862-7008 & (802) 660-4880
(D) Racine, Douglas A.,(802) 434-2013 & (802) 863-1141
(R) Snelling, Diane, (802) 482-4382

ESSEX-ORLEANS DISTRICT (2)
(R) Illuzzi, Vincent, (802) 334-2807
(D) Starr, Robert A., (802) 988-2877 & (802) 988-2281

FRANKLIN DISTRICT (2)
(R) Brock, Randy, (802) 868-2300
(D) Kittell, Sara Branon, (802) 827-3274

GRAND ISLE DISTRICT (1)
(D) Mazza, Richard T.,(802) 863-1067 & (802) 862-4065

LAMOILLE DISTRICT (1)
(D) Bartlett, Susan J.,(802) 888-5591

ORANGE DISTRICT (1)
(D) MacDonald, Mark A., (802) 433-5867

RUTLAND DISTRICT (3)
(D) Carris, Bill, (802) 438-5391 & (802) 773-9111
(R) Maynard, Hull P., (802) 773-3000 & (802) 773-3000
(R) Mullin, Kevin J., (802) 775-7631

WASHINGTON DISTRICT (3)
(D) Cummings, (802) 223-6043
(R) Doyle, William T., (802) 223-2851
(R) Scott, Philip B., (802) 223-5135

WINDHAM DISTRICT (2)
(D) Shumlin, (802) 387-4447
(D) White, Jeanette K., (802) 387-4379

WINDSOR DISTRICT (3)
(D) Campbell, (802) 295-6238
(D) McCormack, Richard J., (802) 234-5497
(D) Nitka, Alice W., (802) 228-8432

Redefine marriage? Merriam Webster's already has

2009-03-19T14:32:00.000-07:00

Surprising news from Beetle Blogger: In Merriam Webster's dictionary, the definition of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions.

As associate editor Kory Stamper responded to WorldNetDaily:

"We often hear from people who believe that we are promoting – or perhaps failing to promote – a particular social or political agenda when we make choices about what words to include in the dictionary and how those words should be defined," Stamper wrote in response.
"We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers."

What we have on our hands, as I've said before, is an Orwellian dilemma: if you can't change the words, just change what the words mean.

Then the societal changes happen without most people even being aware.

It's a hijacking of the lexicon - which is pretty absurd, considering that same-sex marriage is legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut, not to mention the numerous states that have codified marriage as between a man and a woman.

The switch is so disingenuous - it ignores the majority opinions of the people. Social commentaries belong on the opinion page - not in the dictionary.

But, then again, these are the people who consider "jiggy" and "bling" part of our proper lexicon. I don't know that I really trust their grasp of the English language.

Countdown: two hours to "Voice of the Nation" debut

2009-03-19T11:49:00.000-07:00

Hi, friends!

Just a reminder that UFI and DNA's new blog talk show, "Voice of the Nation," debuts at 2 p.m. today. To tune in, visit http://www.blogtalkradio.com/MarriageandFamily.

For more info about the show and its fabulous hosts, Drew and Angela, visit the show's site (http://blogtalkfamilyvalues.wordpress.com/) or Facebook page.

Marriage talk show to hit the Web waves Thursday at 2 p.m.

2009-03-18T10:44:00.000-07:00

Attention all marriage fans!

Are you interested in engaging your pro-family senses in brand new, audible fashion?

If you support traditional marriage and like talk radio, then you'll LOVE "Voice of the Nation," a new family values blog talk radio show that debuts THURSDAY at 2 p.m. Pacific / 5 p.m. Eastern.

Hosted by United Families International (UFI) Media Director Drew Conrad and my extraordinary blogging buddy Beetle Blogger (a.k.a. Angela, director of DNA), the hour-long weekly show will focus on promoting marriage, life, family and freedom.

Thursday's show will discuss same-sex marriage initiatives that are taking root across the country as well as summarize the recent happenings regarding the assault on the family at the UN.

UFI International Policy Director, Laura Knaperek, who was one of several UFI representatives at the UN during CSW, will be a guest on the show. Prior to joining UFI, Mrs. Knaperek served in the Arizona State Legislature for ten years. During her tenure as a State Representative, she established herself as an advocate for children, families and the disabled.

To listen to the show, CLICK HERE. More info is available on their homepage as well. If you like what you hear, be sure to become a fan on Facebook.

I'll be adding their badge to our blog (once I figure out those thingamajiggers... Hizzeather always did that high-tech stuff for me, lol. For a digital media professional, I'm not nearly as tech-savvy as I ought to be.).

(And I think that takes the cake for my most link-laden post EVER. *whew!*)

U.S. to sign U.N. gay rights bill

2009-03-17T21:42:00.000-07:00

Sources have said off the record that the U.S. is due to add its weight to a United Nations declaration that calls for the international decriminalization of homosexuality, according to the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

I find it interesting that Pres. Bush had the option of supporting this declaration in December, but his delegation refrained on the grounts that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review, including parts that could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. Obama's camp had no response as to whether the Bush team's concerns had been addressed.

Now, let me be clear - I don't think that homosexuality should be a legal crime. I disagree with gay marriage, but what people do behind closed doors is their business - they have their agency, and they'll be held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, I understand that it's punishable by law in some parts of the world, and I agree that that is wrong, as murder is in all its forms.

At the same time, though, I take issue with a superceding international government meddling with other nations' affairs. The U.N. includes more than 50 Islamic nations, some of whom said said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican. Those nations should have the right to vote their conscience.

I swear, I'm growing more and more libertarian by the day! I like former agriculture secretary (and LDS leader) Ezra Taft Benson's view on the proper role of government: we can only invest the government with rights that we ourselves hold on an individual level. I don't have the right to compel my neighbor to be pro-gay or anti-gay, regardless of my views (and I only use the gay rights issue as an example - it's a universal principle). We have the basic rights with life and liberty that prevent that neighbor from encroaching on another's life and liberty - but too many of the things we hear called "rights" are not, in fact, the inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator.

(And I'm not anti-gay, in case that wasn't clear.)

Anyways.

The U.S. official who spoke anonymously in the article said, "In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom."

That attitude is what worries me the most in this whole thing. I don't disagree with the "free from criminalization" aspect, but since when is sexual orientation integrally part of human freedom? Oh, how I worry for my country and my world. We are so wrapped up in the sensual and the now that we have no regard for restraint and consequences. Unbridled sexual liberation dulls and weakens us, because it gives a physical realm to the concept of reckless indulgence, not to mention messing with some serious emotional and spiritual powers. That is just not a path you want to tread, but sadly, it's soooo the norm in our society today.

Well, not for everybody at least. There are still some of us who will stand up for virtue to the end - I may be only one, but I am one. And I know I'm not alone.

VT pushes for gay marriage despite drop in civil unions

2009-03-17T09:25:00.000-07:00

As an addendum to yesterday's post about the Vermont legislature's consideration of a gender-neutered marriage bill, I found an interesting gem in this more in-depth AP story on MSNBC.com.

As you might recall, Vermont was the first state in the union to legalize civil unions back in 2000:

Supporters cast the debate as a civil rights issue, saying a civil unions law enacted by the state in 2000 has fallen short of the equality it promised same-sex couples. Its appeal has declined, too: In 2001, the state granted 1,876 civil unions, compared with only 262 last year.

To me, this makes no sense. Even though fewer and fewer gay couples are solemnizing their relationships before the state, the legislature is pushing to decimate traditional marriage.

The number of civil unions performed last year are only 14 percent of what they were in the first year - and, furthermore, those couples represent a mere 0.04 percent of the state's population.

It's tyranny of the minority, pure and simple.

Even if you're not a Vermonter, you can throw your support behind traditional marriage there by joining the Facebook group. Every battlefield counts in this effort to sustain the millenia-old model of the family as the foundation of our society.

Vermont to consider same-sex marriage this week

2009-03-16T19:17:00.000-07:00

It looks like the "Green Mountain State" of Vermont will be the next in the union to consider legalizing same-sex marriage.

According to the Associated Press, legislators began a week of hearings today to discuss S. 115: An Act Relating to Civil Marriage, which would neuter marriage while moving the state's civil unions to same-sex marriage:

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Vermont lawmakers are starting a week of hearings on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
In 2000, Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to adopt civil unions. House and Senate leaders want to pass the gay marriage bill this legislative session, which ends in May.
Supporters say gay marriage would give couples additional rights related to insurance, health care and Social Security benefits.
Hundreds of gay marriage opponents are lobbying at the Vermont Statehouse. They say the bill would undermine the institution of marriage and harm children.
On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on the bill. More hearings are scheduled for later in the week.

If passed, same-sex couples could wed beginning Sept. 1, 2009. All legal references to marital or familial relationships in Vermont would be gender neutral as the legal definition moves from one man and one woman to any two people, stripping away all references to "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," etc.

On the upside, the bill codifies clergy's right to refuse to solemnize the marriage, "if to do so would violate the clergyperson’s right to religious liberty protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Chapter I, Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont." Hence why the bill can also be called "An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Promote Equality in Civil Marriage." I guess that's a good thing... but it's still a definite step in the wrong direction.

If you're a Vermonter who opposes this, make your voice heard! Don't let your representatives make this important decision for you.

1. Call, e-mail, or write the legislators at the Vermont State House and tell them "No" to gay marriage. And contact Governor Jim Douglas and encourage him to not sign a gay marriage bill if it passes and comes to his desk.

The State of Vermont Legislature: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/. Go here to look up your local representative or state senator.

Gov. Jim Douglas (R-VT): http://governor.vermont.gov/

Judiciary Schedule: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/schedule/frame.cfm?CommitteeMeetingID=907

2. Support pro-family organizations such as Vermont Renewal/Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, Let Vermont Vote and Take It to the People in their efforts to stop this legislation.

There's also a Facebook group for the cause - visit Defend the Natural Family: Stop Gay Marriage in Vermont! for more info.

Great video on fortifying the family

2009-03-16T14:10:00.001-07:00

This video is by one of my favorite YouTubers, davidkat99 (of Latter-day Conservative). We are in a world that's lost its innocence and sense of reverence - but we can be in the world without letting it soil us. It's a blessing to rally together with others and stand strong to preserve and protect the family, the fundamental unit of our society.

BREAKING: Obama admin. sets pro-gay marriage and abortion agenda at UN TODAY

2009-03-13T14:24:00.000-07:00

My blogging buddy Liberty Belle alerted me to the latest attack on conservative values from the Obama administration: the U.S. delegation to the UN is about to approve language in a UN document that goes against national law and against President Obama’s publicly proclaimed stance on gay marriage.

This is one to make a noise on!

Call/email/write your congressman: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

And your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Ask them to oppose the CSW Resolution on HIV/AIDS. Ask them if this wording by the U.S. delegation is approved by the United States and why they are trying to sneak it past us in bypassing our system of laws. This wording proposed by our delegation to the U.N. goes against our own country’s laws!

Make sure this doesn’t get past us!

Although U.N. resolutions are non-binding, having this on the books will come back to bite us. It charts the course for hundreds of nations and pushes us further down the slippery slope into moral decay on a global scale.

See this from United Families International who is actually AT the United Nations today fighting to stop this change:

The United States representative to the U.N. is making a move that goes against national law and President Obama’s position on gay marriage. Please call your Congressman or U.S. Senator and protest the U.S. delegation’s position.

U.N. Delegations are planning on adopting the CSW Resolution on HIV/AIDS. This document references “The International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS” as adopted by the Second International Consultation on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, and as amended and endorsed at the Third International supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNAIDS.

The HIV/AIDS and Human Rights International Guidelines have the following language included as referenced below:

30. (f) “Laws should also be enacted to ensure women’s reproductive and sexual rights, including the right of independent access to reproductive and STD health information and services and means of contraception, including safe and legal abortion and the freedom to choose among these, the right to determine number and spacing of children . . .”

30. (h) “Anti-discrimination and protective laws should be enacted to reduce human rights violations against men having sex with men . . . ”
30. (h) “. . . These measures should include providing penalties for vilification of people who engage in same-sex relationships, giving legal recognition to same sex marriages . . .”

Developing….

Link to document:

http://data.unaids.org/publications/irc-pub02/jc520-humanrights_en.pdf

**********************************************
If you want something copy-and-pasteable:

Dear Sen. Boxer -

I'm writing to ask you to please oppose the CSW Resolution on HIV/AIDS that the U.S. delegation to the U.N. plans to adopt.

Is this wording by the U.S. delegation approved by the United States? If so, then why is it bypassing our system of laws? This wording proposed by our delegation to the U.N. goes against our own country’s laws, and its mission to endorse/promote abortions and gay marriage on a global scale go against my beliefs and those of many within the great state of California.

Furthermore, I think such a resolution goes beyond the scope of the power the U.N. should have. We should not have a global government that tells nations across the world what to do - and I certainly do not believe this bill is in harmony with America's current statutes.

Thank you for your time - I hope you are well.

**signature

(And yes, sending this to Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer did seem a little superfluous, seeing as they'll likely ignore it, but whatev. At least I raised my voice to my three politicians in Washington - and in less than three minutes, too. You can do it as well!)

Live Tweets of the CA Prop. 8 marriage hearings

2009-03-05T10:20:00.000-08:00

Good news! The Yes on 8 folks are live-Tweeting the marriage hearings: http://twitter.com/protectmarriage

The official DNA Twitter team is Tweeting as well: http://twitter.com/DNA_Army

Twitter is such a great way to keep in the loop. Stay tuned for more...

Tune into the Prop. 8 court hearings!

2009-03-05T09:23:00.000-08:00

Today is the day - as we speak, the California Supreme Court is hearing arguments on three lawsuits opposing Prop. 8.

Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, will first argue against Prop 8. Minter is a transsexual who changed to self-identifying as a man over a decade ago.

Ken Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General, will then argue in favor of Prop 8."We will not mince words," Starr wrote in his court papers. "The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution."

If you can and want to tune in, you can watch the oral arguments online (for free) at http://www.calchannel.com/.

Sadly, I'm tied to my desk and work stuff today - I'll check my DNA colleagues' blogs throughout the day and update as I can. If you want to keep in the loop, check out the Twitter hashtags #prop8 and #tcot or #dna and #tcot for more info (searching these two together sifts through the unrelated stuff) or keep an eye on the blogs in our blogroll - particularly BeetleBlogger, PearlDiver, Stand, The Pomegranate Apple, the Opine Editorials, the Journalista Chronicle and the DNA homepage.

(Big thanks to Zoey at Stand for Marriage for the heads-up!)

(RUMOR): 200,000 gay protestors plan to disrupt LDS General Conference

2009-03-04T14:54:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: I've just been alerted that the email below is a rumor, according to KSL - but, in good social media practices, I'm leaving the post up. Hopefully this'll help dispel the rumor. Here's the KSL report, FYI:

An inflammatory e-mail is circulating around the country, saying Salt Lake City police officers are preparing for up to 200,000 protesters during the LDS General Conference in April, and it's causing concern in both the Latter-day Saint and gay communities.
The e-mail begins with reference to a good friend whose dad, who supposedly works for the Salt Lake City Police Department, says police are putting in extra hours doing riot training.
"The training they are possibly referring to is this routine training that we do every year on crowd control techniques and protest," said Detective Dennis McGowan, spokesman for the Salt Lake City Police Department.
McGowan added, "You know, thanks for the opportunity, though, to get this out to everyone that, as far as our concern at this point in time, these are rumors and everyone can stand down."
Last November, some 2,000 protesters marched around Temple Square in reaction to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' support of California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Those who marched then had protest permits from Salt Lake City. At this point, only a Latter-day Saint group has asked for a permit. Its members want to sing hymns outside the Conference Center to combat a shouting Christian group.
Equality Utah public policy manager Will Carlson says his organization heard the buzz about this e-mail a month ago. Members are concerned that it's fear-mongering.
"The gay and transgender community hasn't been talking about doing protests. The only talk about the first weekend in April was doing a service project for at-risk communities," Carlson said. "This is not the right approach, and we wouldn't support, we don't support it. We know this is not true, but even if it were, we wouldn't support it."
Dozens of Salt Lake City police officers are on duty every conference weekend for traffic and crowd control because more than 100,000 Latter-day Saints attend meetings over the two days. Officers anticipate some protests because there have been for years.

