Monday, December 14, 2009

The Manhattan Declaration Impacts California

The following is an email I received today from Ron Prentice of the "Yes on Proposition 8" campaign which passed in November, 2008. Since then, many people (especially prominent ones in the Christian community) have been targets of vicious attacks by rabidly obsessive homosexual activist radicals who cannot stand the success of the Proposition 8 vote results here in California. Now that the Manhattan Declaration has been signed by almost 300,000 additional people (as of 12/14/09), the original creators and signers of the declaration are being harrassed and targeted by homosexual activists and their advocates. If you are financially able to do so, please consider a gift to this worthy cause in the protection of biblical marriage!



Dear Friends,

A few weeks ago, a coalition of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars drafted an impressive document which addresses the sanctity of life, religious liberty and traditional marriage, and calls on Christians to answer the clarion call to act on their conscience. The Manhattan Declaration is thoughtful, moving in its simplicity and truth, and has predictably drawn the reflexive ire of supporters of gay marriage.

The Declaration states, in part, that its drafters are “especially troubled that in our nation today…the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies.” The Declaration also articulates serious concern that “freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.”

As the Declaration points out, centuries of human experience confirm that marriage is the sustaining institution for the health, education and welfare of every person and every society. The Declaration also makes three salient points about the need to legally support traditional marriage and the dangers inherent in changing its definition based on the selfish desires of the politically powerful.

1. If the covenantal union of a man and a woman is indistinguishable from
homosexual “marriage,” the religious liberty of those for whom this is a
matter of conscience is jeopardized.

2. The rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs
in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding
recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are
intrinsically non-marital and immoral.

3. The common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its
critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound
understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture
in any society vitally depends.

Where marriage between a man and woman is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. That is precisely what our exceptional team of attorneys is fighting for in federal court right now.

Therefore, and contrary to the core of what our opponents in federal court contend, it is out of love and concern for the greater good of society -- not animus and prejudice – that we forge ahead to defend the definition of marriage that millions of Californians adopted last year.

Since the Declaration was published November 20th, nearly 300,000 people have signed it, indicating their belief that marriage between a man and a woman is society’s most fundamental institution. Opponents have wasted no time going on the attack, threatening to cause disruptions in the diocese of every Catholic bishop who signed the Manhattan Declaration.

Eight days after the Declaration was made public, a post appearing on GayBuzz.blogspot urged homosexual activists to punish Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of the Catholic Diocese of Oakland for signing the declaration.

Please take the time to support our legal efforts to defend your vote for Prop 8, add your name to the growing list of Manhattan Declaration supporters, and share the document with your friends, family and colleagues.


Ron Prentice
Executive Director


© 2009 Action Fund. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Marriage Has Been Preserved in Maine

Nov. 04, 2009
Defeat In Maine A Harsh Blow To Gay-marriage Drive
Analysis: Loss In Maine Could Be Staggering Blow To Gay-marriage Movement Nationwide

AP) The stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage. They had Maine's governor, legislative leaders and major newspapers on their side, plus a huge edge in campaign funding. So losing a landmark referendum was a devastating blow, for activists in Maine and nationwide.

In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine's often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote - a trend that the gay-rights movement had believed it could end in Maine."

Today's heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote. They prevailed in many of Maine's far-flung small towns and lost by a less-than-expected margin in the state's biggest city, Portland.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Read the rest here.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group that steered substantial funds to fight gay marriage in both California and Maine, was elated by Tuesday's result, saying it shows that "that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they're going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage."

Thank God that WE THE PEOPLE are making the CORRECT DECISIONS AT THE BALLOT BOX to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman!

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Cornerstone Of Our Civilization

Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of our civilization. - Congressman Steve King. Be sure to go to the World Net Daily Radio America site to listen to the entire interview. It's excellent!

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Which Study Tells the Truth?

The following is an email that I received from Ron Prentice of Protect The fact that the media would release one report (that favored "strong warnings against therapists attempting to reorient homosexuals to heterosexuality," but refused to report on the fact that "therapeutic work to alter one’s sexual “orientation” has been successful, and remains consistent over time" demonstrates the blatant bias of the press. The article goes on to say, "Therapeutic work, if undertaken, is especially successful when teamed with religious faith. This study has received little to no attention in the media."

More proof that the Lamestream media is very biased. They only pick and choose what THEY want to report - not the facts of the matter at hand. Remember this the next time you read whether or not homosexuality is immutable; that is, can a person’s sexual orientation change? It depends on which study you want to believe.

Aug. 12, 2009

Dear Friends,

Two important events took place in the past week, but only one has found its way into the mainstream media. First, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a report from its task force on “therapeutic responses to sexual orientation.” In the report, strong warnings were issued against therapists attempting to “reorient” homosexuals to heterosexuality. This one got significant press.

Yet at this week’s APA convention held in Toronto, two psychologists released the most recent statistics from their longitudinal study of sexual “reorientation" through therapeutic treatment. This study found that therapeutic work to alter one’s sexual “orientation” has been successful, and remains consistent over time. Therapeutic work, if undertaken, is especially successful when teamed with religious faith. This study has received little to no attention in the media.

While the APA task force issues strong warnings against psycho therapeutic goals of changing one’s sexual “orientation,” another reputable study presents data showing long-term success with reorientation.

Why does it matter? Because the issue of the day is whether or not homosexuality is immutable; that is, can a person’s sexual orientation change? This is one of the critical questions that will no doubt be addressed in the courts of America.

In the battle over marriage’s definition, now moving toward the U.S. Supreme Court, the homosexual lobby proclaims that sexual orientation cannot be changed. In carefully chosen words, pro-gay communications state that gays are “born that way.” They do not say, however, that homosexual orientation is genetic, because research does not agree. But you can bet that immutability will be argued in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case now underway in the federal district court in San Francisco.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is growing in size and costs, and is shaping up to be the legal case that may decide the fate of marriage’s definition in every state of the country. Issues such as immutability, rights, compelling government interests, and child development will all figure in to materials presented to the Court.

The Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund has been granted the right to intervene in this case on behalf of the official proponents of Prop 8, to singularly represent the majority of California’s voters who placed traditional marriage into the constitution of the state. Our committee, alone, is defending the will of the voters. And as the importance of this legal case builds, so do the expenses of top-rate legal representation! Our coffers were significantly depleted in defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 before the California Supreme Court. This new Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal court challenge means we will need to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure that lawyers for gay marriage activists do not convince federal judges that marriage can be redefined “willy nilly” (as Justice Joyce Kennard famously commented of state court efforts to overturn Prop 8) and replaced with homosexual, genderless marriage. Please consider a generous gift today to the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund.

The pro-gay lobby’s claim of immutability is one of the things that upsets the African-American community, as gay activists demand their “civil rights,” likening their “plight” to the decades of public and private discrimination suffered by African-Americans.

However, a former administrator at the University of Toledo brings clarity to the issue. Crystal Dixon, fired from her position as Assistant Vice President of Human Resources for her remarks, wrote this in a column to the Toledo Free Press:

As a Black woman... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.

And Ms. Dixon was terminated because she spoke her conscience, as a private citizen. This is the course that is being paved in our legislatures and courts across the land: those who disagree with political correctness will be silenced by the imbalanced, irrational laws of “tolerance.”

Please help the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund today!

Thank you!


Ron Prentice, Executive Director

© 2009 All Rights Reserved. is a project of California Renewal (I.D. #1302592)

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Study Finds Fathers Crucial to Child Development

No matter what the homosexual activists would want you believe, more and more proof is being shown that children need both a mother and a father for the best development scenario while growing up.

New America Media: Study Finds Fathers Crucial to Child Development


The study found that children whose fathers had become more involved in their daily care did not show any increase in aggressive behavior or hyperactivity over the next two years, according to Supporting Father Involvement researcher Carolyn Cowan.

“However,” Cowan added, “children of the parents in the control group increased their behavior problems in the same time period.”

The research suggests that a father’s increased involvement in his child’s daily life provides emotional benefits for both the child and the parents.
In order to best reach the participants, the research sites worked to make sure the sessions were both clinically and culturally competent.

[T]he study is unique for several reasons: It is one of few studies to focus on the role of fathers in childrearing. It also focuses on the five integral aspects of life: self- esteem, a couple’s relationship, the parent-child relationship, family legacies or rituals, and community support and stressors. Unlike other studies, each group has a male and female facilitator, which organizers say provides a model to encourage shared responsibilities.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

The "Higher Law" Argument Re: SS Marriage Debate

The following article link asks the question, "Why is the morality question missing in the same-sex marriage debate?" [Note: You may need to enter your email address to view the online newspaper. Also, use the arrows at top of page to get to page 5 where the article is located. Sorry for the inconvenience - I wasn't able to copy and paste it here.]


If we are mere animals, then there are no moral laws other than what any group of people may choose. If we are created in the image of God, then there are moral laws that transcend all of humanity. This has been called the "Higher Law" argument.

The author discusses what our founding fathers meant when they wrote the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This section is most important when it comes to the same-sex marriage debate:

They saw it to be "self-evident" that the moral basis for law came from our Creator and therefore certain laws could be deemed immoral based on the premise of higher law.

It is important to read the entire article. However, the author makes his greatest point (IMHO) when he wrote:

There is a world of difference between the establishment of a religion and the establishment of morals based on higher law.

That is truly an excellent point! How often have biblically-based Christians gotten the complaint from homosexual activists and their cohorts, "don't push your Christianity upon me," or something similarly worded to make the baseless claim that we are "forcing our religion down their throats?"

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Most Christians know that we do not have the power to "force our religion" on anyone. A person is called by the Holy Spirit towards repentance and the saving grace through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior! All we can do is point a person in the direction of salvation. Christ does the saving through the power of the Holy Spirit!

The fact that there are "morals based on higher law" is indisputable. Whether a person recognizes that Higher Law or not doesn't make a difference. It is there.

We all know that murder is wrong. If a person doesn't want to believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, too, then he is denying the sexual design and purpose for which God made him or her!

The author is correct! Our founding fathers "were tethering the morals of our nation to a higher law."

In the body of the essay, you will read about the immoral Communistic atheism that led to the slaughter of millions of people in the Soviet Union. When people ignore the moral law set into motion by our Creator which was established by His Higher Laws, then we have moral decay, moral depravity, death and destruction. The chaos that results when reprobate minds ignore the Higher Law's call for morality and righteousness is evident every day in this life. The evidence is seen in the evil, sin and death that man inflicts upon his fellow man when he does not have the indwelling Spirit of God to guide him away from the abyss of spiritual oblivion and back to reconciliation with God.

The author shares what many of us who voted YES ON PROPOSITION 8 here in California already have experienced.

The attack on sexual morality will not stop at marriage. There will be no higher law to stop the next moral descent to the lowest common denominator. There must be something in this life that is much more than common. There must be some things sacred. The moral foundation of this nation is one of them.

Thank you, Pastor Jim Reed, for telling it like it is!

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

A Warning About Vile "Bruno" Movie

This was not the type of movie that I would ever see, but when I read the following email, I felt it necessary to warn readers about this disgusting movie. If you feel led to donate to Movieguide: The Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment then CLICK HERE.

This Friday Universal Pictures, one of the six major Hollywood studios, is releasing BRÜNO.

Based on our screening of it, and the opinion of many other critics, BRÜNO is the most vile, perverse movie ever made by a mainstream movie studio. This disgusting, abhorrent movie contains (among other things) extremely graphic scenes of heterosexual and homosexual sex acts, explicit scenes and extended close-ups of full male and full female nudity, an extended scene of a totally nude heterosexual woman repeatedly whipping a homosexual man in his bikini briefs, partial nude scenes (including full rear male nudity) where body parts are partially covered up with black bars placed in strategic places, obscenely graphic verbal descriptions of perverse sex acts in dialogue and conversations with real people, and images of a male black baby from Africa in a hot tub with white adults who are clearly interested in doing some kind of sex acts with one another.

This movie is going out to thousands of theaters in neighborhoods like yours. Many of these theaters are located in shopping malls and movie multiplexes where children of all ages congregate, with and without parents or adult guardians.

Time is short, so we have to act now!

Studies have shown conclusively that movies like this will harm the psychological development of children and teenagers of all ages. Other studies have shown that almost half of all movie theaters do not card underage children who try to get tickets to such vile R-rated movies as BRÜNO by themselves, unaccompanied by adults.

This despicable type of pornographic paganism and child abuse must be stopped and stopped completely!

The physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well being of your children and grandchildren is at stake!!!

Right now you and I have the ability to notify city managers, prosecutors and elected officials in cities and communities all across the country to ask them to ban this movie before it opens in your community.

BUT, since this movie opens on Friday, you must act now!

Please pray for this project to notify about this disgusting movie. We have many, many communities to notify because this will need to be stopped at a local, not a national, level. We simply can't do this without your immediate help!

Please CLICK HERE and make a donation so we can alert hundreds of communities. Each donation of $79 sends the letter to 200 local District Attorneys in order to mobilize this effort.

Please help us now!

Below is the fax that we have prepared to send. Act now and we can stop this pornographic atrocity. Together, we can make a difference in the lives of your children and grandchildren, and the future of America.

God bless you.

Yours truly,

Dr. Ted Baehr

Donate here.

July 8, 2009

Dear City Manager:

Our organization has just viewed the upcoming “R-rated” movie “Brüno,” which is scheduled to come out in local movie theaters Friday, July 10. Having attended a screening of the movie, we can factually state that the movie contains the following obscene, pornographic and offensive material (and more besides):

• Extremely graphic sex scenes (including depicted heterosexual intercourse, depicted oral sex (including anal licking), depicted homosexual sodomy, and sadomasochistic whipping of a homosexual in his bikini briefs by a fully nude female “Dominatrix”);
• Scenes of full frontal male and female nudity (including extended close-ups of a man swinging his fully nude penis)
• A mocking, sexually explicit interview with a pastor who specializes in “making gay people straight” that is clearly intended to provoke the pastor by crudely offending him in a vulgar manner;
• Adopting an African child as a fashion accessory and “man magnet” to be “in” with American culture like Madonna and Angelina Jolie (then shipping that baby – whom the protagonist names “OJ” – on a plane through
checked baggage in a cardboard box);
• Images of a black baby from Africa in a hot tub with white adults who are clearly interested in performing sex acts at some point with one another;
• Making light of the Holocaust and Jews, including mentioning Adolph Hitler in a positive light and a homosexualized outfit mocking traditional Jewish dress;
• A sequence mocking African Americans and black people; and,
• Explicit verbal descriptions of sex acts.