**********************************************

Every six months - the first weekends of April and October - Latter-day Saints the world over gather together via television, Internet and satellite communications to hear from our top leaders (or "General Authorities"), who speak from the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City, across from Temple Square.

General Conference, as these meetings are called, is a big deal. LDS people travel from all over to attend the conference in person - the Conference Center is so huge, you can fit a 747 inside of it! Conference is a spiritual highlight for us, getting to hear from the men and women we sustain as God's mouthpieces, delivering messages that really hit home and encourage us all to live a little better. Or a lot better. General Conference is a very special, sacred time for Latter-day Saints.

So, with that context - I just got this email forward from a friend that I wanted to pass along:

Subject: 200,000 Gay Protestors to Disrupt General Conference
I was speaking with a good friend today who's dad works for the Salt Lake City Police Department. My friend asked him how things were going for him at work and he said that he'd been putting in extra hours doing riot control training. He asked what on earth were they doing that for, and he told him that the entire police force was going through an additional 10 hours of mandatory riot control training because the city is bracing for an influx of 10,000 to 200,000 Gay protesters that want to disrupt this coming General Conference.
I asked how does your dad know how many people will be showing up. He said that the protest permits had already been applied for and that the police, in doing a little intelligence gathering off of the groups websites, found out that they are "strenuously striving" to get as many people there as possible. The 200,000 number is the goal that they want to have on Conference weekend.
But what really worries the police are that the gay protest groups have aligned themselves with a couple of anarchist groups who make it their goal in life to cause as much trouble as possible. These are the groups that show up at protests and you have anarchists running through the streets throwing bricks, Molotov Cocktails, and what not, breaking windows, burning cars and businesses, and attacking innocent citizens and by standers. Their only goal is to provoke a reaction from the police and the citizenry. Can you imagine this going on while Church members are standing in line waiting to enter the Conference Center? His dad further said that the Salt Lake Police in discussing what happened in California with the police there were
informed of some of the inflammatory tactics that the gay protesters used down there including ripping up Book of Mormons, having people parade around wearing only temple garments or wearing them in comb with typical homosexual drag queen clothing. WOW WHAT A SIGHT.
Anyway, the police are planning on canceling all leave to have every officer on hand for the conference, and depending on how many people start showing up and call in the Utah National Guard. Unless something unforeseen happens this is shaping up to be a major event for the police, the Church, and all major news broadcasters.

So, I'm hoping this doesn't happen, of course - but if you're heading to Conference, brace yourself.

There are protestors at every General Conference (including anti-abortion people, which I've always found funny, considering the Church's strong anti-abortion stance), so that's nothing new - but this will be over the top if it happens.

Agree or disagree, I sure wish people could have respect for one another. I think people can voice outrage and opposition without insult. I had an interesting conversation the other night via Facebook with a high-school friend who's adamantly atheist and anti-Prop. 8. She'd just seen the South Park episode that pokes fun at the Joseph Smith story, the founding of my faith that I hold sacred, and she was asking me for my thoughts the show - which were difficult to translate into words. Basically I disagreed with the form but not content - people are entitled to their opinions, but it bothers me when a difference in opinion devolves to mockery and disrespect. Obviously the episode twisted truth into something scoffable, and veiling opposition with humor seems so disingenuous to me. It's so uncalled for and unnecessary.

I might not agree with gay marriage, but you would never in a million years find me making fun of it - mostly because I respect the individuals, even if I disagree with their actions. In the midst of the Prop. 8 battle in the fall, LDS leaders urged respect and tolerance from us toward the anti-Prop. 8 people, reminding us that there are good people on that side of the fence. Too bad the door doesn't swing both ways.

Less Shouting, More Talking

2009-03-03T09:24:00.000-08:00

Great Article in Newsweek
Less Shouting, More Talking
Yes, I voted for Prop 8. Yes, I oppose gay marriage. But that doesn't make me a religious fundamentalist.

By Richard Mouw | NEWSWEEK

Published Jan 31, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Feb 9, 2009

On the morning of Nov. 4, I saw an angry confrontation between two groups at an intersection in my California town. Both sides were carrying signs: one set supporting Proposition 8—the ban on same-sex marriage—and the other opposing it. The two groups were angrily shouting and gesturing at each other as I passed by. That's when the tears welled up.

I voted for the ban. As an evangelical, I subscribe to the "traditional" definition of a marriage, and I do not want to see the definition changed.

Does that mean I want to impose my personal convictions on the broader population? No. I celebrate the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, with many different worldviews and lifestyles. I support the democratic process and believe that civil society is at its best when people with different perspectives engage in a mutually respectful dialogue. And that's why the tears welled up on Election Day morning. The angry sign wavers on opposite corners symbolized the way this whole disagreement over same-sex marriage has gone. Angry shouts. Shaking fists. It makes me sad.

This is something that happens on occasion in an intimate relationship. People who care deeply about each other start arguing about some touchy issue. As temperatures rise, so does the rhetoric. Mean-spirited things get said. The situation seems hopeless.

That is why I want to issue this plea to my fellow citizens on both sides of this divide over sexuality: Can we talk?

I ask this as someone who has been one of the angry ones—angry about things that have been said about people like me. I've been on talk shows where people phone in to call me a fascist or equate me with those who burned accused witches at the stake. One remark that hit especially close to home was made by the editor of this magazine. He wrote that anyone—anyone!—who tries to make a scriptural case against same-sex marriage is guilty of "the worst kind of fundamentalism."

That hurt. I have spent several decades of my life trying to spell out an evangelical alternative to "the worst kind of fundamentalism." My friends and I have argued that the Bible supports racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking and care for the environment—views that often draw the ire of the worst kind of fundamentalists. But none of that seems to matter to folks who don't like our views about same-sex relations. Because we also believe that the Bible frowns on sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman, we are being relegated to the margins of the civil dialogue.

I refuse to go to the margins. As my fellow citizens in a pluralistic society, gays and lesbians have a right to ask me what my sincerely held convictions mean for how they pursue their way of lives.

While my views about sexuality are shaped by my religious convictions, I know that I cannot simply quote the Bible in arguing for public policy. Not every sin ought to be made illegal. But in this case, the issues go deep. For many of us, "normalizing" same-sex marriage comes down to deep concerns about the raising of our children and grandchildren. What will they be taught about sexual and family values in our schools? How will they be affected by the ways the entertainment media portray people with our kinds of views? And will we even be allowed to counter these influences in our homes and churches without being accused of "hate speech"?

And, fair or unfair, "slippery slope" concerns loom large. Are there limits to what we can be asked to tolerate when it concerns matters that violate our convictions? If we were to accept mutual consent and deeply felt convictions as a sufficient basis for allowing the legalization of same-sex relationships, what would keep us from extending marriage to a three-partner arrangement?

But I also want to hear from folks who worry about my views. What is it about people like me that frightens you so much? What would you need to hear from us that would reduce your anxiety? What is your vision of a flourishing pluralistic society? Where do people like me fit into that kind of society?

Maybe I am unrealistic in thinking we can have this national conversation. But the alternatives are frightening. Posing this question has worked at other times when people seemed hopelessly at odds. So let's try asking it now as a nation, and in a gentle tone: Can we talk?

Mouw is the president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.

"I thought you guys had already voted on that thing"

2009-03-03T08:14:00.000-08:00

On Sunday I updated my facebook status to say "Heather is praying for Prop 8." My friend commented, "I thought you guys had already voted on that thing." Yeah, Richard, I thought I did too!

So why am I worried about Prop 8? I couldn't put it better than Blogger970 said in their Opinion Essay: I Thought Prop 8 Passed. Why do I Still Need to Worry About It? -
"Because the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!"

Please read their Opinion Essay, and please don't give up and think that this matter was resolved. If you can, PLEASE get to the San Fransisco Courthouse on Thursday and let your voice be HEARD! I know the other side is getting organized...they have meeting places and are all going to wear white. DO NOT WEAR WHITE!

From the DNA Website -

Californians on March 5th---If you can go to the courthouse in San Francisco here are some tips:
1. All messages on homemade signs should affirm traditional marriage, and avoid offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles.
2. Arrive at the courthouse by 8am
3. Avoid violence and provocation. Our purpose is affirming traditional marriage.

The other side is slightly louder than us, hijacking the Oscars and the mainstream media. We need to be even louder to compensate. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

CA legislature urges the overturn of Prop. 8

2009-03-02T21:45:00.000-08:00

Just days before the important Prop. 8 hearings at the California Supreme Court, California lawmakers overstepped their bounds within the principle of separation of powers and passed resolutions to overturn Prop. 8.

The amazing BeetleBlogger reports:

This update just came screaming down the wires from Karen England at the Capitol….

California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

Moments ago the Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court’s hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature’s passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.
Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. “How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to “retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters” who passed
Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an “illegal ex parte communication with the court.” Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people’s right to pass Proposition 8.
Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

http://www.capitolresource.org

*****

Christa here again. Seriously, this is getting so frustrating! What do you do when the constitutional, proper channels for decision making in this nation fail? I feel nigh unto my wit's end, thinking that all the hours and hours of time - not to mention the thousands of dollars of hard-earned money - that went to pass Prop. 8 will go down the drains with the court's ruling. The people have voted twice, and yet representatives spoke up against their constituents' votes, and the activist judges are unlikely to uphold the vote.

All we can do is to pray. Pray hard, and remind God that there are still those who will fight for what's right, regardless of what circumstances we face. There really is no other choice. Even if our victories get taken from us, the choices we make and the stances we take never can. In the end, that's going to have to matter more than the final outcome.

Prayer Day for Prop 8

2009-02-27T14:18:00.001-08:00

Just got this email from the ProtectMarriage.com folks, probably just like many of you.

* * *

Dear Friend,

Proposition 8 was put before the people of California, and by a wide margin of 600,000 votes became a part of the California Constitution (Article 1, Section 7.5). Next Thursday, March 5, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to determine whether the sovereign will of the people should be upheld, and whether marriage between only a man and a woman will stand.

This is the most important legal issue impacting families in a generation. The outcome of this case is “do or die” for traditional marriage. If the California Supreme Court were to overrule the vote of the people (for the second time) it would not be long before homosexual marriage is the law of the land across this country.

ProtectMarriage.com, the committee responsible for enacting Prop 8, urges you and all our supporters to take action. We are declaring this Sunday, March 1, to be a Day of Prayer for Marriage.

Proposition 8 was supported by over 7 million voters, and we call on those who support traditional marriage to pray for it to be upheld. Please ask the Lord for wisdom for the Justices of the California Supreme Court. Pray, also, for those who oppose this amendment to our Constitution, that they would understand our motivation is to affirm traditional marriage, not to offend any person or group.

Activists who oppose Prop 8 are organizing a candlelight vigil in several cities for March 4, followed by a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court building in San Francisco on March 5. Organizers against Prop 8 are calling for a march of 100,000 people to the Court building (click here to view their events list). It has come to our attention that many Prop 8 supporters are also making plans to appear at the steps of the Supreme Court building on the morning of March 5. We welcome your participation, but request that all messages on homemade signs affirm traditional marriage, avoiding offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles. If you are in close proximity to San Francisco, plan to arrive by 8 a.m. at the court, located at 350 McAllister. We do not wish to provoke or permit any kind of confrontation with our opponents. Please avoid any such activity carefully. Our only purpose is to remind the media, Californians and Americans everywhere that support for traditional marriage is the majority position in the state. Twice now voters have supported traditional marriage and rejected gay marriage. We won the Prop 8 election. The constitution has been amended. The will of the people should now prevail.

ProtectMarriage.com is the only group that will appear before the Supreme Court to uphold the vote of the people enacting Prop 8 and affirm traditional marriage as the law of the land. The upcoming Day of Prayer will provide a vehicle for all our supporters to express their own support for traditional marriage and to call on God, the author of marriage, to bless the arguments our attorneys will present to the Court and to grant the justices wisdom as they consider the arguments.

Thank you for your support of Proposition 8. Please participate in the Day of Prayer this coming Sunday and, if you are in proximity to San Francisco, come to the steps of the Supreme Court building at 8 a.m. on March 5 to show your support for Prop 8.

To make a financial contribution to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, click here.

Thank you so much for your attention and support.

Very truly yours,

ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8

The dangers of complacency

2009-02-26T09:24:00.001-08:00

Here's a quick quote of the day for you to mentally chew on:

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

- Albert Einstein

I always knew I liked him, but wow - so insightful beyond his scientific brilliance!

Tea Party Movement: Mad as... you know where...

2009-02-25T19:59:00.000-08:00

If I were to look up a clip to describe how I'm feeling about the many ways in which legislators and politicians are trampling all over the Constitution and the voice of the people these days (i.e. the Assembly and Senate resolutions to overturn Prop. 8 and, well, basically everything Pres. Obama is proposing, it seems), I'd have to go no farther than this clip from Network: (pardon the G-D that he drops):

If you feel mad as - well, you know where - and just can't take it anymore, then
STAND UP AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD THIS FRIDAY!!!

I'm sure by now that many of you have heard about the "Chicago Tea Party" movement, but for those of you who haven't, here's the scoop:

CNBC's Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" Thursday, drawing cheers from the trade floor in Chicago (see clip below). As a result, Santelli sparked the rallying cry to revolt against the Obama Administration's mortgage bailout plan.

As a result, dozens and dozens of grassroots protests have been planned across the nation for Friday, Feb. 27. Web sites have popped up all over the place with information (here's the "official" site with lots of location links), many referencing the Boston Tea Party of old, a tipping-point event that moved toward the American Revolution.

In putting this together, I'm amazed by how many tea parties are springing up across the nation! Google "Chicago tea party," and you'll see what I'm talking about. Driving forces behind this include #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and the blogger extraordinaire, Michelle Malkin (click here for her excellent article on the movement).

Here's a short list of the events I know of in California. Many of the events are being organized via Facebook. If you know more (especially the Bay Area - surprise, surprise, nothing's come up in my searches), please let me know in the comments, and I'll add them in to the list!

SAN DIEGO: Just north of the Star of India on San Diego Bay - starts at 9 a.m. (I'll be at this one, if you want to say hi!)

LOS ANGELES: Santa Monica Pier - starts at 9 a.m. (Santelli's also planning one for July 4)

SACRAMENTO: California State Capitol, North Steps, L Street Sacramento - starts at noon

FRESNO: "Virtual" tea party March 2-9

***********************************
I know this isn't a California one, but we've got a fair number of Utah readers, so, FYI, there's a protest in SALT LAKE CITY slated for Friday at 10-11 a.m. at the Utah State Capitol.

Glenn Beck on what he forecasts ahead

2009-02-23T21:51:00.001-08:00

Hi, friends -

There is so much to say on the topic of gay marriage right now, between Hawaii becoming the fifth state to legalize same-sex unions and with all the Prop. 8 bashing at last night's Oscars (but, seeing as it's Sean Penn, were we surprised? Not at all. Bring on the "shame.") - but for tonight, I'd like to share this clip by Glenn Beck. He strikes a chord that's played heavily on my mind lately: preparedness.

It is so important to be self-sufficient and to prepare for what's ahead. Latter-day Saint leaders have emphasized this for years and years, but I worry that those of other faiths (or of no faith, for that matter) haven't heard this message as clearly. Please, friends, do what you can now to stock your pantries and to get out of debt. Things will continue to get grimmer economically, and it's vital to be ready for the worst-case scenario. Think of New Orleans after Katrina, or of Manhattan immediately after the towers fell at 9/11.

And remember, Noah didn't wait for the raindrops to fall before he built the ark. The sun was shining, and people called him crazy, but when the deluge hit, He was blessed greatly for following God's counsel and not man's. Let's learn the same lesson.

BIG NEWS: CA lawmakers consider resolutions to oppose Prop. 8

2009-02-16T10:37:00.000-08:00

Big news, folks!

Tomorrow morning (Tuesday, February 17th) at 10:30 a.m., The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Proposition 8, followed at 12:30 p.m. by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.

By issuing the resolution, the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an “improper revision” to the state constitution.

THIS IS WRONG!!! The people of California have spoken - the lawmakers who the people voted into office (lest they forget who they're representing) have a responsibility to protect the people's voice, not to disregard it!

Several of my DNA colleagues and others who want to preserve traditional marriage will be there to represent the votes of the nearly seven million California citizens, whom these legislators fail to represent. If you can make it, attend the hearing. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family.

The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 a.m. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30 p.m. We encourage you to make the trip.

Here's the skinny:

WHO: Defenders of traditional marriage

WHAT: Prop. 8 rally and attending the hearings

WHERE: The California State Capitol - 1400 Tenth St., Sacramento

WHEN: 10:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 17

WHY: Because California lawmakers need to remember who it is they're representing - the people of California who passed Prop. 8. The voters have spoken - the lawmakers need to listen!

Event info is up on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/event.php?eid=67214066808

If you can make it to Sacramento, GO. If you can't but you still want to support the cause, contact your local lawmakers. Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to VOTE NO on HR5 and SR7.

Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Mike Feuer - Chair (Dem-42)
(916) 319-2042
Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

Van Tran - Vice Chair (Rep-68)
(916) 319-2068
Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov

Julia Brownley (Dem-41)
(916) 319-2041
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov

Noreen Evans (Dem-7)
(916) 319-2007
Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov

Dave Jones (Dem-9)
(916) 319-2009
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov

Steve Knight (Rep-36)
(916) 319-2036
Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov

Paul Krekorian (Dem-43)
(916) 319-2043
Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov

Ted W. Lieu (Dem-53)

(916) 319-2053
Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov

William W. Monning (Dem-27)
(916) 319-2027
Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov

Jim Nielsen (Rep-2)
(916) 319-2002
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7

Ellen Corbett: Phone: (916) 651-4010; Fax: (916) 327-2433

Dean Florez: Phone: (916) 651-4016; Fax: (916) 327-5989

Tom Harman: Phone: (916) 651-4035; Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno: Phone: (916) 651-4003

Mimi Walters: Phone: (916) 651-4033; Fax: (916) 445-9754

Thanks, BeetleBlogger, for the info!

CA Supreme Court to hear marriage case March 5

2009-02-11T10:16:00.000-08:00

Hey, marriage fans!

Sorry for the dearth of posts lately, but I fell victim to that nasty bronchitis going around and was out of commission for a few weeks. I'm just finally feeling back to my cheery, bloggerific self - and feeling very ready to catch up on so much that's happened! Lots of news to report - watch for a flurry of posts in the next week.

In the meantime, I wanted to alert you all to mark March 5 on your calendars - it's the date the California Supreme Court will be hearing the oral arguments on the legality of Prop. 8.

A little more info from the L.A. Times:

The hearing is one of the most anticipated in the court's history. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 will make their case about whether the measure should be invalidated. Pro-gay marriage groups filed a lawsuit after the November election, saying the gay marriage ban violated the state Constitution.
Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown at first said he would defend Proposition 8, but then he changed his mind and argued that it was unconstitutional. Backers of the measure have filed briefs supporting the ban. According to the court, justices will consider three issues:
-- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (Christa's note: I believe Jerry Brown already said no on this point)
-- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
-- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

What are your thoughts on the three points of discussion?

I'm very, very interested to see how the third point is addressed. Under the "no ex post facto" concept of the Rule of Law, the legality of an action has to be based on the way the laws were on the books at the time the action happened. In this case, that would mean that gay marriage was legal at that point... but, then again, how legal was it for the court to overturn Prop. 22?

Anyways, back to the trenches for me - watch for some more info coming soon, though, and be sure to check out the brilliant blogs of my DNA colleagues!

Great Video with Elder Maxwell

2009-02-01T21:40:00.000-08:00

Mormons - Same-Sex Marriage, Family, Abortion and the Secular Church

American News Project's "investigation" not truly investigative journalism

2009-01-28T08:31:00.000-08:00

My investigative journalism professor, Joel Campbell (aka the Mormon Media Observer), wrote this piece for MormonTimes.com that I thought you'd all enjoy:

Investigation, secrecy, documents, Oh My!

The American News Project is promoting a news video "investigation" of the LDS Church's support of Proposition 8. While this film could be called an advocacy documentary or simply propaganda, please don't call it quality journalism or even "news."

It's produced by Steve Greenstreet, who identifies himself as a former Mormon missionary who produced the documentary "The Divided State" about Michael Moore's and Sean Hannity's visits to Utah Valley State College.

Set to the drone of sinister music you might expect in a spy thriller, Greenstreet lays out his case about "two contradictory stories" that have emerged after the Proposition 8 battle. In essence, Greenstreet implies there is a cover-up by the LDS Church.

Having revealed "undisclosed" audio tapes and transcripts, he points out the LDS Church helped provide Web sites, phone banks and a satellite broadcast that were never accounted for in campaign contributions. Of course, the writer emphasizes twice that the California Fair Political Practices Commission is also "investigating." Greenstreet doesn't explain how he obtained the undisclosed documents. Such transparency is a hallmark of good reporting. He also does not say where the California inquiry has gone.

This kind of framing, coupled with a steady stream of anti-Mormon signs and footage of protests at LDS temples, is propaganda rather than balanced news reporting. So, first is this latest work news or investigative journalism? No, there is not much new in this report. Investigative journalism, by definition, means reporters bring something new to light. Most of the report is simply a rehash of things previously reported in the press.

A quick Internet search yields stories with the same information weeks before this report.

However, what Greenstreet does is skillfully juxtapose sinister music, the propaganda of Mormon critics and stereotypes about Mormons. By definition, "propaganda is a one-sided, biased presentation of an issue, trading on emotional appeals and a widerange of rhetorical devices in order to override critical assessment." Producers certainly allowed no room in this report for a dialog about how and when religion can participate in the public arena and even a discussion from both sides about the vagary of rules that govern such things. Instead, viewers are offered implied indictment instead of public-service enlightenment.

The report does not meet the standard promoted on ANP's Web as "dedicated to defending and promoting the public interest through high-quality, investigative video journalism."

One only needs to look at the first two canons of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics to find Greenstreet's shortcomings. The code says: "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

The way this news report is produced is a deliberate distortion, first in making the audience believe the reports has uncovered new information and second it's format filled with photographs of anti-LDS signs, protests and innuendo. The only two sources interviewed for the report questioned the LDS Church's motives. The report is alsodismissive of the LDS claims about their position based on spirituality.

The second SPJ canon is to "diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing." There was no evidence of diligence here. Why no LDS voices? There was nothing to indicate Greenstreet contacted the LDS Church, Mormons or others inside the Proposition 8 movement forcomment.

Greenstreet has had some history with this kind of reporting. He's even been lauded for advocacy. Instead of calling this kind of work investigative journalism, please label it advocacy and commentary. The SPJ Code says: "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

Greenstreet was contacted for response, but did not return a phone call. Space will be provided in a future column if he chooses to respond.

Obama's civil rights agenda makes Clinton look conservative

2009-01-27T14:33:00.001-08:00

I came across this video that discusses Barack Obama's civil rights agenda more in depth and find it interesting how his fight for "civil rights" squashes others' rights:

Note that he commentators bring up some of the same cases we've discussed in light of Prop. 8. Obama's taking a far, far-left stance with dramatic changes regarding same-sex issues and abortion (the Freedom of Choice Act will wipe away all limits on abortions; Obama has already signed an executive order that now allows for taxpayer-funded abortions overseas).

Buckle up, friends - we are in for a ride!

Tom Hanks apologizes for "un-American" Mormon comment

2009-01-23T13:08:00.000-08:00

Tom Hanks has softened his stance on the "un-American"ness of Mormons' donations to pass Prop. 8.

Through a representative, Hanks told People.com:

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American." I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have. Sincerely, Tom Hanks.

Thanks, Tom. We still love you - after all, we agree that all have the right to vote their conscience, regardless of whether or not we agree with it.

Pres. Obama looks to repeal DOMA

2009-01-23T10:26:00.000-08:00

With the change in the White House this week came a change to whitehouse.gov with updates of Pres. Obama's agenda.

Under the heading of "civil rights," Obama spells out what he wants to do for the LGBT community - including to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, oppose a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and expand adoption rights for gay couples.

I am definitely concerned* with what is ahead for the traditional family. Children need a father and a mother; same-sex unions inherently marginalize a mother or a father. That's a fact - not a judgment. Adoption is difficult enough for stable, solid heterosexual couples (as I've witnessed from the sidelines of watching friends struggle to adopt) - should we encourage and promote giving children to couples who will shortchange the child of a father or mother?

And then, to repeal DOMA and Constitutional oppose a ban on same-sex marriage threatens to undo all the work that has been done to support traditional marriage. This jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states, including Constitutional amendments in 30 states (and possibly soon to be 31 - Indiana's next) where voters have recently acted to give marriage the greatest protection possible at the state level. Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama's policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

So what can we do to support and protect the traditional family? Make your voices heard!

Follow this link to the DOMA Defense Fund and take action!

Send a letter to your representatives. Spread the word. Fight for the family - after all, if we don't, who will?

*Disclaimer: I firmly believe in agency. People have the right to live their life according to the dictates of his or her conscience and to be held accountable for the choices he or she makes. It's a natural law of choices and consequences, and I do not disrespect people because their lifestyle choices don't mesh with my personal beliefs. I haven't walked in their shoes; I cannot ever fully understand what leads them to make the choices they do. That's for God to know - not me. Likewise, it's for Him to judge - not me.

And so, likewise, I have no problem with laws that push for people to be treated equally. I disagree with discrimination and think people should be judged on the content of their character - not on skin color or sexual preference (although I most certainly do not see the two as the same sort of issue, since one is a noun and the other a verb - but that's a post for another day).

Does voting for same-sex marriage help or hurt politicians?

2009-01-23T09:58:00.000-08:00

Does a politician's views on same-sex marriage affect your decision to re-elect him or her?

A new study by Freedom to Marry argues that same-sex marriage is a non-issue that doesn't hurt a politician's electability. The San Francisco Bay Times reports:

Voting for same-sex marriage or against an attempt to ban same-sex marriage is a safe move for politicians, a new study by the group Freedom to Marry has found. A review of such votes in 21 states by more than 1,100 legislators found that the legislators were consistently re-elected. The report revealed:
* Legislators who voted to end marriage discrimination in California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts had a 100 percent re-election rate in all 499 instances in three consecutive elections.
* Legislators who changed their position from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage had a 100 percent re-election rate in consecutive elections.
* Legislators who voted for marriage equality in their state’s lower house and then sought higher office all won.
* None of 664 legislators from 17 states lost re-election after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”

I think this is an interesting comment, considering that the point of elected officials is to select people to represent your views in the government.

As fellow DNA'er BeetleBlogger said, "This is not the opportunity to forgive and forget or turn the other cheek. It’s time to ask ourselves, 'What’s in the barrel?' and toss out those [bad apples] who pander to corruption and are rotten at the core."

She makes an excellent point - corruption doesn't seem to matter in today's political arena. What on earth has happened to reason, responsibility, common sense and virtue?

Californians have voted twice to uphold traditional marriage and define it as between one man and one woman. I would argue that the "right thing" is to respect the views of your constituency on all issues - especially when it comes to one so fundamentally linked to our society's fiber.

The family is the cornerstone of society - if we chip away at it enough, it will crumble, and we will fall.

DNA Task of the Day: Write the NY Times

2009-01-19T14:31:00.000-08:00

Hello, my fellow traditional marriage supporters!

My colleagues in the Digital Network Army (DNA) and I want you to join in our letter-writing campaign today to the editor of the New York Times, following up to the article that ran today about the H8 maps.

NY Times instructions for submitting:

Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please.

Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com.

Go viral, my dear ones! Thanks for standing up for marriage and for the donors' right to privacy!

Marriage Ban Donors Feel Exposed by List

2009-01-19T00:36:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times:

SAN FRANCISCO — In many ways it is a typical map, showing states, highways, cities and streets.

But also dotting the online display are thousands of red arrows, marking spots from Bryn Mawr, Pa., to Jamacha, Calif., identifying the addresses of donors who supported Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California.

It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly harassed since the election — with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes boycotts of their businesses.

“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”

So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information. In particular, the suit seeks to stop the final filing for the 2008 election, which is due Jan. 31. That filing includes donations made in the closing days of the campaign, when the proposition surged to victory.

James Bopp Jr., a lawyer from Indiana who filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Protect Marriage, said the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters violated their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.

“The cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people’s participation in the process,” said Mr. Bopp, who has argued several prominent cases challenging campaign-finance laws in California and other states. “The highest value in the First Amendment is speech, and some amorphous idea about transparency cannot be used to subvert those rights.”

The election law in question, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was approved by California voters as Proposition 9, and gay rights advocates say there is rich irony in supporters of Proposition 8 opposing the earlier ballot measure.

“They believe in the will of the people if it’s in tune with what they believe,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director with Lambda Legal, the gay rights legal organization, in Los Angeles.

Opponents of Proposition 8 are also suspicious of the intent of trying to prevent donors from being identified. “Do they want to hide something?” said Shannon P. Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.

Mr. Schubert insisted that there was “no smoking gun” and that the filing would show only “modest in-kind contributions” from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church members contributed millions to the “Yes on 8” campaign, and the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating accusations that the Mormon leadership neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions, including phone banks, a Web site and online commercials on the behalf of Proposition 8.

The lawsuit is just one part of the continuing legal wrangling over Proposition 8, whose constitutionality is being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. The court legalized same-sex marriage in May, a decision that was overturned by Proposition 8.

The court is expected to hear arguments on the proposition as soon as March, and will probably also decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed in the state.

Several prominent groups filed or signed on to briefs in recent days expressing opposition to Proposition 8, including civil rights and women’s rights organizations, labor and religious groups, and Google, which created the mapping technology.

In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”

In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been boycotted because of Proposition 8.

Mr. Bopp also said that the level set under California’s campaign law for public disclosure, anything above $100, was too low.

“There certainly would be an amount that would influence more than a few voters,” he said. “But it’s way above $100.”

Opponents of Proposition 8 have condemned any attacks on supporters, but noted that those claiming harassment are already protected by laws. “Violence and vandalism are illegal, and those laws should be enforced,” Ms. Pizer said. “And sadly people on both sides of this issue have experienced some of that.”

Anti-Prop. 8 folks map out donors' homes

2009-01-18T22:46:00.000-08:00

Ah, the joys of modern technology and the public status of political donations.

Some anti-Prop. 8 folks with too much time on their hands have created http://www.eightmaps.com/, a "mash up" of Google maps and Prop. 8 donor lists that now maps out the home of each Prop. 8 donor, complete with the donor's name, donation amount, profession, employer and donation date.

While this is technically legal, it is a disgusting and disturbing invasion of privacy. Although it's a little encouraging to see how many little flags there are, honestly (and they didn't get everyone - my parents aren't on there, but they donated to the cause), it is beyond unsettling that these people are pushing so hard to personally attack the individuals who supported Prop. 8 - and, furthermore, to go after their livelihoods in today's economy, of all times.

What do you think of the maps? Does this cross the line from the public's right to information and cross into a breach of an individual's right to privacy? Can you imagine this happening on another political cause?

One of the cornerstones of voting in the United States is that you cast a private ballot, free from intimidation or threats. To me, this sort of behavior is downright un-American and wrong.

(PS: Any techie people know how to figure out the source of the Web site? No, I don't want to go mapping them out - but I do think it would be appropriate to start sending emails to Google, complaining of this effort that crosses some lines. I'm wondering if this is something they can take down - but I'm not sure if it technically goes beyond their user agreement. It's just a map with the info. The action for the No on 8'ers is to be inferred.)

Tom Hanks labels Mormon Prop. 8 supporters "un-American"

2009-01-16T09:57:00.001-08:00

I've always been a Tom Hanks fan, but apparently those feelings don't go both ways - according to Hanks, I am "un-American" because of my support of Prop. 8.

Fox News reports:

Tom Hanks, Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California's Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.
“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

I'm surprised that Hanks is uninformed enough to think polygamists are an offshoot of the LDS Church that supported Prop. 8. The two have nothing to do with each other; all they share are common roots, but the mainstream LDS Church left polygamy behind well over 100 years ago.