Regardless of your views on sexuality, or your definition of humor, one thing is clear: the content of this movie should not be seen by children of any age, including underage teenagers. Originally rated NC-17, “Brüno” has since been given an R rating. An R rating simply suggests that theaters restrict viewing by children under 17 unless they are with an adult. However, Federal Trade Commission studies have shown that almost half of movie theaters do not enforce the Motion Picture Associations restrictions, and that one-third of unaccompanied 13-year-olds have purchased tickets for an R-rated movie. Additionally, many children sneak into R-rated movies or get tickets from some sick adult who finds it humorous to flood an impressionable child’s mind with obscene content. Clearly, however, “Brüno” still contains NC-17 content as well as pornographic content.

With this reality in mind, we formally ask your City Council to file an injunction against the showing of this movie in your city, or at least restrict the film to 17 and over regardless of adult accompaniment. To determine whether this movie fits the community standards of your locality, as legally defined by the United States Supreme Court, you may have to require your local movie theaters to screen the movie ahead of time for the Council, or a duly designated committee of the Council, to determine what formal action to take regarding “Brüno.”

Please let us know if there is something we can do to help you in this battle for our children.


Ted Baehr, Juris Doctor
Publisher of Movieguide®

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Shattering Myths

All I can say is IT'S ABOUT TIME!! FINALLY a journalist tells it like it is without the liberal leftist hateful ideology that is often spewed against conservative Christian women who happen to be beautiful, but more importantly, also are great women in wonderful families, with intelligent minds, great hearts, true Christian faith, and hope (the REAL kind) to change this nation for the better.

If it were me writing the article, I would have included much more of the accomplishments of Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska. But I really liked what was shared about Kathy Ireland.

The Washington Times: Opinionated Prejean, Ireland shatter myth
Attractive, articulate not incompatible.


Take former supermodel Kathy Ireland, who is now the chief executive officer of a $1.4 billion company. She unabashedly says her faith guides her in everything she does and that it's possible to be for women's rights and also be pro-life.

Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California and Miss USA contestant who spoke out against gay marriage, says her future includes "me speaking out and taking a stand for what I believe in."

Miss Ireland credits education for another recent change in her life. She says she has always been a passionate supporter of women's rights, but she recently changed her views on abortion.

"I was pro-choice," she says. "It wasn't something I would ever choose for myself, but I felt, 'Who am I to tell a woman what to do with her body?' " Miss Ireland says her revised approach is based on science, not faith.

"You can be an atheist and know it is not OK to take a life," she says. "I dove into the medical books. I said, 'Please show me some evidence that an unborn baby is not a human being.' But there wasn't any. I read everything I could get my hands on. I called Planned Parenthood. I talked to my pro-choice friends. Nothing. The moment life begins, there is a blueprint for DNA.

"Some people assume because I am pro-life I am anti-woman, but that could not be further from the truth," she says.

Sarah Anne Sumpleoc of Fredericksburg, Va., who writes the blog Girls, God and the Good Life, says she thinks the culture may be heading to a time when conservative role models may not be such a rarity. She tries to write about role models on the blog often "because girls are looking for it."

"Whether you are 13 or 30, we all look for role models," she says. "We want to say, 'I want to be like that.' There are a whole lot of women doing amazing things, living what they believe and not afraid to show it."

Read entire article here.

Hat Tip:

Washington Times

Monday, June 29, 2009

Biblical Fallacies of Pro-Gay Theology

Neil of Eternity Matters blog has an excellent post up entitled, "The Sin of Sodom."


The sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah has traditionally been viewed to be homosexuality (hence the term sodomy).

But many pro-gay theology apologists now try to say that it was due to inhospitality or other reasons, but definitely not homosexual behavior. They point to some verses that appear to support their view but ignore many others.

Check out this excellent piece for a thorough analysis supporting the traditional view — Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom’s offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.

Here’s an example of the flawed theologically liberal reasoning. Some claim that the punishment was because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels in attendance, but that doesn’t make sense.

Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels? The answer is obviously no. God’s judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing (”day after day”), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.

The inhospitality claim also falls flat.

. . . are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now? There’s no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense?

Read the whole article and bookmark it for the inevitable objections you’ll get from theological liberals. It is a great example of how to properly analyze biblical texts, and especially so for controversial or difficult passages.

Also see Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, which addresses the most common biblical fallacies of the movement. /quote


At Neil's blog, I told him that this is an excellent analysis! I am so grateful that he shared it.

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason is one of the best Christian apologists of our day.

More and more “pastors” are (unfortunately) buying into the “church” gay activist rhetoric – to the detriment of their own congregations.

I have good friends who are attending a church that did absolutely nothing to help pass Prop. 8 here in California. In the past, I attended several Bible studies there However, while participating in discussion that arose during study time, I noticed that when I brought up the dangers of the homosexual indoctrination issues going on in the schools and expressed the opinion that the gay “marriage” push was something to fight against, the leaders of the study (and some of the attendees) gave me the cold shoulder.

So, years later, when I observed that they didn’t join Pastor Miles McPherson, Dr. David Jeremiah, Pastor Shawn Mitchell and several others in the fight to pass Prop. 8, I knew that they were in the liberal boat along with so many others. What a shame!! I wanted to be a member of that church but that certainly turned me off.

What is also very disturbing is the fact that the church appeared to be very biblically oriented! But on this subject? Silence. Or, more like complicity. I'm not sure what the church's pastor was thinking, but to not get involved in one of the most important moral issues of present day Christian faith is quite disappointing. I would even go so far as to state that it was a sin of omission.

Jesus told us that the signs of his coming would be as "in the days of Lot," and as "in the days of Noah." Please read my previous posts with analysis on why Jesus likened the rise of violence and the increase of immorality (and the sin of Sodom - homosexuality) as signs of his return for his Church.

The Times of the Signs: The Days of Lot

Jesus Said: As in the Days of Noah

The Days of Noah Are Here

Controversy Over Homosexual Behavior Affirming Clergy

Also, read about how the secular culture is bombarding our youth with homosexual indoctrination:

It's About Manipulation

Caught Up In a Lie

Striving for Truth Against Deception

Queer Theology Exposed

Jesus Never Said?

Hat Tip: Eternity Matters

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Redeeming the Rainbow

Received an email this evening from MassResistance. Scott Lively has written and released a free online book entitled, Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the 'Gay' Agenda

I have not started reading this book yet, but I have read many excellent commentaries and articles written by Scott Lively over the years at his "Abiding Truth Ministries" site. I first learned about Dr. Lively's efforts to combat homosexual indoctrination in schools when the infamous "Fistgate" controversy occurred in Massachusetts several years ago.

This book reveals 20 years of experience that Dr. Lively has gained in fighting against the radical homosexual agenda.

You can go to the link and download the entire 232-page book (PDF format), or, download individual chapters (PDF format).

Please feel free to post comments about the book. I plan to read it over the next few days.

Right now, I am reading Glenn Beck's book - Common Sense. The first few pages are already awesome!

A Good Question

Randy Thomasson of asks:
Who will be the next governor of California? And where are the candidates on marriage licenses and marriage rights? does not support or oppose candidates for public office, and provides the following information solely for educational purposes.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the former head of the ACLU of Southern California, former Speaker of the California Assembly, and former husband before his wife divorced him over his chronic adultery, says he won't run for Governor of California in 2010.