Also, he refers to LDS people giving money to their church to make Prop. 8 happen. That simply is not the case! Donations were made to ProtectMarriage.com. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a part of a broad-based coalition of faiths, but it was not running the show.

I, for one, am a proud American, and I am grateful for the self-correcting Constitution to which Hanks refers. It's a process that lets the people - not the judges - decide what is best for them, and they will then be accountable for those decisions, good or bad.

Who says marriage is labor (union material)?

2009-01-15T17:07:00.000-08:00

Apparently Big Labor, a coalition of more than 50 of California's labor unions, is pushing its weight to overturn Prop. 8.

The Contra Costa Times reports:

A coalition of more than 50 labor organizations representing more than two million Californians filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
The labor groups' brief argues that "any change to the California Constitution that takes away fundamental rights or that divides citizens into suspect classes must be accomplished by a 'revision' of the Constitution, and not the simple 'amendment' employed in Proposition 8."

Can I interject for one moment? From what I've heard (i.e. what my highly-informed news junkie of a father told me), the majority of the brief Jerry Brown filed, while going against Prop. 8, actually counters the argument that Prop. 8 overstepped amendment territory. Brown had no qualms with the Yes on 8'ers methodology - his beef was with the gay-rights issue.

And another interjection: I hate using the term "gay rights." It implies that they're discriminated against as a minority and that we're trying to take rights away from them. Marrying whoever you want is not a right.

And, frankly, you can't classify anti-gay discrimination on the same page as anti-race discrimination, because race is apparent. It's usually fairly obvious if someone is black/Latino/Asian/Native American etc. Homosexuality has more to do with what you do than with who you are, internally and externally. I understand there are inclinations, but again, it's the actions that define the category - it's just not the same as being born into an ethnic group.

But I digress. Back to the news story.

"If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another," the brief states.
"We believe Prop. 8 is improper and it's immoral and it's also legally invalid," Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, told reporters Tuesday. "We have an interest not only in defending the rights of our members, but we have an interest in defending the constitution of California."
Agreed UHW-West President Sal Rosselli, "Us defending the right of gay people to marry, us defending this civil right is fundamentally important because ... there's a slippery slope and wealthy bigoted people could organize votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights."
Equality California executive director Geoff Kors said he believes "the leadership of labor in this brief is going to have a tremendous impact." Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal senior counsel and Marriage Project director, said the brief "is putting a special emphasis on how high the stakes are here for everybody in California."
The California Council of Churches and other faith organizations and leaders will file their own amicus brief Wednesday asking the court to invalidate Proposition 8. Others, including lawyers' groups and 44 state lawmakers, already have written similar pleas; conservative groups have urged the court to let Proposition 8 stand.
The California Supreme Court has set a fast-tracked briefing schedule, which should be completed this month, with oral arguments heard as soon as March.

Okay, for starters - talk about a conspiracy theory! "Wealthy bigoted people"? I would counter that the success of Prop. 8 is largely due to a grassroots campaign, where the legwork was done by people like yours truly who is definitely neither wealthy nor bigoted.

Furthermore, the California people backed up the veracity of feeling behind the campaign with their votes. That demographic would have taken in the rich, the poor and everything in between - and I'm pretty sure that includes the working-class labor types who these unions represent. I think that speaks loudly enough.

Why is it that unions feel compelled to speak out for or against issues that have nothing to do with the scope of their organizations? Not every teacher opposed Prop. 8 - yet their dues went to the California Teacher's Association's sizeable (and, frankly, deceptive) ad campaign.

With labor unions are jumping into the fray, I have to ask, how is marriage labor?

Oh, wait.

Marriage is hard work. And the whole family aspect definitely involves some labor - just not in the AFL-CIO sense of the term.

Honoring the DisHonor Roll Club

2009-01-13T21:26:00.001-08:00

Fellow DNA'er GoodSense Politics posted a piece about Fred Karger, the McCarthyesque leader of Californians Against Hate who, ironically, is promoting hate with his "DisHonor Roll."

This list of Prop. 8 donors publishes not only the donors by name and amount but also includes any dirt that can be found on these groups and individuals.

I cringe to give the publicity-hungry Karger any undue time in the spotlight - the man has a long history of fighting pro-gay battles with the tenacity of a bulldog and the persistant noise of a chihuahua.

However, I want to give props to the people who followed their beliefs with their pocketbooks and made the donations that have, in turn, placed them in the target of gay-rights activists. These are good people! I'm amazed by how many people I know personally on that list and how much they gave. It makes me want to give them gigantic hugs for their amazingness in sacrificing so much for the cause... but, uh, that would be awkward for all involved, I'm sure. They're also truly humble individuals who wouldn't want to be called out for such good deeds but would prefer to give in the manner Christ proscribes of not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

So, instead, I encourage you to support the DisHonor Roll members with your patronage to their businesses as the gay-rights activists push to chip away at these individuals' livelihoods. Perhaps write a letter or email to their company if they're in a position where hate mail might lead to a forced resignation. I'd hate to see another martyr to the cause like Marjorie Christofferson, Richard Raddon or Scott Eckern. Enough is enough!

Gay marriage pushes ahead in New England

2009-01-13T20:22:00.000-08:00

Alrighty, folks, we're back in business!

First point of order for the new year: a gay marriage bill moved into the Maine Legislature's agenda on Tuesday, with same-sex marriage activists looking to overturn the statute that already limits marriage to one man and one woman.

Meanwhile, civil unions are no longer enough in New Hampshire and Vermont, where activists are pushing to swap in the term "marriage."

The Associated Press reports:

AUGUSTA, Maine—The gay marriage issue moved onto the legislative agenda Tuesday as supporters of the idea said this is the time to recognize marriages between same-sex couples -- even if the debate comes amid major concerns in the State House over budget cutbacks and their impact.
Sen. Dennis Damon said he is introducing a bill to rewrite Maine's existing statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, instead defining it as a union between two people. In addition, it recognizes gay marriages from other states.
Damon, D-Trenton, answered critics who questioned the timing of the bill as lawmakers face a $838 million shortfall by saying it's "long overdue."
"Currently there is discrimination. Heterosexual couples who have decided to spend their lives together are treated differently than same-sex couples who have ... that same commitment to each other," Damon said. "I don't see the fairness of that. I don't see the need for that, and this bill will put an end to that."
Maine currently has a domestic partnership registry that's open to gay couples. But
that's not enough for gay marriage supporters. Damon says it's time to "fully end discrimination in Maine."
Gay marriage is being debated elsewhere in the region.
In New Hampshire, a bill's been submitted to replace the term "civil union" with "marriage" in the state's 1-year-old civil union law. Vermont, the first state to recognize same-sex couples with its civil unions law, is now likely to consider a gay marriage bill.
In Maine, Damon's gay marriage proposal faces a fight.
House Minority Leader John Tardy, R-Newport, is expected to propose bolstering the state's one man-one woman definition by putting it in the Constitution.
The Maine Family Policy Council also plans to oppose the gay marriage bill "with everything we've got," Executive Director Michael Heath said.
Heath said gay marriage supporters are making a mistake running their bill now, when so much else is at stake because of the recession and state budget problems.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland also will work aggressively against the bill, which goes to the heart of a fundamental issue for many, said Marc Mutty, diocesan public affairs director. Mutty believes the proposal will ultimately be sent to referendum.
Gov. John Baldacci issued a statement in which he acknowledged his past opposition to same-sex marriage, adding the debate "is extremely personal for many people, and it's an issue that I struggle with trying to find the best path forward.
"Right now, I'm focused on creating jobs and doing what I can to help our economy recover from an unprecedented recession. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided or turned against one another during this crisis," the governor said.
The gay marriage bill has won that support of leaders of more than a dozen faiths across the state, who formed the Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine.

Not to sound like a broken record, but what you term a homosexual union does, in fact, carry a lot of weight - and no, it is not discriminatory to differentiate, so long as the unions establish equal rights across the board for couples, gay or straight.

When you take an existing word and alter its definition, you create an Orwellian dilemma wherein a myriad of statutes, regulations and laws get changed without touching a single word. These alterations make no distinction between civil unions (which have all the same RIGHTS anyways) and traditional marriage, which, in turn, infringes upon religions' rights to adhere to Biblical beliefs that term homosexual behavior as sinful. (Note, it's the actions - not the people - that the Bible condemns. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory - it's an important distinction to make, lest these ideas get written off as religious bigotry. God is a God of love and mercy as well as perfect justice!)

I respect the right of my gay friends to live their lives free of others' imposed religious beliefs. As one of devout faith, I also expect that same right. There are so many cases I could point out where gay-rights activists have sued churches or religious individuals for "discrimination" when they're merely adhering to Biblical tenets in actions or sermons - and not in a hateful way, I might add.

Opening up the definition of marriage by not defining it as one man and one woman is practically codifying approval for a flurry of discrimination lawsuits against the defenders of traditional marriage, whether they be religions, foundations or individuals. I am so, so glad to live in a state that offers civil unions with all the same rights as marriage. However, pushing to change the name pushes for much more than equality.

If you don't define marriage as between one man and one woman, which it's been for all of human history, then where do you draw the line?

Hiatus ending soon, I promise!

2009-01-12T22:05:00.000-08:00

Hello again, readers dear!

I hate to make promises that I don't keep, and so I'd like to say a big sorry for being so behind on the blog. Last week I thought I'd have a chance to get back to blogging, but a huge project at work has eaten up my week (including my weekend), and this week's still going to be busy busy. The blog's become mostly a one-woman show, and I'll do the best I can - after all, this is a battle with such far-reaching consequences, I don't want to seem flippant and brush it off - but bear with me, and thanks in advance for your patience. I love this blog, and, more importantly, I love championing a cause that is so vitally important in today's society and for our future.

So don't you worry - we'll be back to full swing soon.

In the meantime, MSNBC is doing a poll as to whether "In God We Trust" should remain on our currency. What do you think? Weigh in at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Happy New Year!

2009-01-05T08:53:00.000-08:00

Hello, Preserving Marriage Readers!

My apologies for the holiday-induced hiatus. Just a quick note to say I've got a few posts up my sleeve, so watch for some news tonight and as the week progresses. Thanks for hanging in there with us - I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and New Year's!

USA Today: Prop. 8 foes use blacklisting tactics to make their point

2008-12-22T08:57:00.001-08:00

Thanks, Ruby, for drawing this to my attention! It is so underhanded to attack people's livelihoods when they've merely exercised their right to free expression - a real RIGHT that's outlined in the First Amendment, as opposed to this so-called "right to marry."

School children are taught about how horrible and evil the McCarthy trials and blacklisting of the Hollywood Eight were - and, let's remember, it was those on the Left under persecution then. So somehow the tactic is perfectly acceptable now that it's people whose beliefs oppose your own? How does that make sense? How is that tolerant and open-minded?

Standing up for Prop. 8 - for traditional families and for religious freedoms - is not hateful. It's honorable, and it will continue to be my battle cry, even if everyone else defames it as wrong.

Anyways, enough of my soapbox. USA Today reports:

Prop 8 foes turn to 'blacklist' tactics
By William M. Welch, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — After losing on Election Day, some supporters of gay marriage are using economic boycotts and Internet lists to focus ire on the financial backers of Proposition 8.

Some on the receiving end say the tactic amounts to a blacklist, a term that conjures memories of Hollywood's refusal to hire screenwriters and others identified as communists in the late 1940s and 1950s.

"I just hate being pigeonholed as a hate monger or bigot," says Robert Hoehn, who contributed $25,000 to the campaign for Prop 8, which amended California's Constitution to exclude same-sex marriage. "I have friends in the gay community, and I don't think any of them would say that."

Hoehn has seen protesters outside his Carlsbad, Calif., car dealerships, his name and business have appeared on websites publicizing donors, and he has received "the most vitriolic kinds of e-mails, letters and phone calls."

His discomfort is exactly what some have in mind.

"I want to make it a little hot for these people," says Fred Karger, a retired Los Angeles political consultant who started the group and website called Californians Against Hate.

Small as well as large donors have felt heat:
• El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles since 1931, has seen fewer diners and been picketed over a $100 contribution by a manager and member of the owning family. Marjorie Christoffersen told The Los Angeles Times, "I've almost had a nervous breakdown."

• San Diego developer Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to put Prop 8 on the ballot, has seen a boycott against hotels he owns, including the Manchester Grand Hyatt on San Diego Bay. Manchester did not return calls seeking comment. Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, which supports Prop 8, said Manchester's hotel "has lost several national conventions and conferences."

• A-1 Self Storage, with 30 locations across California, has also been targeted by Karger's group. Owner Terry Caster and family members donated $693,000.

Caster did not return calls but has a recording on his phone defending the contribution and Prop 8. "The homosexual community is trying to change something that has been practiced since the start of our great country," he says, referring to marriage. "I simply exercise my right to support that which I believe in."

Brown says she has received calls from small business owners in Hollywood and West Hollywood who have lost customers because of their donations. She said she has seen printed lists that name Hollywood studio employees who gave to the cause, an action that "replicates that feel" of blacklists of movie-industry figures who many in Hollywood to this day believe were prevented from earning a living because of their politics.

Some say blacklist is the wrong analogy.

Larry Gross, professor and director of the school of communication at the University of Southern California, said publicizing donors is a legitimate tactic. He says it is similar to the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott of the 1960s in which blacks were protesting segregated seating.

"This is a matter of private citizens saying they don't want to patronize businesses that have worked against their interests," Gross said.

But Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, says it is wrong to compare supporters of traditional marriage to racists.

"I think the general public is recognizing intolerance" of the blacklist, he said.

One man and one wolfman?

2008-12-21T09:20:00.000-08:00

I thought this piece by The Onion was worth a laugh:

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner.

"The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law.

But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination."

On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

Jerry Brown, judicial review and Prop. 8 problems

2008-12-19T23:09:00.000-08:00

California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had hinted that he wanted to see Prop. 8 overturned, but today he made those sentiments crystal clear in a brief to the California Supreme Court.

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.

You can read The New York Times report here - other than that newsflash, it goes through the typical opponents and supporters rhetoric that's really nothing we haven't heard before.

What this issue boils down to - aside from the marriage debate in specifics - is the general differing of opinions in contemporary America as to the function of the courts and the role of the vox populi, the voice of the people as evidenced by a vote.

Judicial review - the process by which courts can weigh in on the constitutionality of a statute such as Prop. 8 - is not explicitly in the Constitution. Rather, it came into play in America in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

I'll rein in my history geekiness and spare you the gory details, but basically, judicial review sets up an interesting power struggle between the legislative and judiciary branches. The way the Constitution is framed, the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) is supposed to make laws. The executive branch (i.e. the attorney general, who is the chief law enforcement official) enforces the laws, and the judicial branch (i.e. the courts) are to take real-life scenarios and hold them up against the laws to see if that law has, in fact, been broken.

Basically, judicial review strengthens the courts beyond their enumerated scope by creating the ability to legislate from the bench. After the Marbury case, judicial review wasn't used again until the Dred Scott case, and that case began the precedent that continued in full force through the Civil Rights movement in making rulings based on morality - not on the law.

Now before anyone gets up in arms, let me say that I agree with the outcome of the Civil Rights movement. Segregation absolutely needed to end, and racism should be done with. There's no way that voters would have changed the racism ingrained in the system with a vote.

But, that being said, the means used to reach that end set a dangerous precedent that is at the center of today's problems. There are differing schools of thought on what role the courts should play in the political process.

On the one hand, the more conservative, strict interpretation shies away from judicial review on two main grounds. First, the power of constitutional review is not specifically delegated to the Supreme Court anywhere in the Constitution. Along with this, the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that any power that is not delegated by the constitution is reserved to the states, or people. Secondly, it is the states alone that have the power to create this set of laws for the federal government follow, logically it is the states alone that have the power to interpret the meaning of these laws. Allowing the federal government to conduct judicial review allows them to interpret their own restrictions as they see fit, with no consent to the originating power.