You might remember last year when Villaraigosa blasphemied Jesus Christ by publicly claiming that the Savior supports homosexual "marriages."

This leaves two top contenders for the Democratic nomination: California Attorney General and former governor Jerry Brown vs. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

On the subject of respecting marriage for a man and a woman, Newsom was reelected mayor in 2007 despite his affair with a married woman. More than any mayor in the state or nation, Newsom has led the charge for homosexual "marriages" in the courts, the law and the culture.

What about the other candidates? Jerry Brown also supports homosexual "marriages," trying to strike down Prop. 8 at the California Supreme Court, and now calling for Prop. 8 to be struck down in federal court.

On the Republican side, major contenders Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman both say they voted yes on Prop. 8. Poizner also says he's "fine with domestic partnerships and all." And Whitman says she supports the court validating 18,000 homosexual "marriages," and also supports homosexual adoptions and homosexual "civil unions" with all the rights of married spouses.

Second-rung Republican contenders include former congressman and state senator Tom Campbell, who has been a prominate voice in favor of homosexual "marriages" and against Prop. 8. Another possible Republican candidate is Ventura County supervisor Peter Foy, who supports marriage licenses and marriage rights for only a man and a woman.

Given that 52.3% of California voters said marriage should only be between "a man and a woman" last November, will they remain consistent on this point when voting for their next governor? It's a serious, valid question, given that the next governor will likely sign or veto homosexual "marriage" legislation.

But Israel has rejected what is good;
an enemy will pursue him.
They set up kings without my consent;
they choose princes without my approval.
With their silver and gold
they make idols for themselves
to their own destruction.
Hat Tip: Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia via email

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Gay Activist Haters & Cohorts Finally Got Their Way

Why am I not surprised about this? Because the endless, relentless attacks against Miss California, Carrie Prejean, would not end until the gay activist haters and their cohorts got their way and had her dethroned.

Miss California USA Prejean dethroned.

However, they have no power over her steadfast relationship with Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior. Her eternal crown of life cannot be taken away from her. It is, indeed, worth far more than any earthly pageant crown.

Those who have rejected Christ are the eternal losers.

All of those meanspirited people who are now celebrating Prejean's loss of the Miss California title should be aware of what Jesus warned them about "losing [their] own soul":

Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Court Upholds Only Half of Prop. 8??

'An arm and a leg cut off marriage'

California Supreme Court upholds only half of Prop. 8

Sacramento, California -- Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court that some 18,000 homosexual "marriages" are valid, despite the vote of the people to prohibit such legal recognition, has frustrated and disappointed pro-family citizens who voted for true protection of marriage licenses for a man and a woman.

"While it was good that the majority of the justices ruled only man-woman marriages could be performed after Prop. 8 passed, it's wrong and unconstitutional for the judges to permit counterfeit marriages in clear violation of Prop. 8," said Randy Thomasson, president of, a statewide pro-family organization that has been fighting for natural marriage in California for more than a decade. "An arm and a leg have been cut off the natural institution of marriage in California."

Prop. 8 proponents' rebuttal arguments in the voter information guide stated: "Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed." Thomasson said, "'Regardless of when...performed' obviously means that pre-existing same-sex 'marriages' are not valid in light of Prop. 8. Why is it so hard to understand what the words 'is' and 'when' mean?"

"The judges have ignored the straightforward, retroactive effect of Prop. 8, which specified that the only valid marriage in California 'is' between a man and a woman, 'regardless of when' the marriage was performed," said Thomasson. "This is unconstitutional and unjust. The court's own rules require that the counterfeit marriages be declared null and void. But instead of respecting the clear text of Prop. 8 and by ignoring the clarifying ballot statements, the court has gone with its own feelings and its own social agenda in violation of the judges' solemn oaths to uphold the written constitution. The voters have been handed back an altered ballot." Today's decision means every homosexual couple that wanted a "same-sex marriage" last year, got one. The decision also means some 18,000 counterfeit marriages will be held out as role models to impressionable children. "By allowing these numerous false marriages to stand, the Supreme Court is holding out to impressionable boys and girls the unnatural role model of homosexual 'marriages'" said Thomasson. "This is not what the people of California voted for. They voted to ensure that the only marriage in California is a marriage between a man and a woman."

The California Supreme Court's own rules depend on ballot arguments to determine voter intent: "In construing constitutional and statutory provisions, whether enacted by the Legislature or by initiative, the intent of the enacting body is the paramount consideration.... We are mindful that the goal of statutory construction is ascertainment of legislative intent so that the purpose of the law may be effectuated." -- In re Lance W. (1985), 37 Cal.3d at 889. Evidence of the legislative or popular intent of an enactment includes not merely the text of the amendment, but also other "indicia of voters' intent," including ballot summaries and arguments. -- Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d at 504; Lance W., 37 Cal.3d at 888 n.8.

Prop. 8 was approved last fall by 52.3% of the voters. It added Section 7.5 to Article 1 of the California Constitution, reading, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The vote of the people overruled the California Supreme Court, which, on a 4 to 3 vote, had invented "same-sex marriages" in May 2008.
-- end -- is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Feminist Verbally Abuses Miss California

By now, it is a well known fact that far left liberal loons in the media are doing their utmost evil best to viciously spew verbal attacks against Miss California (who was the Miss U.S.A. runner-up) Carrie Prejean for her HONEST ANSWER concerning HER OPINION AND BELIEFS that marriage is, and should remain, the union of one man and one woman, just as it is revealed through God's Word, the Bible!

Please see my Talk Wisdom post: Conservatism is the Antidote to Tyranny, [Note: Now posted in its entirety below.] which reveals the reasons why secular progressive far left liberals (a.k.a. "Statists") refuse to allow this young woman the liberty to express her God-given beliefs without being verbally harrassed in some of the most despicable ways.

Don't pass up watching the first video. It will make the point of argument in the next video much more poignant.

Next, take special note of the video argument between radio talk show host, Laura Ingraham (who subbed for Bill O'Reilly on T.V. last evening) and a self-professed "feminist" - Gloria Feldt - who, instead of defending a young woman and her heartfelt beliefs, instead, disparages her even further!

The following is a copy of the entire post at Talk Wisdom.

Conservatism is the Antidote to Tyranny

Found the following video today - quite by accident actually. It is absolutely riveting! In the beginning, it asks the question, "Humanity, what have you become? When animals become more human than us...there is a real problem. Near the end you will see the statement, "when animals become more compassionate than humans, it is a sign of the end times. Wake up people." [Note: Some of what is written on the screen of the video doesn't actually apply to this post.]

As I watched this video, a thought jumped out at me. The parallels of the attacks we view in that video and what is happening in our nation today between the current soft tyranny of government which is incessantly attacking the patriots who believe in liberty, freedom, conservative values and ethics, free speech rights, low taxes etc. cannot be missed or denied. [Note: A few paragraphs down, you will see a second video that serves as a perfect example of the far-left liberal haters and their attacks against anyone who does not believe as they do.]

I started reading Mark Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto" today. Get this book! It is excellent! I have only completed the first two chapters, but Mark has already brilliantly exposed the differences between the liberal leftist progressive "Statists" and their worldview for America, vs. the Conservative ideals that were the foundation of our nation. I have highlighted so many paragraphs that I would love to share.

Levin explains why he doesn't use the term "liberal," but rather the term "statist" to describe the Modern Liberal in the United States today.