Early American leaders had reservations about the effect judicial review would have on the voice of the people sticking in legislation. For example, in alluding to the Dred Scott case, Abraham Lincoln said:

[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

Likewise, Thomas Jefferson had concerns about judicial review:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

On the other hand, you have the looser interpretation of the Constitution, which views the document more for the Founders' motives and ideals, and less for the actual system they put into place. This was certainly the M.O. of the Warren court and its Civil Rights rulings. From the perspective of Warren court member Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.,

Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline. The phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked. Its majestic generalities and ennobling pronouncements are both luminous and obscure. This ambiguity of course calls forth interpretation, the interaction of reader and text. The encounter with the Constitutional text has been, in many senses, my life's work.

Brennan's perspective is the one that is seen more and more in today's courts - especially as evidenced by the California Supreme Court's overturning of Prop. 22 in May, and the now-proposed overturning of Prop. 8 by our own attorney general.

Those who favor action by the vote of the people and those preferring decisions handed down from the courts come from such vastly different paradigms that the perspectives seem nearly impossible to bring together from a basic examination of theory - let alone when you throw in an issue as emotional and controversial as same-sex marriage.

To those who oppose same-sex marriage, the vote of the people was wrongly overturned by the courts in May and absolutely should not be trampled over again. The people voted - TWICE - so let their voice stand.

Those who favor same-sex marriage, however, see the court ruling in May as a triumph for their side, and the "unenlightened" voice of the people should not be allowed to stand.

In case it's not clear, I'm more of a strict Constitutionalist from the get-go, so without bringing in the marriage question, I firmly feel that the voice of the people is sacrosanct. It's the beauty of our democratic republic that the people can weigh in and make decisions for themselves, to their blessing or curse.

Factor in the value I place on the traditional family and the importance of defending religious freedoms, and, well - I think Jerry Brown should do his job of enforcing the laws the people and legislature pass instead of giving the courts the green light to trample over the voice of the people.

But, hey, that's just me.

A quick thought from the heart

2008-12-18T10:33:00.001-08:00

I am not yet a mother. I will be, someday, but for now, I'm a career gal - a career gal who moonlights as a babysitter for a few friends with kidlets.

Last night I had the sweet opportunity to watch my friend Lauren's darling children - a tow-headed, adorable little boy of 22 months and a sweet baby girl of 8 months.

There is something so sweet about wrestling with a toddler or having a baby fall asleep in your arms. It's pretty amazing to realize that you've got the future in your arms.

And then it hit me.

This is why we're fighting this fight.

Too often I get more wrapped up in the socio-political implications of gay marriage and in the scriptural counsel on the matter. Which are important, no doubt - but at the end of the day, the true beneficiaries of our battles will be our children (or future children, in my case). I want them to be raised in a world where marriage matters, where traditional families are the norm and where religious freedoms, regardless of sect, are respected.

It may be an uphill battle - one that will not end until Jesus Christ himself returns to reign on this earth. But that's no matter. They that are with us be more than they that are against us, and thanks to prophecies new and old, we already know who wins.

Right will triumph. The question is, will you fight for God, or will you fight Him?

I am so grateful to be part of a network of fellow believers who are also standing for the right. Our children and grandchildren cannot fight this war yet - but we can do our best to hold off the worst for as long as we can.

It won't be easy, but oh, will it be worth it.

Case studies of same-sex marriage's impact on religious freedom

2008-12-17T08:59:00.000-08:00

I was so impressed with this report posted by the Christian Examiner, I couldn't help but to repost the whole thing - sorry, it's quite long, but it's filled with case studies of how same-sex marriage does, in fact, cause a chilling effect on religious freedom, despite what the No on 8'ers say. They use surface-skimming rhetoric; we can back up our claims with substantial facts.

At the heart of the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 are concerns about eroding religious freedoms that come about as the same-sex agenda is advanced. Below are some of the legal cases heard across the country as compiled by Rancho Santa Fe Attorney Charles S. LiMandri. Affiliated with the Thomas More Law Center, LiMandri was involved in the Mount Soledad cross case and the first case listed below. He has also been involved in the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

LiMandri’s list also includes source documentation, which can be found at his Web site at http://www.limandrilaw.com/CM/Custom/Resources.asp. The cases are listed in a Powerpoint presentation called “The Impact of Same-Sex Marriage on Religious Freedom.” The cases are listed on pages 4 to 11.

February 24, 2000: A professional printer refused to print material for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives because he felt doing so would violate his religious beliefs. He was fined and ordered to print the material anyway. He took his case to the Ontario Supreme Court and then to the Ontario Court of Appeal and lost both times. His total legal bills exceed $170,000.

2001: An evangelical Christian employed as a prison guard in Canada placed an ad in the Saskatchewan Star Phoenix. The ad was a picture of two stick men holding hands, with a red circle with a bar superimposed on them. Below the picture were four Scripture references, but not actual Bible verses. He was convicted of a hate crime by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal. The judge suggested that using Bible verses in a newspaper ad like this could be construed as hate literature. Thus, there is now legal precedent in Canada that the Holy Bible is hate literature.

May 1, 2002: A Catholic high school in Whitby, Ontario was forced by the Ontario Supreme Court to allow a homosexual student to take his boyfriend to the graduation prom, even though the church-run school has strict prohibitions against condoning any kind of homosexual behavior.

January 26, 2004: Cardinal Gustaaf Joos is sued by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight Against Racism (CEOFAR) for human rights violations because he said that most homosexuals are perverts.

February 3, 2004: Canadian teacher Chris Kempling was suspended for one month for his Christian views on homosexuality, expressed in a letter to the editor.

October 15, 2004: A group of Christians was arrested, spent 21 hours in jail, and was charged with multiple felonies for peacefully protesting at a Philadelphia gay pride event even though the event was open to the public and held on city streets and sidewalks.

October 27, 2004: Rocco Buttiglione of Italy is nominated as Commissioner of Justice for the newly formed European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union. He said publicly that he thought homosexual conduct was immoral, and members of the European Parliament blocked his nomination.

January 1, 2005: Calgary Bishop Fred Henry is forced to remove a diocesan letter from his Web site because it urged Catholic Christians to support traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage.

January 26, 2005: B.C. Knights of Columbus are sued for not permitting the rental of their Canadian hall for a same-sex wedding reception.

February 11, 2005: A Swedish pastor is sentenced to jail for one month after speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle from the pulpit. The Gota Court of Appeals subsequently overturned this decision. In the meantime, his sermon was replayed numerous times throughout the appeal process and was eventually broadcast by several news agencies.

June 1, 2005: A former manager with Allstate in Illinois was fired on the sole basis that he wrote a column posted on several Web sites that was critical of same-sex marriage and espoused Christian beliefs. This was done while he was not at work. He sued and reached a settlement.

June 5, 2005: Gay protestors march down the aisle of the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral in France during mass, where one of the protestors, dressed like a priest, performed a mock marriage ceremony for a lesbian couple. One of the priests saying mass receives a minor injury while trying to remove the protestors from the cathedral.

June 30, 2005: A lesbian couple used Vermont’s public accommodations law to file a discrimination complaint against a couple who owns a small inn for expressing their concern that, as Roman Catholics, they would have moral difficulty hosting a same-sex civil union on their premises.

March 9, 2006: The California Supreme Court voted unanimously that the City of Berkeley could withdraw a rent subsidy to a Boy Scouts affiliate (the Sea Scouts) at the city marina because of the scouts’ opposition to homosexuality.

March 10, 2006: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts is forced out of the adoption business for the first time in 100 years because it will not place children with homosexual couples.

April 5, 2006: San Francisco City Board of Supervisors issued a scathing resolution condemning the Catholic Church’s moral teachings on homosexuality and urged Catholic leaders to defy Vatican directives telling agencies not to place children with same-sex couples.

April 28, 2006: A government commission ordered a man who runs a video duplicator business to do a job for a lesbian activist after he initially refused because, as a Christian, he did not want to help promote homosexuality.

June 16, 2006: Robert J. Smith, a member of the board of directors of the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, appointed by Governor Robert L.Ehrlich, discussed the federal marriage amendment on a local cable show and stated that gays and lesbians are “persons of sexual deviancy,” and was subsequently fired from his position. He said that as a Catholic this was part of his religious beliefs.

November 1, 2006: Emily Brooker, a social-work student at Missouri State University, was charged with violating the school’s “Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education.” One of her professors accused her of the violation after he assigned a project that required the entire class to write and each sign a letter to the Missouri Legislature in support of gay adoption. Brooker said her Christian beliefs required her to refuse to sign the letter. She subsequently sued the school for a violation of her First Amendment rights and won.

January 1, 2007: Christian Vanneste, a member of the French parliament, was convicted for homophobia by a French court. He had said that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality” and that “homosexuality endangers the survival of mankind.”

May 31, 2007: Eharmony.com was sued in California for refusing to offer its dating services to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Eharmony.com was founded in 2000 by an evangelical Christian with strong ties to Focus on the Family.

June 1, 2007: The Oakland, Calif. city government found the words “Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values” to be a hate crime and reprimands a group of Oakland city government employees for using these words on a flier in the workplace.

June 12, 2007: Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, leader of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, received his second death threat, in the form of 3 bullets, from an anonymous militant homosexual activist enraged at the Catholic Church’s campaign to defeat civil union legislation in Italy.

June 27, 2007: Belgian homosexual activists have brought charges against Monsignor Andre-Mutien Leonard, the Roman Catholic bishop of Namur, for homophobia because he is said to have described homosexuals as “abnormal” people.

July 21, 2007: Four San Diego firefighters were ordered to participate in the San Diego Gay Pride Parade. The employees filed a lawsuit against the city of San Diego in California Superior Court alleging sexual harassment and violating their freedom of speech. After a mistrial was declared, a new trial is scheduled for after the first of the year.

July 28, 2007: Anglican Church in the United Kingdom was found guilty of discrimination against homosexuals for requiring lay Diocesan Youth Director to be celibate if not married. It is now against the law for a Christian organization to require its employees to abide by Christian teaching.

August 2, 2007: Two Christian physicians were sued for acting in accord with their religious beliefs by not artificially inseminating a lesbian. The California Supreme Court ruled in August 2008 that the doctor’s religious rights did not carry as much weight as the woman’s civil rights under California’s anti-discrimination laws which protect sexual orientation. The case is still under appeal and has cost the physicians nearly $1 dollars.

August 24, 2007: A Massachusetts father, who objected to the homosexual curriculum being taught to his kindergartener, was handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to leave a school meeting where he came to voice his concerns. An appeals court later ruled that the father had no rights to question the school’s curriculum and suggested the best option for parents who object to school content is to segregate.

September 15, 2007: California Lutheran high school is being sued for expelling two girls who engaged in “homosexual conduct” on campus.

September 25, 2007: A lesbian high school student in California accused principal of violating Equal Protection and First Amendment rights for issuing disciplinary action in response to continual inappropriate displays of public affection on school grounds. U.S. District Court ruled in favor of school defendants, finding no federal or state constitutional violations.

October 2, 2007: General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired because he publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

October 7, 2007: Ocean Grove Camp Ground, a Methodist camp in New Jersey, loses its state tax-exempt status for not hosting a same-sex union in its marriage pavilion.

October 24, 2007: A Christian couple in the UK were denied re-registration as foster parents following their refusal to sign an “Equality” policy which forbids discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality. After public outcry, on October 31, 2007 Somerset Social Services met with the couple and allowed them to make a conscientious objection to the “Equality” policy, reinstating them as foster parents.

November 3, 2007: British Employment Appeals Tribunal upheld a decision rejecting a discrimination claim by a Justice of the Peace. The Justice sat on the court’s Family Panel and had requested to be excused from hearing cases involving same-sex couples based on his Christian religious beliefs. His request was denied and he filed a discrimination claim. The EAT concluded that magistrates must apply the law as their oath requires, and cannot opt out of cases on moral grounds.

January 28, 2008: Jon and Elaine Huguenin, a young Christian couple from Albuquerque, N.M, were tried before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after they declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, citing their religious beliefs. The same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint with the commission, which scheduled the hearing. In the hearing, the Huguenins cited their First Amendment rights, but the commission sided with the same-sex couple. The Huguenins were fined $6,600.

Why marriage matters

2008-12-17T08:48:00.000-08:00

This excellent read comes from The United Families International Blog - please feel free to leave comments both here and on their site.

Also, as a sidenote, I've linked to the Newsweek story that actually tries to use the Bible to support same-sex marriage (something which I think is absurd, personally). The comments are still open on that article, should you feel so inclined to make your voice heard there.

Last night, during a discussion over the absurd Newsweek cover story, "A Religious Case for Gay Marriage," this comment was made, “If gays are legally able to wed, it will not really affect my marriage, nor your marriage.” I was pretty surprised to hear that comment and I fear that others may believe this lie. In truth, if same-sex marriage is legalized it will not only have a tremendous impact on my marriage, but on all current and future marriages. Families would lose important aspects of religious freedom and the freedoms and rights that are given to parents would be under attack if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to marry.

One argument that I have made before is that as gay marriage is legal the freedom of religion is lost. As the marriages of gays and lesbians are legalized around the world, those who are free to practice religion lose aspects of that precious freedom. Sexual freedom trumps religious freedom, this is a pattern that has happened and will continue to happen as long as states and countries ignore that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The various religions that view homosexuality as a sin would, through the legal process, be forced to change their doctrine or face punishment such as the loss of tax-exempt status or other legal ramifications. Sexual orientation would be viewed in the same light as race or eye color, characteristics that are by no means controllable, a notion that the teachings of many religious institutions fully oppose.

Take these 3 cases for example:

February 24, 2000: A professional printer refused to print material for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives because he felt doing so would violate his religious beliefs. He was fined and ordered to print the material anyway. He took his case to the Ontario Supreme Court and then to the Ontario Court of Appeal and lost both times. His total legal bills exceed $170,000.
March 10, 2006: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts is forced out of the adoption business for the first time in 100 years because it will not place children with homosexual couples.
January 28, 2008: Jon and Elaine Huguenin, a young Christian couple from Albuquerque, N.M, were tried before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after they declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, citing their religious beliefs. The same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint with the commission, which scheduled the hearing. In the hearing, the Huguenins cited their First Amendment rights, but the commission sided with the same-sex couple. The Huguenins were fined $6,600.

Marriage matters because of the effect on education and the parent’s right to teach and rear their children in the manner they see fit. It is widely documented that once same-sex marriage becomes legal, it will be taught that it is just as acceptable as heterosexual marriage in public schools. The schools that will be forced to teach about homosexual marriage and parents will be unable to withdraw their students from these teaching sessions. Public schools will, by law, be required to teach about gay marriage. Students will, by law, be required to listen as teachers teach the mandated material. Parents will, by law, be required to stand by as principles that they disagree with are taught to their children. I do not wish to practice “fear-mongering,” the scenarios that I have laid out are real and have already happened in some states.

As a society grows lax in its defense of the traditional family, the goals of the anti-family movement draw closer to fulfillment. Their desire is to create a genderless society that is run by the state – void of religion, marriage and parents. They hope for a pleasure-filled culture with no responsibilities and zero accountability.

Archbishop George Niederauer said in a post-Prop. 8 editorial, “Members of churches who supported Proposition 8 sincerely believe that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is one such issue. They see marriage and the family as the basic building blocks of human society, existing before government and not created by it. Marriage is for us the ideal relationship between a man and woman, in which, through their unique sexual complementarity, the spouses offer themselves to God as co-creators of new human persons, a father and mother giving them life and enabling them to thrive in the family setting.”

MUST READ: The Gay Marriage Mess in Mass.

Steve Lopez column: A life thrown into turmoil by Prop. 8 donation

2008-12-15T11:29:00.000-08:00

The well-known L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez may have opposed Prop. 8, but even he sees the insanity of the No on 8'er backlash as evidenced in the case of Margie Christofferson of El Coyote.

Check out his column, "A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation to Prop. 8," to get the latest on the El Coyote situation.

Here's a teaser:

Margie Christoffersen didn't make it very far into our conversation before she cracked. Chest heaving, tears streaming, she reached for her husband Wayne's
hand and then mine, squeezing as if she'd never let go.
"I've almost had a nervous breakdown. It's been the worst thing that's ever happened to me," she sobbed as curious patrons at a Farmers Market coffee shop looked on, wondering what calamity had visited this poor woman who's an honest 6 feet tall, with hair as blond as the sun.