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as Statist.

Oftentimes, a video is worth a thousand word essay. Please watch this exchange between radio talk show host, Laura Ingraham (who subbed for Bill on the O'Reilly Factor yesterday) and Gloria Feldt on the subject of the verbal bashing that Miss California has been receiving from the Lamestream Media and the SILENCE of "feminist" groups (that are supposed to come to the rescue of women being verbally attacked like that).

Certainly doesn't remind us of how the herd of buffalo came back (with reinforcements) to rescue the young calf that was viciously being ganged up on by many tigers in the first video above...does it?

In the following paragraph quotes from Levin's book you will see exactly WHY Ms. Gloria Feldt could not bring herself to defend Miss California for her own personal beliefs (despite the fact that she does not agree with them) and actually jumped on the bandwagon to continue the attacks against this young woman.

Levin's book [with my comments added]:

The Statist [think Gloria Feldt in previous video as just one example] veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon* [see update below] the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does -- whether the Marxist promise of "the workers' paradise" or the Great Society's "War on poverty" -- the Statist [think Obama and many in Congress today] demands ever more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind's existence. Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions,[Obama] what is left to limit the Statist's [Obama and most in Congress] ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray? He is never circumspect about his own shortcomings. Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources. Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority. [Obama admin, Congress, courts]

In the midst stands the individual,[think Laura Ingraham defending the free speech rights of Miss California in that video] who was a predominate focus of the Founders. When living freely and pursuing his own legitimate interests, the individual displays qualities that are antithetical to the Statist's [Feldt] - [qualities like Laura's and Carrie Prejean's] initiative, self-reliance, and independence. As the Statist [Feldt, Obama, many in Congress] is building a culture of conformity and dependency, where the ideal citizen takes on dronelike qualities in service to the state, [think ObamaBorg Bots] the individual must be drained of uniqueness and self-worth, and deterred from independent thought or behavior. This is achieved through varying methods of economic punishment and political suppression. [the spending bills, promotion of abortion with tax-payer money, silencing conservatives etc.]

The Statist also knows that despite his successful usurpations, enough citizens are still skeptical and even distrustful of politicians and government that he cannot force his will all at once. [this is where Obama and the majority in Congress are making HUGE mistakes - because they are both forcing their will upon the people at a rate that makes the average patriot's head spin!] Thus he marches in incremental steps, [well - used to do it that way], adjusting his pace as circumstances dictate. [like using a financial crisis to get taxpayer money for 9,000 earmarks and porkulus spending]. Today his pace is more rapid, [yup!] for resistance has slowed. [NOT ANYMORE! TEA Party power!!] And at no time does the Statist do an about-face. But not so with some who claim the mantle of conservatism but are, in truth, neo-Statists, [like that traitor Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins] who would have the Conservative abandon the high ground of the founding principles for the quicksand of a soft tyranny. [Obama & cohorts]

Mark goes on and describes the fact that "liberty's treasures defy cataloguing." The Statist's scorn for liberty is misplaced and highly corrosive. Levin observes:

Liberty's permeance in American society often makes its manifestations elusive or invisible to those born into it. Even if liberty is acknowledged, it is often taken for granted and its permanence assumed.

WOW! What a powerful point he makes! In fact, this is why I think that many college students were led astray into the Kool-Aid cult of Obamaland during the campaign. They don't study history and know not of the dangers of socialism. To them, it was something knew (that is...if they even knew what Obama meant by his brand of "hope" and "change.")

I have seen many bumper stickers that have the "COEXIST" word accompanied by different religious symbols on it. That's all well and good, one might say. The fact that we live in a primarily Christian nation allows such freedoms. But the trouble is, when it comes to governing, the Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Islamism agenda of the Obama Admin. doesn't so easily "coexist" with the liberty of our Constitutional Republic. All of those "isms" are, each and of themselves, an increasingly corrosive threat to liberty!! As Mark states in chapter 2 - "the Statist's Utopia can take many forms (see above) but they are all of the same species - tyranny." What's more, as we saw in the Laura Ingraham vs. Gloria Feldt conversation (more like argument!), "the primary principle around with the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word -equality."

Now watch this. Mark Levin brilliantly lays out the differences between what the Founders meant by the term "equality" vs. how the Statists use (actually - misuse) the term.

Equality, as understood by the Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equalism, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.

The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual's property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man's natural state and man's perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia. The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrenders himself to the all-powerful state. Only then can the impossible be made possible.

During the campaign, Obama is quoted as saying, "[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation." But Mark Levin points out that "salvation is not government's to give. Indeed, it is not a grant to mankind from mankind. Under the wrong conditions and in the wrong hands, this deviant view is a powerful tool against humanity."

This is what millions of Americans, including the TEA Party participants, are sensing from Obama. They are all seeing this soft tyranny creeping up and are highly concerned of what it will look like four years from now. One good thing to note is that our American history and traditions make it more difficult to transform our civil society towards tyranny. And Mark makes this excellent point:

[S]till, tyranny is a threat that looms over all societies, preventable only by the active vigilance of the people.

Levin concludes the first chapter:

The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. An "effective" government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist,[think RINOS] it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist.

[T]he Conservative is alarmed by the ascent of a soft tyranny and its cheery acceptance by the neo-Statist. He knows that liberty once lost is rarely recovered. He knows of the decline and eventual failure of past republics. And he knows that the best prescription for addressing society's real and perceived ailments if no to further empower an already enormous federal government beyond its constitutional limits, but to return to the founding principles. A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested coorperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity, and happiness for more people than any alternative. Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.

Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny for many reasons. But perhaps one of the most important reasons of all is because we believe, as the Founding Fathers did that prudence must be exercised in assessing change.


Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community. Change unconstrained by prudence produces unpredictable consequences, threatening ordered liberty with chaos and ultimately despotism, and placing at risk the very principles the Conservative holds dear.

Sounds EXACTLY like what we are going through right now...doesn't it?

Liberty and Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin; Threshold Editions of Simon and Schuster, Inc. 2009 pp. 4, 8-11, 14, 18-19.


* Update:

I have to confess, I really didn't know the complete meaning of the term "dudgeon" when I first quoted it from Mark Levin's book. I figured that it meant something like "anger" and "hatred." This morning, I decided to look up the word in the dictionary. It is a highly descriptive word and fits EXACTLY to the situation that readers have witnessed in the exchange between Laura Ingraham and Gloria Feldt regarding Miss California.

dudg⋅eon1   /ˈdʌdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duhj-uhn] Show IPA
–noun a feeling of offense or resentment; anger: We left in high dudgeon.

1565–75; orig. uncert.

indignation, pique.

Notice that the first definition claims that the origin was "uncertain."

Now, look at this "obsolete" entry at

dudg⋅eon2   /ˈdʌdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duhj-uhn] Show IPA
–noun Obsolete. 1. a kind of wood used esp. for the handles of knives, daggers, etc.
2. a handle or hilt made of this wood.
3. a dagger having such a hilt.

1400–50; late ME; cf. AF digeon

There is more! The following entry describes the "smiling Ms. Feldt" quite well as she systematically shoots daggers of hatred against Miss California!

dudg·eon 1 (dŭj'ən)
n. A sullen, angry, or indignant humor: "Slamming the door in Meg's face, Aunt March drove off in high dudgeon" (Louisa May Alcott).