Well, Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that's always had throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage.
She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of "for" and "against" donors. And El Coyote became a target.A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting "shame on you" at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.
The mob left, but so did the customers.

New York Times Ad Backstory and Interview

2008-12-10T10:50:00.000-08:00

Meridian Magazine had this interesting article about the No Mob Veto ad placed in the New York Times recently. Link's at the bottom.

Violence and Religious Intimidation: No Place in Civil Society

Publisher's Note: Following are excerpts of a phone interview by Meridian 's Editor-in-Chief, Maurine Proctor, with Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, Chairman and President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Last week The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed its thanks for a full page ad that recently ran in the New York Times http://www.nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png decrying the violence and intimidation that has been directed toward it in the wake of California 's Prop 8.

The ad, written by Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, is a project of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a powerful and successful Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Operating in both the courts of law and the court of public opinion, they represent people of all faiths and have stepped up for Anglicans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Native Americans, Zorastrians and any religious groups whose rights are trampled in the public square.

Hasson, who is a Catholic, said, “I think most of my clients are wrong theologically, but I think we should defend their right to be wrong.”

He said that the LDS Church did not ask the Becket Fund to defend it, nor pay for the ad, nor did they know about it before hand, but, he said, in a civil society we must be on guard to protect religious freedom.

Ad Language

“The way we thought we could do our part,” he said, “was to round up a coalition that was as broad as we could, from conservative Jews to Liberal Jews, from believers to non- believers, from supporters to opponents of Prop 8. In the ad, he wrote, “We're a disagreeable lot… Nevertheless, we're united in this: the violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or “Mormon” church and other religious organizations—and even against individual believers—simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop.”

The ad continues, “Of course, when a religious organization enters the public policy arena, it must be prepared for disputes. Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism. Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission. Violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else.

“Some of the violence is being stoked by public statements denouncing the LDS for merely participating in the debate at all-as if that were somehow illegal. The question isn't even close. Participating in ballot initiatives is legally different from politicking for candidates. It is perfectly lawful for charities, including religious ones. It is perfectly appropriate as well that all voices be heard. That is a basic point of democracy: the proper response to free speech you disagree with is your own free speech in reply, not attempting to coerce your opponents into silence.

“Regrettably some public voices have even sought to excuse the threats and disruptions simply as “demonstrations” that got out of hand. Perhaps that's true in some cases. Far too many, however, seem never to have been demonstrations in the first place, but more nearly mobs, seeking not to persuade, but to intimidate. When thugs send white powder to terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous. Those who fail to condemn or seem to condone that intimidation are at fault as well. Consciously or not, they are numbing the public conscience, with endangers all of us.”

Twin Dangers

Hasson sees twin dangers if, as a society, we turn a blind eye to the intimidations leveled at the Latter-day Saints and other religious groups.

The first danger is that violence and intimidation directed toward a religion will come to be seen, not as an aberration, but as normal. “If we allow it, it will come to be seen as tolerable, a tolerable level of violence. It is disappointing that the anti-prop 8 media plays right along. A couple of pro-gay websites have been heroic and have said this is an outrage and should stop. However, many gay spokespeople have said, we have suffered at the hands of religious people over the centuries, you should expect some payback.”

He said that with 46% of Californians voting against Prop 8, and only about 5% of the population being gay, the intimidation could be coming from any quarter. “The point is that religious intimidation is not acceptable and we cannot let our society go there the way that Europe did when it tolerated pogroms against the Jews or the way some places began to tolerate terrorism in the 80's.”

The other danger would be that extreme fringe elements on the other side seek revenge for being so badly treated.

19th Century Parallels

Hasson said that you'd have to look to the 19 th century to see any kind of parallel to the violence that has surrounded Prop 8, which he considers a huge step backward.

What is little known, he said, is that in the 19 th century, the First Amendment with its freedom of religion clause did not apply to the States, therefore they could legally outlaw religion. Catholics often felt the brunt of this.

In Vermont it was a constitutional requirement that all office holders be Protestants. In the state of Massachusetts , the Congregationalist church was the official state church until 1832. In 1854 the Massachusetts legislature created a commission to investigate nunneries, among other things looking to expose the dungeons that were supposed to be secreted beneath them. A law was passed that only the King James Bible could be read in convent schools.

Riots broke out in Philadelphia in 1844 when groups, claiming that Catholics were a danger to the nation, broke into a nunnery, expelling nuns and orphans with blows and cursings, defiling graves and sacred objects, and burning St. Augustine's church to the ground.

A potent group called the “No Nothings” began to flourish in the 1850's, whose goal was to exclude Catholics and foreigners from any position of power.

Of course, the Latter-day Saints have their own stories of being driven, murdered, and persecuted in those times.

However, said Hasson, when the First Amendment started becoming a part of the states' laws in the beginning of the twentieth century, people thought those days were behind us. “These historical events,” he said, “are the closest analogy to the outrage that is being perpetuated in the name of Prop 8. This is not a happy development.”

A Declaration

The Becket Fund's New York Times ad ends with a stout declaration that says they mean business. As Hasson said, “We recommit to be in this for the long haul and to back up our words.”

The ad ends: “Therefore, despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship—Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever—from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve. Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason.”

If you would like to add your name to the ad, go to nomobveto.org So far about 2,000 people have added their names, including some groups, said Hasson, who have hounded the LDS Church theologically in the past.”

Hasson said, “I know we've pricked a few consciences in the gay community and let them see that what some of them are doing is counterproductive to their cause.”

Family Leader has volunteered to collect stories of intimidation, hate mail, jobs threatened or lost for the Becket Fund. If you have such stories, write to Maurine Proctor at maurineproctor@familyleader.net

AbovetheHate.com

Meanwhile, national columnist Maggie Gallagher has written a letter to President Monson, that can be found at abovethehate.com which details some of the attacks against the Church, and then pledges:

We, the undersigned, utterly condemn and reject the ongoing unprecedented efforts to incite religious hatred and bigotry towards members of the LDS Church because, as American citizens, you have courageously exercised your core civil rights to speak, to vote, and to donate to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We pledge to work with you and for you not only to protect marriage, but to protect the rights of all religious citizens, including the LDS Church, to participate freely (without threats of retribution or retaliation) in the political processes of this country in defense of the Judeo-Christian values—and the common good—we hold so dear.

So far this letter has received over 5,000 signatures including many of the top Evangelical leaders such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, Dr. Gary Bauer of American Values, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptists Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and many more.

http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/081210violence.html

Call in "gay" to work?

2008-12-09T09:06:00.000-08:00

According to The Associated Press, tomorrow is set to be "The Day without a Gay" - a sit-out of sorts set to coincide with International Human Rights Day. Modeled loosely after the 2006 immigration demonstrations, same-sex marriage supporters are being urged by the West Hollywood organizers to "call in gay" to work Wednesday to show how much the economy relies on the gay community.

With the economy being in the state it's in, I don't think that's a particularly wise move.

I mean, I don't know about you, but I have no doubt that the economy relies upon gays, just as it relies upon every single minority group out there. It's an intricate and complex system, and minority groups thankfully aren't segregated into certain sectors.

However, I'm slightly impressed that the protest organizers are urging participants to spend the day in community service instead - that is somewhat commendable. It's always good to give back to the community.

But I still think the whole concept is a little ridiculous. I'm interested to see what kind of momentum it gets.

Gay-rights witchhunters win El Coyote battle

2008-12-09T08:48:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm sad to report that Marjorie Christofferson, the Latter-day Saint woman who was raked over the coals by the gay community for her personal donation of $100 to support Prop. 8, has resigned from El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles.

Let's refresh our memories on the scenario. Marjorie, who managed the restaurant and was on its board of directors, donates $100 of her own money on her own time to support a cause that aligns with her personal beliefs. Some of the gay employees and patrons catch wind of this and call for an large-scale boycott of the restaurant. (Mind you, the donation was done on her own time and had nothing whatsoever to do with the restaurant.) The restaurant management invites the gay community for a free lunch and pledges donations of $5,000 each to two gay-rights groups - in other words, $10,000, which is 100 times what Marjorie had donated herself.

But is this enough?

No.

The gay activists, as caught on video, say that they want Marjorie to donate from her own pocket to the No on 8 side - something that is diametrically opposed to her personal beliefs. They relentlessly continue to boycott the restaurant until Christofferson steps down from her livelihood and her role at a family restaurant that's dear to her heart.

Hizzeather, Christa Jeanne and Melissa

Last month Hizzeather, Melissa and I , along with my roommate, went up to L.A. to dine at El Coyote, and Marjorie actually stepped out and sat with us for a few minutes. Although the restaurant was busy when we were there, she said it was actually really slow compared to how it had been, and that the family-like staff were sticking with her, even though it was causing them financial hardship.

What a shame. I am absolutely disgusted by the below-the-belt tactics of the No on 8'ers who will stop at nothing to trample the vox populi on their quest to get their way. It is completely and totally undemocratic and wrong.

Are you disgusted, too? Send the Coyote a message supporting Marjorie's decision to stick with her beliefs: elcoyotecafe@hotmail.com

A Different Marriage Protest

2008-12-08T12:13:00.000-08:00

Another protest at the LDS Temple in Manhattan...

Ryan Simmons
2008 New York, New York Stake Film Festival winner.
Filmed and Edited by Collin Mapp.

I love to laugh, and I laugh a lot. But I haven't been able to laugh at Prop 8 stuff. It's too important of an issue, and it hits too close to home. That's why I am so surprised that I laughed so hard at this little gem. It's a nice comic relief...our LDS audience will especially appreciate it!

New York Times Ad

2008-12-08T11:53:00.000-08:00

Click on the picture to make it bigger
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed appreciation yesterday for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times that decries the "violence and intimidation" directed toward the Church because of its support of Proposition 8. The ad was sponsored by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and was signed by scholars, dignitaries and religious leaders from a variety of faiths.

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times. This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation."

The ad is reprinted at http://www.nomobveto.org, a website sponsored by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. There is also a page on the site where you can tell your story of harassment or intimidation that you have experienced because of your support of Prop 8. You can share your story at: http://nomobveto.org/story.php. The Becket Fund is planning additional action against those who intimidate believers because of their stance on Prop 8 and would greatly appreciate your support: http://nomobveto.org/help.php.

Thank you!

All the best,

Hannah Smith

Legal Counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and JRCLS Board Committee Member

Demographic Winter

2008-12-06T13:42:00.000-08:00

From Kingfisher Column

The Decline of the Human Family

How the road to self fulfillment led us to the perfect storm

From Rick Stout’s Demographic Winter

Of all of the causes we have in the world today, many of which particularly capture the time and space of the media and academia, it is singularly peculiar that the disintegration of an institution as important as the human family should want for attention. Perhaps it is because the family is made up of individual people, and we have become a society obsessed with a focus on the self. Be that as it may, we have ignored this institution to our great detriment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights got it right when it declared that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society”. Implicit in this inclusion in an international founding document declaring universal human rights, is the recognition that stable society’s very survival rests on the strength of this fundamental group unit.

The years have not been kind to this most important institution – the family, particularly the last four decades. Worldwide, families have broken down at a historically unprecedented pace. There are certainly records of how now-extinct societies have experienced similar declines before their demise, but what we now face is unique in that it has a global spread. This has ominous portent.

The family’s importance to basic social structures has perhaps been more explored and discussed than its importance to other aspects of our world, and certainly deserves continued study. What is probably less obvious, and therefore less examined, is the family’s impact on such things as the rule of law, democratic structures, societal and even technological advancement, education, successful commerce and economic structures. Society depends on these in order to remain stable and the family’s impact on them is profound.

When the great social experiments of the 1960’s were launched, and when concern over a “population bomb” loomed large, we did not have the social science and economic studies we have available to us today. So the world embarked unknowingly on a self-destructive course.

Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family seeks to reawaken society to the importance of the stable, intact family, and engender a discussion and greater focus in the media, in academia, in the halls of policy makers, in religious circles, in the committees of civil society and in households around the world. Our hope is that all of these circles will bring to bear on the problems facing the family the tremendous contributions each can uniquely make. In this way, we hope to avert the storm that is now most surely coming on.

Rolling Stone: "Don't blame the Mormons" for Prop. 8's passage

2008-12-05T10:38:00.001-08:00

Wow, did this one ever give me a surprise!

Rolling Stone, which is hardly considered a bastion of conservatism or a flag-bearer for family values, has an article on its site (dated Dec. 11 - so perhaps it'll be in print next week?) titled "Same Sex Setback."

The subtitle?

"Don't blame Mormons or black voters - the California activists who tried to stop Prop 8 ran a lousy campaign."

Ummmm, thank you, Rolling Stone!

Of course, the article hardly condones Prop. 8 or basks in the victory; rather, it continues to blast the traditional marriage folks as homophobic. However, at least in this piece the blame is being laid at the feet of the No on 8 crowd for running an unsatisfactory campaign.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with this stance, either - perhaps the victory should be attributed to people rallying around a good cause in the preservation of family values and faith? Nor, of course, do I agree that the passing of Prop. 8 can be chalked up to "entrenched homophobia and religious intolerance." I love my gay friends, I love that their rights are already protected via CA Family Code 297.5, and I love that Prop. 8 passed, keeping the government out of my family and my faith.

Well, either way, I appreciate Rolling Stone's proclamation to stop pointing fingers.

I recommend dropping in to comment. Here's a snippet of the piece:

But evidence of entrenched homophobia and religious intolerance obscure a more difficult truth. Prop 8 should have been defeated — two months before the election, it was down 17 points in the polls — but the gay-rights groups that tried to stop it ran a lousy campaign. According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote.
"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. "They [messed] this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price."

If you opt to read the piece, obviously do so with a grain of salt - but it's quite the in-depth analysis, and it makes some important points to note for the next battle in this ongoing war of values.
**********************************************

P.S.: I thought the end of the article was also noteworthy - and it indicates why we must, as Winston Churchill so wisely said, "Never, never, never give up." 'Cause the opposition most certainly won't. Let's not ever rest on our laurels, friends!

Civil rights groups in California have already petitioned the state Supreme Court to toss out Prop 8, arguing that revising the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature. The fight has also gone national. On November 10th, the gay-rights group Equality Utah announced that it would draft legislation in Utah to legalize civil unions — a direct challenge to the Mormon church, which claims to support such relationships. And on November 15th, after only eight days of organizing online, more than 100,000 protesters rallied against Prop 8 in 300 cities across the country.
As the demonstrations suggest, there is a silver lining to the passage of Prop 8. Because it succeeded due to the mistakes and mismanagement of its opponents — rather than deep-seated hostility to gay and lesbian couples — it can be overturned at the ballot box. Since 2000, the margin of voters in the state who oppose gay marriage has plunged from 23 points to only four.
"The speed at which this issue is moving is unprecedented in my personal political experience," says Bill Carrick, a prominent Democratic consultant who worked on the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. "Support for gay marriage has moved so far, in such a short period of time, that I think we're going to look back at Prop 8 as an aberration. History is headed in a very pro-gay-marriage direction, and it probably is going to happen in a much shorter time than anybody imagines."

Prop. 8: The Musical?

2008-12-04T09:00:00.001-08:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

One of the latest Prop. 8 viral crazes is this video from FunnyOrDie.com that mocks Prop. 8 supporters, showing them as trying to sneak hate into the Constitution while everyone's basking in the glow of Obama's presidential run.

Obviously you can't take this video too seriously - I mean, Jack Black as Jesus Christ? Seriously? If I weren't devout, I'd probably find it funny, but mocking religion has no humor for me - but it really is unfortunate how the facts of the matter are hidden by the humor, satire and pithy sound bytes that speak to my generation. People don't look into the facts anymore. Goodness gracious! I mean, for starters, the Law of Moses of the Old Testament was fulfilled by Christ's coming, so that's why those nitpicky dietary laws and such are passe. However, homosexuality is categorized as sinful in the New Testament. And, thankfully, we have modern-day prophets who guide the way on the matter, too.

I could go on and on - but I'll spare you.

The video's cast is pretty phenomenal - a TON of actors I really like! Well, they're entitled to their opinions, as I'm entitled to mine.

It's really so blatant how "good is called evil" and "evil is called good" nowadays. I was thinking this over on my commute this morning, when a local radio station was promoting a "holiday hottie" photo contest sponsored by Hustler. Twenty years ago, that kind of filth and smut was hush-hush; now it's paraded around as delightful and liberating while wholesome, virtuous values are degraded as unenlightened and backwards.

Anyways... if you feel so inclined, go comment here. I'm sure there will be far more No on 8 comments on there, so it would be good to get our voice into that dialogue.

An ugly attack on Mormons

2008-12-03T11:19:00.001-08:00

Great Column in the LA Times by Jonah Goldberg.

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

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

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

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

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

The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on election day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

Read the rest of the column HERE.

What is Truth?

2008-12-02T12:55:00.000-08:00

In case you haven't already figured it out, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We are commonly referred to as "Mormon" or "LDS." My Christianity definitely affects my viewpoints on politics & moral issues...I won't deny it. I also don't think that is a bad thing. I know that there are people that don't believe in my religion or any religion at all, so they may dismiss my viewpoint simply because of my religious beliefs. This is a mistake. In this day & age, with the turmoil in our nation and world, we need to look for the similarities instead of the differences. That being said, here are two viewpoints that I agree with, even though they are not given by people of my same faith. Thank you to Blaine Stewart for sending these links my way.

Robert George is Catholic, a McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University & a council member of The President's Council on Bioethics. You can see a quick bio here & here. He spoke in a forum at Brigham Young University on October 28th, 2008 entitled "On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government" where he addresses same-sex marriage. If you feel indifferent about the topic, I doubt you will after listening to it.
Unfortunately the discourse is not yet transcribed. But you can hear it by clicking here and choosing to watch it in quicktime or listen in mp3 format.
*UPDATE - Transcript now available (12/06/08)*

There is an article he published similar to his discourse here.

I also share with you an article written by Adam Kolasinski entitled "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." Adam is a doctoral student in financial economics at MIT. I don't know his religious views.

Here is my favorite part -

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

This is a lot of information for you to process. I know a lot of people have stopped thinking about this issue, hoping that it has been resolved. Unfortunately it has not. I truly believe that we will be fighting this battle for awhile. Apathy will just help the other side. To help us with this, here is my attempt at transcribing my favorite part of Mr. George's discourse -

Our task as I see it should be to understand the moral truth and speak it, in season and out. Speak it lovingly, speak it civilly, engage those with whom one disagrees in civil discourse, open to hearing counter arguments, open to considering the other side's point of view. Yes, speak it lovingly, speak it civilly, but firmly and vigorously, because so much is at stake. Now we will be told by those who are pure pragmatists that the American Public is too far gone in moral relativism, or even moral delinquency to be reached by moral argument. Sometimes they say,"Give it up. Give up the argument for life, give up the argument for marriage. The public's too far gone. They've drunk the kool-aid of moral relativism." But we must have faith that truth is luminous and powerful, so that if we bear witness to the truth about say, marriage or the sanctity of human life, lovingly, civilly, but also passionately and with determination, and if we honor the truth in advancing our positions, then even many of our fellow citizens who now find themselves on the other side of these issues will come around. Don't underestimate our fellow citizens. People are open to the argument. Our problem is not so much that people are gone and sunk in moral relativism and so won't listen. Our problem is we don't make the argument and we don't make it often enough or well enough, with enough conviction, determination.

Now, to speak of truth frightens some people today. They evidently believe that people who claim to know the truth about anything—and especially about moral matters—are fundamentalists and potential totalitarians. But, as my friend Professor Hadley Arkes has patiently explained, those on the other side of the great debates over social issues such as abortion and marriage make truth claims, moral truth claims, all the time. They assert their positions with no less confidence and no more doubt than one finds in the advocacy of pro-lifers or defenders of conjugal marriage. They proclaim for example, not as some mere matter of abstract opinion, but as something true that women have a fundamental right even to elective abortion. They maintain with all the conviction you can have when you are speaking something that you believe to be true, that “love makes a family” therefore any two people, or perhaps more than two people, who feel affection for each other should constitute what is recognized as a marriage. The question, then, is not whether there are truths about such things as the morality of elective abortion and the nature of marriage; the question in each case is, What is the truth?

Please find out for yourself what you believe the truth is, and stand for it.

LDS leaders discuss Christ's return

2008-12-02T11:42:00.000-08:00

My apologies for this non-Prop. 8 post, but recognizing that much of our readership is composed of Latter-day Saints, I wanted to share this video with others of my faith.

Hizzeather posted this video on her blog, and it brought me to tears. Not just misty-eyed tears - no, no, I was so touched, I sobbed silently and briefly in my little cubicle, watching this.

Which isn't really that rare, nowadays. I didn't used to be a cryer with spiritual things, but oh boy, am I ever now! I feel like a leaky faucet. Oh well.

What an honor, a privilege and a daunting responsibility it is to be among those prepared to be here, now, when and where the Lord needs us. How grateful I am for the gospel of Jesus Christ, for the light it brings into my life and for the wise leaders we have who can help us navigate through an ever-darkening world.

The Prop. 8 experience really strengthened my testimony of our inspired leadership and of so many prophecies that have been fulfilled in the last few months. I feel that it was one major battle in a war that will continue to wage between the faithful and the faithless, the religious and the anti-religious.

May we all band together - the believers of all sects, denominations and faiths - as we share strength in our common beliefs. Christ's return is at the pinnacle of every Christian faith, and we all share those Biblical prophecies that highlight signs of the times that we see all around us. It is not a season for fear, but for faith, for strength, for courage and serenity.

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy

2008-12-02T09:52:00.000-08:00

Hi...remember me?

I've been letting Christa do all the work around here since the election. Let's face it...she is generally more on top of things and a better writer, so it has been for the best! :) Thanks Christa!

I'm not usually a Chuck Norris fan, but he wrote this column that I really liked. Check it out here.

Here's the end of the article -

The truth is that the great majority of Prop 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the beliefs of every major people group and religion – that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of their rights – they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

On Nov. 4, the pro-"gay" community was obviously flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened – the majority of Californians, red, yellow, black and white, voted to maintain the margins of marriage between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election, too. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.

L.A. Film Festival director - and Latter-day Saint - resigns over Prop. 8 protests

2008-11-26T12:02:00.000-08:00

The anti-Prop. 8 assault on Prop. 8 supporters continues, and its latest victim is Richard Raddon, director of the L.A. Film Festival and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The L.A. Times reports that when Raddon's donation of $1,500 became public almost two weeks ago, the gay community began inundating Film Independent with criticism for having Raddon among its ranks. Raddon's initial offer to resign was countered with a vote of confidence from the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice.

However, according to one Film Independent board member, "No on 8" supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. He offered to resign again, and the board accepted the second offer.

Raddon issued this statement:

"I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] community."

It's unfortunate that he basically has to apologize for his beliefs; however, gay couples ALREADY HAVE all the same rights. I applaud how Raddon stands by his faith while empathizing with the hurt and pain felt by the GLBT community.

Here's more from the L.A. Times piece:

Raddon's support for Proposition 8 has sparked debate within both the gay community and Hollywood, as many publicly worry about punishing people for free speech, even speech they deemed hateful, and his departure has already provoked ambivalence.
"I'm personally saddened by the outcome," said Film Independent board member Bill Condon, the writer-director of "Dreamgirls." "Someone has lost his job and possibly his livelihood because of privately held religious beliefs. I think the organization was ready to tough this out, but Rich ultimately decided it wasn't worth the cost. I'm not sure he was right."

What a shame. How many more careers are going to be derailed because of bigoted hatred against those who supported their faith-based beliefs?

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

Responding to Karger's claims of "hate"

2008-11-25T10:53:00.000-08:00

While working in Laguna Beach, I dealt on several occasions with Fred Karger, who fought heartily on the No on 8 side as leader of "Californians Against Hate."

Fred is just as passionate as I am on causes he supports, so I can appreciate his fervor, even if I am often personally opposed to them.

Well, he added me to his "Californians Against Hate" mailing list forever ago, and I've just overlooked his emails - my inbox is so glutted these days, I pretty much ignore anything but personal correspondence.

Anyways, Melissa posted about the probe into the LDS Church's Prop. 8 donations, and lo and behold, Fred was leading the charge! I couldn't help but to respond to him personally - and I wanted to share my response with y'all.

It is so difficult when our views are so diametrically opposed to those of people with whom we interact on a daily basis. I hope that we can all continue to respect one another, regardless of where our beliefs fall.
***************************************************
Fred, please remove me from your mailing list. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find it deplorable that so much hate and anger is being focused at my faith when its members (myself included) were joining in the political process in honor of a cause that aligned with their beliefs.

We are in America - we are welcome to our beliefs and should not be punished in a McCarthy-esque witchhunt. Latter-day Saints make up a mere 4 percent of the California population, and half of those are children. While we put much effort into this effort, it was as a part of a broad coalition of faiths and as individuals.

Furthermore, while some may have "hate" toward the LGTB community, I should hope that our work together in Laguna Beach made it clear that I, for one, do not fall into such a hateful category. In fact, most of those with whom I worked in favor of Prop. 8 have no hate for the gay community. One of my best, best friends is gay!

The fact of the matter is that civil unions have ALL the same rights as hetero couples in California under section 297.5 of the California Family Code, and that is something I would happily support in every state. However, when you change the definition of a fundamental term such as "marriage," you enforce a chilling effect on religious and personal freedoms - in effect, you push for a state church of relativism and irreligion. The Founding Fathers wanted freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I believe strongly that we can all happily work together to make our nation the best it can be - without trampling over rights on either side of the fence.

I'm sure your views differ, but I wanted to give you insight into another perspective. I wish you well, all differences aside. Take care, and have a happy Thanksgiving!

All my best,
Christa

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

"We are all Mormons," proclaims Rabbi Shifren

2008-11-25T10:39:00.001-08:00

I received this via email and thought it was definitely worth sharing - enjoy!

WE ALL ARE MORMONS
by Rabbi Shifren
http://www.lawatchdog.com/RabbiShifren-WeAreAllMormons112008.html
November 21, 2008

We are living in an era of insanity! Witness the latest attempt to remake the nature of our country, founded and established on certain principles that have been the envy of the entire world. The latest assault on our country and its values comes in the form of vicious and criminal violence against the Mormon church in Westwood, California

Interesting how the selective self-righteous indignation on the part of the radical Gay activists is played out here: they bewail the blow to freedom and justice! But I thought we just had elections, where the majority of Californians expressed their views in a free and open manner. Are we not a nation of laws? Dare we relive the McCarthy era, where Americans were harassed and threatened with the loss of their jobs for believing in a certain way? If the Gay radicals should have their way, untold numbers of Americans would live under the threat of the Gay-Lesbian "thought police," where individuals that reject the Gay lifestyle would be sought out and have sanctions brought against them.

It's bad enough for those working in the entertainment industry here in Los Angeles, where a fog of political correctness and a bending over backwards to accommodate, even promote Gay lifestyle is in full gear. Let none dare say that this type of activity is anathema to our country, our morality, and the debauchery of our young people.

Let it be stated unequivocally: The radical Gay attack on the Mormons is the shot over the bow against the United States of America. There was a time when what a man did in his bedroom was sanctified between himself and G-d. Now we are being served an "in-your-face" smorgasbord of smut and licentiousness as being between people who only "want their civil rights."

Hogwash! We are dealing with the equivalent of a moral takeover of the country that has as its bedrock a belief in G-d and His promise for humanity. They don't want civil rights! What they desire is quasi Gay/Lesbian hegemony, where a huge "bookburning," reminiscent of the Nazis, will purge any remnants of the "Christian, White, mainstream America" that has given ALL AMERICANS the most profound scope of freedom, liberty, and justice that Mankind has yet to experience.

People have perhaps wondered: why the Mormons? Answer: they are a small, yet vocal Christian minority. They have been selected by the mobs as vulnerable, a group that might not have such massive support among America's Christians.

We who are friends of the Mormons, their patriotism, their family values, will not falter in our continued support of these dear Americans. Let us recall the Christian minister Niemoller, whose admonition during those dark years of Nazi Germany moved us to our core:

"When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn't a homosexual. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Catholic......then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me."

My fellow Americans, in the coming battle for the heart and soul of America and everything we cherish, may this call to arms be the mantra of every concerned patriot:

"WE ALL ARE MORMONS!"

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Probe into LDS Church's Prop 8 donations going forward.

2008-11-25T09:53:00.000-08:00

This comes from http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11064769:

California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) confirmed Monday that it will investigate allegations that the LDS Church failed to report nonmonetary contributions to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

An independent nonprofit organization, Californians Against Hate, called for the investigation after the measure passed earlier this month, effectively ending same-sex marriages in that state.

"They read my letter and I guess came to the conclusion that there's something worth looking into," said Fred Karger, who heads Californians Against Hate, which was formed to track donations in support of the ballot initiative. "I'm hopeful that the LDS Church will cooperate and share all the records and all the information they have about their activities in the Proposition 8 campaign."

Karger, a retired political consultant, alleged in his complaint that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to report money invested to organize phone banks, send out direct mailers, provide transportation to California, mobilize a speakers bureau, send out satellite simulcasts and develop Web sites as well as numerous commercials and video broadcasts.

In the aftermath of Proposition 8's passage, outcry over the LDS Church's active role has included demonstrations outside temples in California, Utah and New York protesting what critics see as Mormons' contribution of a disproportionate amount of the measure's financial backing. By some measures,

Latter-day Saints are believed to have contributed as much as $22 million to the cause.

The LDS Church did not comment on Monday's latest development but said earlier that Karger's complaint had "many errors and misstatements," that the church had "fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act" and that "any investigation would confirm the church's full compliance with applicable law."

Karger, however, sees the fact that FPPC is moving forward as a good sign. He said his political attorney told him the commission looks into fewer than 5 percent of complaints, an indication in his mind that "when they do it, it's pretty serious."

But Roman Porter, executive director of FPPC, urges against jumping to conclusions. He wouldn't say how often investigations unfold and insisted that comparing complaints, which all have unique characteristics, would be inappropriate. He also said an investigation is nothing more than an investigation.

"We haven't made any determination about wrongdoing," Porter said, and he encouraged people to "reserve judgment."

Porter said no time line has been set for the investigation and he would not speculate on when the public will know more. But he did say if the FPPC determines fault, the commission could fine "up to $5,000 per violation," and in some cases might also file a civil lawsuit, which could lead to remedies amounting to "three times the amount of unreported or misreported contributions."

The never-ending battle over gay marriage

2008-11-24T13:57:00.001-08:00

This comes from the L.A. Times' Jessica Garrison:

Proposition 8: The endless campaign over gay marriage

In normal political campaigns, election day -- win or lose -- signals the end.

Not so with Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman that was approved by 52% of California voters Nov. 4.

Instead of settling the question of gay marriage in California, the election merely ushered in a new, and in many cases more heated, phase of the campaign, with both sides looking ahead to 2010, when the matter could be back on the ballot.

This could happen no matter how the state Supreme Court rules. The court announced this week that it would review the legality of Proposition 8 in response to several lawsuits filed by cities and gay couples.

If justices uphold the proposition, gay marriage backers plan to put their own measure before voters perhaps as soon as 2010 to re-amend the state Constitution to allow the marriages.

If the justices toss out Proposition 8, some gay-marriage opponents have talked of putting something on the ballot themselves, either to again ban gay marriage or to oust Supreme Court justices or both.

Read the rest of the story here.

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

Five minutes well spent

2008-11-24T08:44:00.001-08:00

If you've got five minutes, please watch this video, which is beautifully done. The speech from which it draws is one of my favorites, especially in light of Prop. 8. How prophetic - it gives me chills to think this was first given 30 years ago, and what Neal A. Maxwell discusses is precisely the world in which we live today - and I'd like to think we were an example of "wakening a slumbering majority" in this instance.

Enjoy!

For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com

Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church

2008-11-23T23:11:00.000-08:00

(Laura's note: I wildly disagree with this article but am not at all surprised it was in the Salt Lake Tribune this morning. If you feel so inclined to go over there and comment, the link's at the bottom.)

Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church
The campaign offered fuel for critics
By Peggy Fletcher Stack

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 11/22/2008 07:33:46 AM MST

Although they live a continent away from California, LDS Church members Gregory and JaLynn Prince, of Washington, D.C., still have felt the backlash from their church's involvement in the traditional marriage initiative known as Proposition 8.

Their daughter, Lauren, a Boston University student, has lost friends over the issue, while their son, an LDS missionary in San Bernardino, Calif., has had a disproportionate number of potential converts cancel appointments.

About two weeks ago, during a first-ever class on Mormonism at Wesley Theological Seminary, where the Princes have built bridges for years, students pointedly asked them: "What was your church thinking?"

"We are not taking sides on the issue, but the way this was done has hurt our people and the church's image," JaLynn Prince said. "It reminds me of the naive public relations strategy we had regarding the Equal Rights Amendment."

In some minds, the so-called "Mormon moment" heralded at the start of 2008 has stopped short.

Just 10 months after the death of LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, who spent nearly 70 years burnishing his church's public image, goodwill toward Mormonism that culminated during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games seems to have faded in a haze of misunderstanding and outright hostility.

Mean-spirited critiques of Mormonism during Mitt Romney's unsuccessful presidential campaign were followed by persistent news-media reports linking Latter-day Saints
to the FLDS polygamous sect raided by Texas authorities. Now, angry opponents of Proposition 8 are demonstrating at Mormon temples, accusing the church of being anti-gay.

New President Thomas S. Monson faces a daunting public-relations challenge. He follows the well-respected Hinckley, who observers say had an intuitive gift for balancing the church's need to speak out on moral issues with the need to avoid appearing too extreme.

"The Olympics had this nice afterglow for Mormons and, boy, is that gone," said Sarah Barringer Gordon of the University of Pennsylvania, who studies LDS history and culture.

LDS Church apostles declined to be interviewed for this story, but the public affairs office did respond to questions.

"All in all, 2008 has been a particularly good year for the church," LDS spokesman Scott Trotter said. "The church dedicated four temples and announced eight more. Membership topped 13 million worldwide with over 52,000 missionaries in the field. While some of the protest activity we have seen has been deplorable, there are others who have taken the time to fully understand the church's position on marriage and home to respect this principled stand."

Gary Lawrence added his own optimistic view.

"These protests will help us. It puts a spotlight on us," said Lawrence, a leader in the Proposition 8 campaign and author of How Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve Our Image.

"Which is worse -- antagonism or apathy? I believe apathy is our bigger enemy."

Following the pattern » In a 1997 memo about the LDS Church's involvement in the campaign against gay marriage in Hawaii, the late Loren C. Dunn, then a general authority, noted that Hinckley approved Mormon participation but said "the church should be in a coalition and not out front by itself."

In the case of the Proposition 8, which supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, the LDS Church only joined the Coalition to Protect Marriage in June after being asked by Catholic Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco, who presided over Utah Catholics for 11 years. The LDS First Presidency in a letter urged all California Mormons to give their time and money to the effort.

Ostensibly just part of a broad-based coalition, the Mormon faithful soon led the drive. They donated nearly half of the $20 million raised by Yes on 8, canvassed neighborhoods and staffed phone banks. Because the LDS Church routinely asks its members to give time and money, Mormons are "uniquely situated to be mobilized into politics," said David Campbell, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame. "But they only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often."

The Mormon push for Proposition 8 reinforces what people already think of Mormons, he said, "that they have a lot of money and are willing to work for a socially conservative cause."

That image may hurt the LDS Church with a wide swath of the American public.

Mark Silk, professor of religion in public life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., thinks the visceral opposition to Proposition 8 is much more consequential for the LDS Church than either the Romney campaign or the perceived association with polygamy.

LDS officials decided to inject themselves in the fight to protect traditional marriage "in a big money way," Silk said. "That raises the specter not just of Mormon weirdness but also Mormon power as far as cash on the barrel."

Mormons could be forgiven for underestimating the opposition, he said. They likely thought they were on the winning side. After all, marriage initiatives have passed in about 30 states. But California is not an average state.

"People expect anti-gay referendums to pass -- and they do -- but it's California, for crying out loud," Silk said, ". . . not Zion."

Benefits of battle » On the opposite side, are observers such as Kirk Jowers of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, who think the LDS Church actions may help it win friends among Evangelicals.

"Other members of this coalition may realize the significant role that LDS Church members played," and see that it took a disproportionate share of the opposition's arrows, he said.

The Rev. Jim Garlow is one of those evangelical allies.

Last week, Garlow, of Skyline Church in San Diego, was so outraged by the protests against Mormons that he e-mailed 7,200 California pastors urging them to "speak boldly" in defense of the LDS role in passing Proposition 8.

"We were not going to stand by and be silent while there was anti-Mormonism in the streets," Garlow said Friday. "Our theological differences with Mormonism are, frankly, unbridgeable, but these are our friends and neighbors and attacks on them are unacceptable."

The Proposition 8 campaign deepened his relationship with Mormons, he said, and the protests have solidified it.

It is not clear, however, whether the LDS Church will soon jump into another political fray.

"Politics is a tough game, especially at this visceral level where one side is talking about religion and the other about rights, " said Gordon, the Penn scholar. "I would be surprised to see them do this again. They really need to heal some wounds."

pstack@sltrib.com

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11044660

For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com

eHarmony forced to provide same-sex dating service

2008-11-20T14:43:00.001-08:00

The Boston Herald reports that, thanks to a court settlement, the online dating service eHarmony.com will now offer a same-sex matching service, CompatiblePartners.

While not directly a Prop. 8 story, I thought this was an interesting case of how the same-sex "agenda" (for lack of a better word - I know that's painting with broad brushstrokes, but I'm blanking on a better term) has forced a private business to cater to its wants, regardless of the business's interest:

TRENTON, N.J. — Gays and lesbians seeking partners now may join an eHarmony.com affiliate, under a settlement announced Wednesday by the state Attorney General’s Office.
Membership to the same-sex matchmaking service will be free for up to 10,000 new users in the first six months, according to the agreement. The eHarmony.com charge usually is about $150.
The announcement came more than three years after Eric McKinley of Monmouth County, N.J., filed a suit claiming that the matching service violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination because it did not offer same-sex services...
Theodore B. Olson, the lawyer for eHarmony, said the company believed the lawsuit "resulted from an unfair characterization of our business," but decided to settle because "litigation outcomes can be unpredictable."...
Neither the company nor co-defendant Neil Clark Warren — its founder and pitchman in eHarmony’s widespread television and radio ads — admitted liability. Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony agreed to pay the state Division on Civil Rights $50,000 to cover its costs, and to pay McKinley $5,000 and provide a free 12-month membership...
Furthermore, eHarmony.com will post photos of homosexual couples, include such couples in its advertising and post a link to the same-sex site. It also may post a disclaimer pointing out that its matching system is based on research involving heterosexuals. The Compatible Partners site must state that it is affiliated with eHarmony.

Note that while eHarmony was heavily touted by the Christian community at its inception, its lack of same-sex services had nothing to do with Christian morals. Rather, the research that serves as the basis of the system's compatibility testing was conducted with heterosexual couples. Warren said he didn't feel he knew enough about same-sex relationships to offer a similar service.

I like how blogger Michelle Malkin points out that this lawsuit is "akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services."

It's a private business that didn't refuse to do business with anyone, but merely provided a limited scope of services. Someone in the gay community could have very successfully capitalized on the concept to create their own match service.

Should I be able to sue JDate because it won't match me up with LDS men? It's the same principle.

eHarmony has also famously refused to hook a married man up with an adulterous, extramarital affair. Should that be altered, too?

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

What happened to the Mormon segment on Anderson Cooper?

2008-11-20T09:08:00.000-08:00

I missed the first half-hour of Anderson Cooper last night, but my roommate said there was no mention of the LDS Church - and the part that I did catch was just about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case and some (ridiculous) quotes by Gavin Newsom.

So what does this mean for the much-hyped "Mormons pushed Prop. 8" segment?

Well, according to a poster on CougarBoard (and yes, I realize how "reliable" of a source that is), it's been rescheduled to Friday.

My Google searches haven't turned up any more reliable information - anyone know something I don't?

I'll let you know what I can find...

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

CA Supreme Court to hear Prop. 8 lawsuits

2008-11-19T16:08:00.001-08:00

BREAKING NEWS ALERT - Wow, it sure didn't take long for the No on 8'ers to force their cases to the state Supreme Court, did it?

The Associated Press's Lisa Leff reports:

SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before election day.

Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request.

The justices directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5.

Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail.

But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices — six of whom voted to review the challenges — with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

The lawsuits argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority by stripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians from marrying.

"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's 'underlying principles' of individual on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.

The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters.

Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

Anderson Cooper takes on Mormons over Prop. 8 tonight

2008-11-19T13:54:00.000-08:00

Here's the teaser on Anderson Cooper's Web page for tonight's show:

They make up just 2% of California’s population, but Mormons more than pulled their weight in the battle to ban same sex marriages. How they made Prop 8 pass, tonight at 10 ET.

Although I admittedly have not seen much of Cooper's coverage of Prop. 8 for CNN (I'm more of a glued-to-the-Web kind of gal than a glued-to-the-TV type), I've heard that his reports have been overwhelmingly against Prop. 8 (surprise, surprise - after all, Cooper has never "come out" but is reported to have made veiled references that he is, in fact, gay).

Here's a clip from the show last week, when protestors targeted the Manhattan LDS Temple:

A friend made the point to me that we Latter-day Saints should be willing to take some of the heat since we were very actively involved (the fact that I'm out of cell phone minutes on my 900-minute plan attests to that - thank you, Prop. 8 calls!), it still rubs my journalistic instincts the wrong way to hear reporters get the facts so wrong or to be so blatantly biased.

Do we notice that he refers to the LDS Church as "spearheading" the efforts? That's incorrect - the Church was invited to participate in a broad-based coalition of faiths. He also talks about how Yes on 8 had a "massive" ad campaign, but in all reality, the No on 8 side had more ads, more money - and, in fact, more money that came in from out of state, too.

Cooper's guest, Dan Savage, says that you have to expect a reciprocal punch if you go into the public square and "slime people, malign people, demagogue against people"; he also says that the Church "politicized" itself. Again, this is totally wrong. The Church has never said anything that maligned gay people but has constantly encouraged kindness and respect for all.

(PS: Notice how he totally also messes up the vocabulary... not to nitpick, but if you're going to discuss the Church, know what you're talking about. The "First President" didn't have a letter read in temples - it was read in meetinghouses or chapels. I know I'm just being particular here, but I'm an editor/writer. So sue me.)

Savage refers to the gay community as a "vulnerable minority" - this sets the Church up to be a bully. Cooper and Savage turn a blind eye to the violent protests; Savage continually interrupts Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council (and when Cooper steps in to stop the overtalking, Cooper lets Savage finish his thought - not Perkins).

Also notice how Savage rips on the Church as "shoving" this through, and that older people basically are homophobic and need to die off. He even goes as far as saying straight people redefined marriage from being a patriarchal contract to a love relationship!

And then Cooper asks if we're on the "wrong side" of history, and that the majority of young people favor same-sex marriage.

Well, when you've got a liberal education system that has indoctrinated Gen. X and Gen. Y for the last 40 years, and decades of so-called "liberation" that has created a tremendous social experiment that has promoted individual selfishness at the expense of children, then how can you blame my generation for not being able to see the forest from the trees? We don't remember what it used to be like in the "good ol' days" - not to say that every family was like the Cleavers or Bradys back in the day, for sure, but once upon a time, marriage lasted, families were a haven where children were nurtured, and parents cared about their families more than about "having it all." Now people wonder why Gen. X/Y can't figure out the basic traditions of courtship and marriage. We threw the baby out with the bathwater and are just beginning to see the overwhelming mess that has left.

Sorry for that last little rant. Anyways, tune into Anderson Cooper tonight - I'll blog what I can from it!

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

Jerry Brown: Let Prop. 8 take effect - but let it go to the Supreme Court, too

2008-11-17T14:47:00.001-08:00

Ironic, isn't it, that the man whose office is tasked with enforcing and defending measures approved by the people is the one advocating that the vox populi be reconsidered in the courts?

Of course, this is the same man who also reworded its info on the ballot from being the Marriage Protection Act to being a ban on same-sex marriage.

The L.A. Times's Maura Dolan reports:

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urges high court to let Prop. 8 take effect
Brown's office, which has the responsibility of defending the initiative, said it's in the 'public interest' to let the gay-marriage ban take effect while lawsuits are reviewed.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown today urged the California Supreme Court to review lawsuits that seek to overturn Proposition 8, but to permit the measure to take effect during that review.

Brown, whose office is supposed to defend the initiative, said the lawsuits raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court.

"But, due to the potential uncertainty that may be caused in important legal relationships by a temporary stay, the public interest would be better served by allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect while expediting briefing," Brown's office said.

Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that it was a sweeping constitutional revision, which can be put on the ballot only by the Legislature, instead of a more limited constitutional amendment, as supporters contend.

A wide array of groups and local governments have urged the state high court in five lawsuits -- the latest filed today -- to overturn the measure. The lawsuits maintain that Proposition 8 illegally revised the constitution by altering fundamental constitutional principles.

The court voted 4-3 on May 15 to overturn a state ban on same-sex marriage, but Christian groups gathered enough signatures to place Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot. It passed with about 52% of the vote.

Liberty Counsel, which has fought same-sex marriage, also filed papers with the California Supreme Court today and urged the court to reject the lawsuits. The Christian legal group said the court should protect the democratic process.

"The people of California have spoken by affirming traditional marriage, " said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. "It is time to move on. Fourteen words that reaffirm the historic and common sense definition of marriage are not a radical revision to the Constitution."

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

Miracles happen when faiths stand together

2008-11-17T08:43:00.000-08:00

This amazing video brought tears to my eyes! It's from Singing in the Reign, a blog written by a couple of theology professors, and the video expresses gratitude by the Catholics for the Mormons on their shared Prop. 8 efforts.

I've appreciated and been amazed at the great interfaith relations that have come out of Prop. 8. We may all have differences in terms of theology, but when you drill down to it, all of us have a common foundation of a love of God - and a love of our faiths, which we feel we should be able to practice without being labeled "bigots" or "intolerant."

Again, Prop. 8 was about the government creeping into religion - not the other way around.

I really liked this comment left by an anonymous poster on Singing in the Reign:

I have to admit that I doubted the idea that there was anti-religious bigotry behind the No on 8 crowd. I just thought separation of church and state should be followed. Prop 8 seemed to violate that.
But then I saw the ad this video highlights. I was shocked by the bigotry. What an eye-opener!
And then in the interviews after the election the truth really came out--the curtain was lifted and the real hatred came spewing forth. One gay rights supporter told a reporter they were going to go after "all the churches."
Now--and having read more on this--I have no doubt that legalizing same-sex marriage is really just a way to shut down religious groups and force them to violate their beliefs.
I am now relieved that it passed.

It's saddened me to see the hate and vitriol targeted at religion by the No on 8 crowd. They have to do what they feel they have to do, I guess, and I can respect that - but it makes me sad to think of people turning against God so fully, and how that must make Him feel. It gives me all the more incentive to treat them with nothing but love, respect and kindness, since they are God's children, even if they ignore Him.

*********************

As a sidenote, a friend just emailed me this anecdote that shows this same thought:

So I was talking to my mom the other day and there was a group of men from the stake that was down at the temple when all the protesting broke out. (It was our stake's temple day, so a lot of them got there before they knew what was going on.) They helped out with everything going on there.
The next day one of them saw that a restaurant was being boycotted because the owner had donated $100 to the Yes on 8 Campaign...can you believe that! $100. So the men that were at the temple decided that they'd go and eat lunch at the restaurant and thank the owner.
While they were there, they saw one of the big Catholic priests in Southern California...I can't remember his name...come in with a bunch of other Catholic priests, thank the owner, and they all ate lunch. I thought that was just awesome. It totally warmed my heart. I hope it warms yours too.

It definitely warms my heart! :)

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com