[Origin unknown.]

dudg·eon 2 (dŭj'ən)
Obsolete A kind of wood used in making knife handles.
A dagger with a hilt made of this wood.
The hilt of a dagger.

[Middle English dogeon, possibly from Anglo-Norman.]

The following describes how the term "dudgeon" relates to our current use of the term "daggers" when we use it metaphorically to describe "throwing daggers" in verbal spewings of hate:


Dudg"eon\, n. 1. The root of the box tree, of which hafts for daggers were made. --Gerarde (1597).

2. The haft of a dagger. --Shak.

3. A dudgeon-hafted dagger; a dagger. --Hudibras.

Dudg"eon\, n. [W. dygen anger, grudge.] Resentment; ill will; anger; displeasure.

I drink it to thee in dudgeon and hostility.

Sir T. Scott.

Dudg"eon\, a. Homely; rude; coarse. [Obs.]

By my troth, though I am plain and dudgeon, I would not be an ass. --Beau. & Fl.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source

Notice the synonyms:


ruffled feathers

Did you see that first one - "huff"?? Reminds me of Ariana Huffington! Sometimes people DO live up to the meaning of their name!!! LOL!!!

P.S. Wayne of Jeremiah Films has placed this post (via my Protect Biblical Marriage blog) in his headline list today.

Thanks Wayne! LOTS of good information to read over there!!

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Carrie Prejean - No Compromise, Stand Firm on Faith

What an AWESOME SERVICE at The Rock Church today!!! Watch the video of Carrie Prejean with Pastor Miles McPherson: No Compromise: Standing Firm On Your Faith

Carrie Prejean, Miss California and Miss USA’s first runner up, will appear at the Rock Church during services on Sunday April 26th. Prejean is a member of the Rock family and actively serves in church outreach ministries.

During the Q&A portion of last Sunday's Miss USA pageant, Prejean expressed her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, touching off a firestorm of widely publicized criticism from Pageant judge and nationally known celebrity blogger, Perez Hilton. In subsequent appearances, Prejean has stood fast in her morals and biblical truths, refusing to compromise her faith.

Sunday's services will feature a discussion with the Rock’s Senior Pastor Miles McPherson, who spent time with Prejean in the critical hours following the pageant. They will share the story behind the controversy that we haven’t heard.

Also posted at Talk Wisdom: No Compromise - Standing Firm On Your Faith

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

God Bless Carrie Prejean

When I heard the name, "Carrie Prejean," I thought to myself that the name sounded familiar. While texting with my daughter this morning, she reminded me that they had become good friends while they both played on the same softball team years ago. She wrote, "Mom - check out the softball photo of the team in red on the shelf above your computer desk. She had brown hair back then." I remember her! When I have some time (and guidance on how to do it) I will scan and upload that softball team photo.

For now, I want to share a link to the video of Carrie's answer to the homosexual man (who called her a very cruel and ugly name afterwards in his own video), and how very proud we all are of her for standing up for her convictions and not sacrificing them for the pageant crown.

Miss California loses for supporting marriage between a man and woman.


“Good for Miss California,” said Johnny Franks in The Chattanoogan. She was asked a loaded question by an openly gay judge, and held to her morals when it would have been so easy to “sacrifice them for the crown.” Shame on everybody who booed her—“since when do we live in a pink Nazi society that sensors free speech.”

Some good comments there:

Posted April 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm Permalink
Everybody pray for her, she stood up for her cinvictions, I believe God will bless her. We will be put down for anything against the gay agenda but consider the source, they are serving satan and not God. It is a very different world we live in and it isn’t going to get any better so hang in there for what the Bible stands for and we will win in the end.

John Kehoe
Posted April 20, 2009 at 5:36 pm Permalink
My 18 year old grandson and I watched the tournament, and Miss California had won hands down, but when that flaming gay judge asked that question, and she gave a courageous and correct answer we turned to one another and said she was washed up, because she stood on principle. In any event, I thought the Miss USA pageasnt was on looks and not on politial correctness. When did this change? John Kehoe

james dome
Posted April 21, 2009 at 4:28 am Permalink
She is a winner to God and that’s where it matters. Man’s ways are not God’s ways. This life is temporary.

Posted April 21, 2009 at 10:55 am Permalink
Kudos to Miss California for being a true American, one who stands for her belief in the face of adversity and even at the cost of a crown. Boo to Perez Hilton for being such a hypocrit, not a champion against bigotry. Boo for the Miss America committee who chose the judges. Miss California’s courage will long outlive the Miss America Contest.

Lastly, isn't it ironic that Miss California is getting all of the attention because of her determination to not be "politically correct?" I don't even know who actually won the pageant!

Hat Tip:

Alliance Defense Fund

This post and comments are also available at my Talk Wisdom blog.


Update: A great email letter from Ron Prentice of

April 20, 2009

Dear Friend,

It seems that there is no place left where gay activists won’t attempt to force their agenda onto the rest of society. Same-sex marriage, of course, is at the top of their list.

Last night during the Miss USA contest, one of the contest judges, gay gossip blogger Perez Hilton, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean that since Vermont has now legalized gay marriage shouldn’t every state follow suit? Ms. Prejean had the courage to express her views and said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Ms. Prejean’s comments were cheered by the crowd, but a smattering of jeers could be heard in the background by a few who were incensed at her answer. According to, arguments broke out in the lobby of the theater, with one gay man shouting, "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are." Is there an unwritten rule that Miss USA contestants must hold values in agreement with homosexual activists?

For his own part, Hilton immediately cut a video blog where he ripped Ms. Prejean, calling her a “stupid b***h” and referring to her in language so vile that it can’t even be hinted at by its first letter.

Ms. Prejean was named runner-up in the contest and today there was considerable discussion in the blogosphere about whether her answer might have cost her the title. Prejean told that she had “no regrets” and was happy with the answer she gave.

We’re very proud of Ms. Prejean for speaking her mind in support of traditional marriage. She represented the silent majority in America and expressed a point of view that over 7 million California voters also expressed just last November. In fact, in the history of this issue every single state that has voted on it has voted to affirm traditional marriage.

The outcry from some activists in the gay community over Ms. Prejean’s comments are indicative of how far they will go to force their same-sex marriage agenda on society. Miss California is vilified by Perez Hilton in a video blog for respectfully answering his question, and gay men are shouting against her in the theater lobby. Yet we are supposed to take homosexual leaders at face value that if same-sex marriage were legalized they would never force this teaching onto children in the schools.

Thank you, Miss California, for knowing the truth about marriage and standing up for it, even when you knew that your honest answer may hinder your chances for the crown of Miss USA.


Ron Prentice
Chairman – Yes on 8

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Majority of Californians Are With Us.

Received the following email that I found as quite encouraging in the midst of the recent developments in the same-sex marriage battle:

April 6, 2009

Dear Friend,

We continue to wait for the California Supreme Court to issue their much-anticipated decision upholding Proposition 8. As you know, the court heard oral arguments on March 5. A decision is due by June 5, but could come any day. While one can never be certain, most legal experts expect the Court to uphold Proposition 8. We will keep you posted on the outcome.

Key No on 8 Leader Says They Will Lose 2010 Ballot Fight

In a surprising admission, a key leader of the No on 8 campaign has said publicly for the first time that if the homosexual community pursues a new ballot initiative in 2010, “we’re going to lose.” Kate Kendall, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a member of the No on 8 executive committee told a prominent Bay Area gay newspaper that public polls, including the recently published Field Poll, overstate support for gay marriage. “People lie,” she said. “We're at 42 percent or 43 percent. We could claw our way to 48 percent but we never get past 48 percent."

Kendall, who told the Bay Area Reporter that she does not plan to play a leadership role in the next campaign, said that it will take time beyond 2010 for the gay community to mount the kind of public education effort necessary to convince voters to support same-sex marriage. "The 64 million dollar question is when do we go back. No doubt if we lose in court, the only relief is to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot…[H]aving gone through the draining, rigorous Prop 8 campaign I have a better inkling of what it is going to take and in this economy, I worry that we still do not see enough of actual public education conversations that have to happen. We just haven't had enough time."

Protect Marriage is keenly aware of the need to engage the public in education and outreach in support of traditional marriage. We will not sit idly by as the homosexual community attempts to define the same-sex marriage issue on their terms. We are hard at work developing programs to affirm traditional marriage. Those will be announced soon. Stay tuned…

State Settles “Party A/Party B” Lawsuit

You may recall the case of Gideon and Rachel Codding, a young couple who married a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. To their dismay, the marriage license provided by the state no longer allowed them to register as bride and groom. Instead, they were forced to register as “Party A” and “Party B.” Incensed, the young couple struck out the references to “party” and instead handwrote “bride” and “groom” on the license. The state refused to accept the license and the couple filed suit seeking to force the state to validate their marriage.

When public outrage began developing about the “Party A/Party B” marriage licenses, the state backtracked and decided to allow couples to refer to themselves as bride and groom. Recently, the state reached a legal settlement with the Coddings and accepted their hand-written marriage license. The state also agreed to pay the couple’s attorney fees.

ProtectMarriage – Yes on 8 Campaign Judged One of the Best in America

The Yes on Proposition 8 campaign has been judged to be one of the best political campaigns waged in America in 2008 by the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC). The Yes on 8 campaign, managed by Schubert Flint Public Affairs, won numerous “Pollie” awards at the AAPC annual convention last week in Washington DC. Awards included “Public Affairs Team of the Year,” “Best Television and Radio Campaign” for a ballot issue, and “Award of Excellence” for use of cable television. Additionally, our consultants won numerous awards for use of new media activities such as email, online fundraising and Internet advertising.

The executive committee of commends our consulting team for the recognition they deserve for the winning effort they helped organize on our behalf.

Berkeley to Sacramento March a Flop

In a sign that support for homosexual marriage is fizzling, a much-hyped march of homosexuals between Berkeley and Sacramento was a dismal failure. The march, even though it originated in one of the most liberal communities in the nation, attracted only about 30 participants, according to independent news reports. Organizers had hoped for hundreds of people to make the trek to Sacramento to support gay marriage.

Supporters of traditional marriage have withstood incredible personal and professional attacks since Prop 8 was enacted in November. Countless news reports have chronicled the intolerance of many in the homosexual community in targeting supporters of traditional marriage simply for participating in the democratic process and supporting Proposition 8.

As difficult as it has been to watch the gay community attempt to manipulate public opinion and portray our loyal supporters in the most negative light possible, it is increasingly becoming clear that their efforts are backfiring. Public polls show that support for traditional marriage is on the rise, while support for same-sex marriage is declining. Even leaders in the gay community acknowledge that support for their agenda is over-stated, and they publicly doubt they can gain the support of a majority of voters. Their marches and demonstrations are losing steam.

Sacramento “Insiders” Website Conducting Online Survey on Prop 8 Ruling

The “inside the Capitol” publication Capitol Weekly is conducting an online survey asking people if the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage in that state should be followed by the California Supreme Court. If you’d like to cast your vote in support of traditional marriage, click here.

Thank you for your continued support of traditional marriage. Though the media doesn’t often report it, the majority of Californians are with us. We are heartened in our faithful support of what God has ordained: marriage is between a man and a woman. On behalf of the leadership of, we wish you and your family a blessed Easter.


Ron Prentice
Chairman – Yes on 8

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Keep Fighting for our Children!

The following is a copy of a post from my Talk Wisdom blog. There are several reasons why Christians must continue to fight against the rise of the radical homosexual agenda. The main reason is because religious freedom, and the right to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ depends upon it! We must also do it for the sake of our children!!

The indoctrination of homosexuality going on throughout our nation these days is increasing exponentially now that they perceive Resident Obama as a key ally in the White House.

Here is the Talk Wisdom post:

Have you noticed this? The 'gay rights' political machine is thoroughly intent on steamrolling over the majority of the public opinion that holds to the definition of marriage to remain as one man and one woman. In addition, those who hold objections to the homosexual mafia's continual bullying and enforcement of 'gay' issues almost have the appearance of not mattering to Christians anymore.

But don't you ever believe that!

It is one of Satan's greatest ploys - to get believers in Jesus Christ to care more about being "liked" rather than to preach the need for sinners to repent and apply the true gospel for the salvation of souls.

There are several articles about the current rapid fire of events being forced upon America by the radical homosexual agenda activists over at World Net Daily.

1. Christian college creates homosexual housing
'It's a chance for students to be part of a unique experience'

2. Iowa, Vermont 'marriage' decisions 'aberrations'
30 states have 1-man, 1-woman definitions in constitutions

There are several more to read over at WorldNetDaily. Even Michael Savage, who became a new columnist at that website today, has his say in The Rising Tide of Pink Fascism .

There is hope, though. There is always hope! When and in Whom? It is when Christians and conservatives don't give up the fight, continue to speak their minds which are guided by the Holy Spirit of God. Share the Gospel of Christ and take a stand against the moral decline happening in our society today. Read and study the Bible so that you are properly equipped in this battle between good and evil.

The following article is just one example that shows how persistence often pays off:

3. 'Gay' promo objections get eHarmony attention
Customer confirms refund after opposing moral change

Last, but certainly not least, we can see why this problem is widening with wishy-washy, namby-pamby pastors like Rick Warren:

4. America's wishy-washy pastors

It is just too good and too important to only post an excerpt, so here is the article in it's entirety:


America's wishy-washy pastors

Posted: April 08, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

America achieved its independence and freedom in the 18th century in large part because colonial pastors stood up for biblical principles, preached them, lived them and refused to back down from them – even in the face of death.

The American War of Independence has been accurately called a "pulpit revolution" for this reason. It was inspired by great men of God who recognized evil and called it by its right name.

What a difference two centuries, combined with affluence and the corporatization of the 501(c)3 church culture has made.

A good example of this was on display on CNN's "Larry King Live" this week, as "America's Pastor" Rick Warren did a soft shoe act on his role in the same-sex marriage battle over Proposition 8 in California.

"You know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told," he said. "In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never – never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going. The week before the – the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what – what do you think about this? And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is – really should be defined, that that definition should be – say between a man and a woman.

"And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't," Warren continued. "And I actually – there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends – the leaders that I knew – and actually apologized to them. That never got out. There were some things said that – you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that. All of the criticism came from people that didn't know me. Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we've been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things."

What are we to make of such mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, namby-pamby hokum?

It's a great illustration of America's most prominent church leader equivocating and backtracking and saying almost nothing coherent so that he will offend no one.

Let me lay it on the line: This is not the way Yeshua talked or behaved. It is not the example of the one whom Rick Warren claims to emulate and worship. There is nothing prophetic or biblical or courageous or principled about this kind of Christian witness.

If there is a subject upon which the Bible is crystal clear – from beginning to end – it is homosexuality. Another subject about which no one can misinterpret what the Bible says is marriage. Let's examine the text:

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Romans 1:22-27: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

Some suggest Yeshua (Jesus) Himself was silent on these matters. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, Yeshua said He did not come to overturn the law but to fulfill it. He taught that He was and is the Word – its living fulfillment. He explained that He is eternal and created the Heavens, the Earth and man. The Bible also says God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And Yeshua never contradicted any of the law. He quoted from it. He taught from it. He explained it. He affirmed it. On the road to Emmaus, He gave two disciples a Bible study from the Torah, revealing Himself at the very core of it.

The law, in fact, was the measuring stick by which He was judged perfect and worthy of serving as the atonement for the sins of mankind – including the sin of abominations like homosexuality.

But Yeshua also spoke very specifically and clearly on the subject about which Rick Warren appears so self-consciously waffling.

In Matthew 19:4-6, it says: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Here Yeshua had a golden opportunity to explain any middle ground in this issue of men and women – if there were any.

There is no middle ground on this issue.

Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

If you don't, there are consequences. If you do, you are obligated to take a stand for righteousness. Of course, there are worldly consequences for that, too – for some apparently too great to accept.

Followers of Yeshua have a choice: They can please God or please men. They can accept God's laws, which are not burdensome, and obey them, or they can reject them and try to tickle the ears of men. They can offend God or offend men.

But followers of Jesus cannot find some happy medium where they can please God and please the world. Nobody can.

It's time for America's pastor class to decide where they stand – with the world or with the God of the universe.

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His book "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice" has gained newfound popularity in the wake of November's election. Farah also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

Hat Tip:

World Net Daily

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Gay Activist Lunacy & Selfishness

Gay activists and their heterosexual supporters in California remind me of the screaming and crying types of little children who throw a tantrum every time they don't get their way. I'm referring to the type of child who obviously has little or no adult supervision at home and therefore, totally lacks any semblance or form of discipline. These are the types of children at school who would stamp their feet, pound the table, and call the lunch room monitor and yell bloody murder just because they didn't get their way about something.

Here's a silly analogy. Four children are sitting at a lunch table at school. They were given the privilege of having 4 cupcakes placed in the middle of a table. Along comes a fifth child, who decides to bully the rest because he/she wasn't given a cupcake. So, he/she would rather throw the 4 treats on the floor, trample on them, and see the destruction of a privilege that was already given to the other four children - just because he/she can't have one too.

Are there no bounds to their selfishness?

Over at Maggie's Notebook, I read a post that, at first, I didn't even want to re-post here. However, I decided that spreading the knowledge of gay and lesbian activist lunacy here in California is a must; in order for others to be forewarned.

California To Get Rid of Marriage.

Here's a copy of what is written at that link:


Why is it that I am not surprised at the tactics that Gays and Lesbians will go to force the idea of Gay marriage on the nation. On November 4, 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition 8 which states:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This passed 52.3% to 47.7%. Thus the voters of California spoke saying no to Gay marriage.

This is not the end of the argument. The supporters of Gay marriage are not going to take that lying down. They have a new tactic. Get rid of marriage. No I am not joking.

California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.

Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term "domestic partnership," while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

Read the full story here.

Domestic Partnership is not the same as Marriage. In a partnership, one can just leave the partnership without legal recourse. In a Marriage it takes a divorce to dissolve it. One can have multiple partners in a Domestic Partnership. In a Marriage a person can have only one spouse at a time.

Forcing all people in California to give up Marriage in favor of Domestic Partnership is wrong. But knowing the liberals, idiots, nincompoops in California they will now pass this idea overwhelmingly and sound the death knoll of the American Family.

If this measure passes how long do you think it will be before it is brought to every state in the US?

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. If it was a right the government would have to supply each and every person in the nation with a spouse. They don't. And a couple planning on marrying should not have to go and get a Domestic Partnership license but a Marriage license.

Changing the name of Marriage to Domestic Partnership is just a bad idea.

Hat tip:

Maggies Notebook

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Shameful Sean

Know what? I am discovering that it takes a rabid, radical pro-gay bigot to turn the term "shameful" upon its head! Did you catch what Sean Penn said during the Oscars the other night?

The following is a portion of an email letter from about this incident with Penn:

February 24, 2009

This just in from Hollywood:

“I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights.”
Sean Penn, accepting the Oscar for Best Actor
February 22, 2009

This is the message that was communicated throughout the world on Sunday night during the Academy Award show by Hollywood liberals, including their “best actor” Sean Penn.

In fact, viewers weren’t two categories into the awards show when a gay screen writer bashed the Mormon Church, as much as said that supporters of Prop 8 are hateful bigots and promised that, soon, gays would have the right to marry. He even promised that the Obama Administration would make sure gays could marry “federally.” That brought a big round of applause.

It is perhaps not surprising that Hollywood liberals would use their “awards” show to campaign in favor of gay marriage. After all, many of these same liberals donated or raised millions of dollars to attempt to defeat Proposition 8.

What is perhaps surprising is their brazen attempt to influence public opinion against traditional marriage by manipulating people into thinking that this is a “human rights” issue, or a “civil rights” issue, or even an “equal rights” issue. What they don’t tell people is that gay couples in domestic partnerships in California already have equal rights! Gay domestic partners in California enjoy the same legal rights as married spouses.

Liberal Hollywood activists like Sean Penn know a thing or two about reaching audiences. They make millions – tens of millions – learning how to connect with an audience. One audience they no doubt hoped to influence on Sunday night was the California Supreme Court, which is hearing challenges to invalidate Prop 8 in just ten days. Another audience probably watched the show from the upstairs of the White House in Washington. Still another audience is made up of voters here in California, enough of the 7 million of whom they hope to shame into repudiating their votes cast in favor of traditional marriage the next time the issue is on the ballot. Traditional marriage has served society well, and there are many sound reasons why people support one man, one woman marriage – including continuing the best institution to give children both a mother and a father. Prop 8 wasn’t an attack on gay couples, it was an affirmation of traditional marriage – but you didn’t hear that at the Academy Awards. has made very powerful, legally sound arguments in our briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Our attorneys, including former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, are working hard to prepare to present these arguments directly to the justices on March 5 when the challenges to Prop 8 will be heard. We think that attempts to campaign to get the attention of judges, like we saw from Hollywood the other night, will fall on deaf ears. We are confident that the Court will decide the Prop 8 cases strictly on the law, and we have the law on our side.

However, we must also be mindful of the incessant effort from Hollywood and gay activists to portray our support of Prop 8 in hateful, negative terms. From the protests that have been orchestrated against Proposition 8, to the “outing” of countless donors to our campaign, to the violence and vandalism of our churches, supporters of traditional marriage have been subjected to a carefully orchestrated attempt to erode public support and intimidate our donors and volunteers. It’s time that we fought back, and intends to do just that! /QUOTE


As I stated in a reply to an anonymous commenter in a previous comment thread - FIND YOUR OWN NAME for gay unions! Hey - THAT'S IT! Call them "gay unions" and stop all of this nonsense and attempts to re-define marriage for everyone else! Just because YOU want it re-defined DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE!