Good News For Biblical Marriage!

Even the very liberal CA Supreme Court could not deny the defenders of Proposition 8 (where the rights of voters who voted to keep the definition of marriage as "The Union of One Man and One Woman") standing in the CA Proposition 8 lawsuit!  Here is a blog post and several emailed articles about this development:

California Sup. Ct.: Prop 8 defenders have standing to defend marriage law

posted by William A. Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - 19 hours ago

The California Supreme Court has just resolved a major procedural issue as to Prop. 8, which codified the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage into the California Constitution after the California S...

Here is a portion of an email I received from Brian Brown of Nation For Marriage:

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Dear Chris,

In a huge victory for NOM and supporters of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the proponents of the initiative have the legal right to defend the initiative in court.

This is a major victory for the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund and the lead Prop 8 attorney, Chuck Cooper.

Had the Supreme Court not agreed with the backers of Prop 8 that the Proponents have the legal standing to defend the initiative, it is very likely that the ruling of a rogue judge that overturned Prop 8 would have gone unchallenged. This is because Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris have shamefully refused to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to defend the marriage initiative in court, despite it being passed with the support of over 7 million California voters.

In an email from Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute, she writes:

Earlier today the California State Supreme Court ruled that Protect Marriage, the official sponsors of Proposition 8, have legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision to overturn California's marriage amendment.



In their ruling the state's highest court concluded that:



"...because the official proponents of an initiative are the most obvious and logical persons to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity on behalf of the voters who enacted the measure, we conclude that California law authorizes the official proponents, under such circumstances, to appear in the proceeding to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure."



"The State Supreme Court ruled to uphold the integrity and validity of our initiative process," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Elected officials do not have the constitutional right to essentially let a people-enacted law, or in this case constitutional amendment, be deemed null simply because it was not given a fair treatment in the courts."



In an article defending Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), John Eastman wrote, "we should all be able to agree that a collusive suit, involving questionable conduct by the Attorney General of a state, is not the appropriate way to resolve monumentally important policy or even constitutional questions." Dr. Eastman was right in his assessment and our state's highest court agrees.



The ruling answers the question posed to the CA Supreme Court by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can take the legal opinion of the state court and allow the official proponents of Prop. 8 to defend the law in federal court.



The ruling, although important and a victory, does not settle the constitutionality of California's marriage amendment; it simply states that proponents have legal standing.

The following is a portion of an email from Andy Pugno, who is the General Counsel of the Protect Marriage initiative:

Dear Friend,

Today the California Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY to uphold our right, as the official proponents of Proposition 8, to defend the vote of over seven million Californians to restore traditional marriage in 2008! This victory is an ENORMOUS boost for traditional marriage, as well as the integrity of the initiative process itself!

The Court held:

“[W]e conclude that when public officials decline to defend a voter-approved initiative or assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, under California law the official proponents of an initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure.”

The Court also exposed the obvious flaw in our opponents’ arguments, observing that denying us legal standing to defend Prop 8 would give politicians an illegal “veto” over the people’s initiative power:

“Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters. It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure...”

Meanwhile, this ruling is a HUGE disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists. The Supreme Court completely rejected our opponents’ demands that their lawsuit against Proposition 8 should proceed without any legal defense, and thus win by default! This is devastating for them because their entire legal strategy relied on finding a biased judge to rule in their favor, and then winning on appeal by keeping the voters completely unrepresented. Today that all crumbled before their eyes.

Today’s decision is a critical milestone in our three-year battle to uphold marriage between a man and a woman in California after the passage of Proposition 8. Now we can return our focus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and our appeal to reverse the lower court’s decision declaring Proposition 8 and traditional marriage itself “unconstitutional.”

Of course, this fight is not finished. But as Mr. Pugno states in his email, this ruling is a HUGE victory for traditional marriage!

I thank God for all of the individuals who have spent so much treasure and in some cases, endured ridicule, physical assaults, death threats, and rabidly hateful rhetoric while stepping out and defending the Proposition 8 decision by the voters of California!

*******

I think that this commentator over at Legal Insurrection has a good point:

retire05 | November 17, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps all this is based on the belief of Antonio Gramsci, a committed Marxist, who believed that in order to create a society that was loyal to the state, the family unit, based heavily on religious doctrine, must be destroyed, or at least have its importance reduced. A person loyal to family and faith, would not be loyal to the Marxist state.

Gramsci also wrote that in order to indoctrinate someone to the Marxist view, it was important to complete that indoctrination by the age of 12, otherwise children would start to form their own opinions and be reluctant to accept Marxist doctrine.

So we see traditional marriage being challenged, and courts ruling that schools, not parents, have control over children and what they are taught.

Re: Marriage Controversy - What Can The Righteous Do?

Received a great email today from Andy Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministries:

August 9th, 2010

'When the foundations [of marriage] are being destroyed, what can the righteous do'? (PS 11:5)

Prayerfully fight, with our minds, hearts and spirits fully engaged for the battle ahead. Will Proposition 8 become the Roe vs. Wade of marriage? Or the Magna Carte that allows US citizens to define marriage according to conscience?

As most of you know, on Wed. August 4th, in the Federal District Court of San Francisco, Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop. 8 on the basis that denying gays the right to marry denied them equality under the US Constitution.

What disturbs you more: Walker, a homosexual judge, who kicked off the case's closing arguments two months ago with a twinkle in his eye and a lilt in his voice as he demurred: 'Well, June is the month of weddings', to the delight of the 'married' lesbian plaintiffs who fawned and giggled over their judicial advocate?
Or the tragic truth that Walker is the mouthpiece for America in the 21st century, a nation no longer certain that marriage was designed to create, protect, and raise children in order that they might emulate their parents' example?

Not only was Walker's decision an abuse of power (one biased man defied the majority of CA voters who through Prop. 8 waged and won the biggest political battle ever for a proposition in CA's history), it reveals the fault lines on which we stand as a nation concerning our views of marriage, equality, and personal rights.

Consider this: Walker struck down Prop. 8 on the grounds that CA citizens who were unwilling to redefine marriage to include gays were motivated by prejudice, an irrational anti-gay bias that compelled them 'to believe that same-sex couples are not as good as opposite-sex couples.'

He missed our point entirely. Prop.8 was simply the will of CA citizens to affirm the rationality of marriage. We also affirmed that marriage is not a 'right' given to any two people who want to privately contract a life together but rather, in the words of Robert George, 'an institution that serves the interest of children and society as a whole by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.'

That definition, which has always been the fundamental meaning of marriage across religious and cultural lines, always will be the meaning of marriage.

We must prayerfully fight for that definition to be upheld by the law of our land. We thought we had fought and won in CA. Judge Walker just picked a fight.

To ensure that the Walkers of this world do not prevail, please pray:

For the hold placed on Walker's decision that does not permit gays to marry in CA until further consideration from the Court. Pray that this 'stay' endures until the case is heard by a higher court.

For the Prop. 8 defense team as they seek consideration from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pray for a smooth pathway in this process.

For the case to move swiftly to the Federal Supreme Court, where the fate of marriage will ultimately be decided by one-Justice Kennedy-who appears to be the swing vote in a Court divided right down the middle.

Pray for Kennedy, that he and the Court will hold fast to the true definition of marriage, or at least the people's right to define it according to their conscience.

Will Walker's decision be the earthquake that devastates marriage in the USA? Or the decision that provokes its true declaration: Roe vs. Wade, or Magna Carte?

Let us prayerfully fight together, that CA's Prop. 8 will become a national victory-upholding the true meaning of marriage as well as democracy.

Please join us in our 40-day prayer/fast for marriage, Oct. 16th-Nov. 24th. We know what to do when the foundations are being destroyed.


© 2010 by Desert Stream Ministries

Based on the biblical foundation of compassion, integrity, and dependence on God, Desert Stream Ministries proclaims to the world the transforming power of Jesus Christ. We equip the body of Christ to minister healing to the sexually and relationally broken through healing groups and leadership training for the local church.We invite you to visit our website at: Desert Stream.org

*******

There is a good reason to have hope that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of traditional marriage! Read what law professor and Legal Insurrection blogger, William A. Jacobsen writes:

Ted Olson May Be Too Smart By Half

Ted Olson obviously is a very good lawyer. In the past, that very good lawyer -- and his allegiance to conservative values -- has been viewed by liberals as the devil incarnate because of his role in winning Bush v. Gore.

Now that very good lawyer, along with David Boies, has pulled off a major coup in obtaining a ruling from a Judge who did not need much convincing, that there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage, thereby invalidating California Prop. 8.

The video of Olson being interviewed by Chris Wallace (embedded below) has brought cheers for Olson because of lines such as "Well, would you like your right to free speech -- would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote ...."

There is a logical flaw, however, in Olson's primary legal argument that the Judge merely followed Supreme Court precedent on the issue of marriage (emphasis mine):

As a matter of fact, since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.

We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.

The problem with this argument is that the marriages the Supreme Court has addressed in the past were marriages between one man and one woman, which the Court -- in Olson's characterization -- has deemed "the most fundamental relationship we have in this country...."

On that, the supporters of Prop. 8 could agree. The traditional marriage has been recognized as being of fundamental importance to society, unlike other relationships, such as polygamy, which also have a historical and religious basis, but as to which society has made a value judgment.

By focusing on the fundamental right to marry, but ignoring that that right arose on the basis of the Supreme Court recognizing the fundamental role in society of traditional marriage, I think the legal team opposing Prop. 8 has set itself up for failure.

Olson's argument is something of a circular firing squad. In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society. But, according to Olson, on 14 occasions the Supreme Court has said otherwise.

Hat Tips:

Desert Stream.org

Legal Insurrection

Homosexual Activists Try 'End Around' on Marriage

Homosexual Activists Try 'End Around' on Marriage

by Nima Reza, managing editor

Legislation takes another shot at divorcing marriage from its true intent.

A bill on the California Senate floor would further undermine the institution of one man, one woman marriage.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 3-2 party-line vote.

SB 906 would confuse the issue by renaming "marriage" as "civil marriage," opening the possibility for future multiple marriage categories, according to California Family Council Legislative Coordinator Everett Rice.

California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"SB 906 is actually a direct assault against the more than 7 million voters that supported Proposition 8," Rice said. "These multiple marriage designations would lead to new definitions of each, eventually giving the courts the opportunity to redefine marriage."

Caleb Price, social research analyst with Focus on the Family Action, said activists are simply redefining terms "to suit their purposes."

"Gay activists are now attempting to do an end run around the will of the people and redefine the term in the Legislature," he said.

Closing arguments in the California marriage amendment court challenge, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, are expected this month.

Many legal experts expect the case could make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hat Tip: Citizen Link.org


FOR MORE INFORMATION

Read more about the California marriage debate.

Gay Activists Politically Powerless?

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the headline in an email I recently received from Ron Prentice. It read: "Political Powerlessness in Action." And, as you will read in the first paragraph, the homosexual-affirming plaintiffs' lawyers want Californians to believe that "in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution."

WHAT???? Have you ever read anything as ludicrous as that? The power that homosexual activists and their supporters have here in California (and the millions of money that is collected and spent for their causes) is astronomical compared to what Prop. 8 supporters ever had!

Let's face it. The gay lobby lost - and lost big in the 2008 election concerning Prop. 8's desire to keep marriage as the "union of one man and one woman." The gays need to get over it and call their unions something else!

Here is the entire email:

Dear Friends,

You may recall from one of my earlier e-mails that the plaintiffs’ lawyers, in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution.
When our team of able legal experts questioned the plaintiffs’ witnesses on this matter, they were forced to acknowledge that the “gay agenda” has a bevy of esteemed and active elected officials in their stable of support, including both California U.S. Senators, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Governor, the current, openly homosexual California Assembly Speaker, several openly homosexual state senators and/or assembly members, the current mayors of California’s largest cities and the state’s Attorney General.

By that measure alone, it is difficult to accept the notion that homosexuals are a politically powerless lot. Let’s not be naïve, the homosexual lobby holds powerful sway over what goes on in the halls of our state Capitol.

Further, last Friday was the final day lawmakers could introduce legislation in the current session. And guess what? California’s largest homosexual advocacy group, Equality California, sponsored three bills to further advance their agenda, one of which would eliminate what they consider a barrier to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Senate Bill 906 was introduced by openly-gay Senator Mark Leno, who has carried the gay lobby’s water since he was elected. It removes from current law any obligation by clergy to “marry” same-sex partners and prevents their refusal from having any negative implications on a synagogue or church’s tax-exempt status.

While “divorcing” religious marriage from civil marriage, this bill further exemplifies just how cunning the homosexual lobby can be. In fact, much can be read into Senator Leno’s comment in the Bay Area Reporter when he said religious entities “have no business interfering with the fundamental right of everyone's access to marriage."

Equality California may promote this bill as nothing more than a way to clarify the issue for people who are “confused about the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage,” but what they are really after is a way – any way – to invalidate the votes of 7 million Californians who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Parsing words the way they are with SB 906 is just another clear example of how powerful the homosexual lobby is in exerting its political influence on the rest of society.

On another note, Friday was a big day for our legal team in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. After weeks of work following the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, our team submitted our post-trial briefings to Judge Vaughn Walker.

We appreciate all of your prayers and financial support throughout these trial proceedings. This is just the first step in a long legal battle to preserve traditional marriage. We are now waiting for Judge Vaughn Walker to announce the date for closing arguments and we will have much work to do for that step in the journey as well. We ask for your continued support through both prayer and financial sacrifice during this time as we move closer toward the completion of the district court trial and then on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will keep you informed as we learn more from Judge Walker.

God Bless you,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Monogamy Not Central Feature of Gay Unions

How homosexual “marriage” is intended to change traditional marriage

We heard consistently from our opponents during the Prop 8 campaign that “love is love” and that legalizing same-sex marriage would have no impact on traditional marriage. However, recent research reveals that most homosexual relationships do not share one of the most fundamental elements of marriage – a commitment to fidelity and monogamy. Paradoxically, according to a recent article in the New York Times, some “experts” are now advocating that traditional marriage must evolve to incorporate the values of homosexual marriage, “for the very survival of the institution.”


A study due out this month from San Francisco State University is, according to the Times article, set to reveal that monogamy is simply not a central feature of homosexual relationships. The study reportedly finds that most gays engage in an “open” relationship where sex outside the relationship is accepted as the norm. To illustrate the point the Times interviews two couples: one married lesbian couple spoke of how they have redefined their marriage to include “play” with other women, and a married male couple spoke of “transparency” rules they follow as part of having sex with other men.


According to the Times article, “none of this is new to the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it…They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.” The Times acknowledged that opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is an effort to rewrite societal norms. And in a rare example of journalistic honesty, the paper went on to say, “Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.”


One so-called expert who believes that sex outside marriage makes relationships stronger told the Times that homosexual couples bring a “fresh perspective” to matrimony. The Times noted that these relationships “defy the traditional definition of marriage” yet presented the view of “experts” who say “boundary changing gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage – one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.” Indeed, Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology,” said, “If innovation is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”


Not once during the many testimonies by plaintiffs’ “experts” in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case did a single person proactively make the case that marriage should be redefined to eliminate sexual exclusiveness and fidelity in order to accommodate homosexual promiscuity. Instead, they argued that same-sex marriage would have no impact on society’s definition of marriage.


But this New York Times article, and the coming study, make it crystal clear that changing society’s understanding of marriage to downplay (if not eliminate) the notion of fidelity as a central element is exactly what many gay leaders have in mind.


I don’t have enough space to discuss all the possible ramifications of eliminating fidelity as a societal norm of marriage. The implications for family stability for children, as adults hop from married partner to play partners, and then back again, are staggering. What is important, however, from the perspective of upholding Proposition 8 is that the people, not the courts, have the constitutional right to decide the meaning of marriage, and whether or not to change it. By passing Prop 8 the voters made a perfectly reasonable and rational choice to restore the traditional definition of marriage in California as it has been understood since the beginning of statehood.


As we continue to fight to uphold Prop 8 and traditional marriage, we ask for your support. Our attorneys are working hard to prepare our final legal briefs and closing arguments. We’ve exhausted our available financial resources and we are counting on you and other supporters to make a contribution to sustain our efforts.


Thank you for your support.


Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Protect Marriage.com

© 2009 ProtectMarriage.com Action Fund. All Rights Reserved.

Received via email.

Prop 8 Defense Team Scores Major Points on Day 2 of Trial

Our stellar team of defense lawyers had another strong day undercutting the arguments of the plaintiffs’ experts in the federal court challenge to Proposition 8 (Perry v Schwarzenegger). As our General Counsel Andy Pugno reported earlier in the day the cross examination of Harvard Professor Nancy Cott was “a disaster” for the plaintiffs’ case.

Under cross examination by David Thompson, one of our defense litigators, Professor Cott first had to concede that she is not a neutral, independent expert as she had been presented for people to believe. In fact, Thompson got her to admit that she is an advocate for gay marriage and has testified in favor of same-sex marriage before legislatures, contributed to groups advocating for gay marriage and signed onto legal briefs in court cases seeking to legalize gay marriage. One of the groups that she has financially supported has openly encouraged polyamory as an alternative to traditional marriage. Polyamorous relationships are those involving three or more people who have a sexual relationship within a ‘group marriage.’

From a legal perspective, Cott made a particularly damaging concession that the public interest in promoting the raising of children by both a mother and father is a purpose that is promoted by traditional marriage. She also undermined the plaintiff’s characterization of marriage as a purely private decision when she conceded marriage is a highly public relationship in which society has great interest.

Professor George Chauncey of Yale University was the next plaintiff expert. He delivered interesting testimony about the history of discrimination that homosexuals have felt in America. His testimony included examples of gays and lesbians being jailed for engaging in homosexual sex, losing their jobs and being denied access to public accommodations because of their homosexuality. What Professor Chauncey didn’t explain, however, was what relevance past discrimination has to do with the constitutionality of Proposition 8. As the day was coming to a close, David Thompson began his cross examination and elicited an admission that, like Professor Cott, Chauncey is a gay marriage supporter who has contributed to several groups advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage. Tomorrow, Thompson is expected to question Professor Chauncey over his views that the messaging of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign is simply a continuation of past discrimination against homosexuals.

We have many days to go in the trial over traditional marriage. Today was a very good day. Several of our supporters in the courtroom asked our attorneys to dinner, in order to thank them for their efforts! Unfortunately, each of them declined because they needed to return to their temporary offices in San Francisco to immerse themselves in preparation for tomorrow’s hearing.

I hope that our communications over the past two days have given you a sense of the monumental effort being put forth to defend your vote and preserve traditional marriage. Please continue to support us with your prayers and financial sacrifice.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Also see:

Protect Marriage Blog

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!

Sincerely,
Christine

*******


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.

Sincerely,


Ron Prentice
Executive Director

Protect Marriage.com




© 2009 ProtectMarriage.com Action Fund. All Rights Reserved.

Which Study Tells the Truth?

The following is an email that I received from Ron Prentice of Protect Marriage.com. 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!


Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director
ProtectMarriage.com





www.protectmarriage.com




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

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.]

Excerpt:

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!

A Good Question

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com asks:
Who will be the next governor of California? And where are the candidates on marriage licenses and marriage rights?

SaveCalifornia.com 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.

Hosea 8:3-4 NIV

Hat Tip: Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia via email

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 SaveCalifornia.com, 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 --

SaveCalifornia.com 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.

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.

Levin:

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?

Source:
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.

Origin:
1565–75; orig. uncert.


Synonyms:
indignation, pique.

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

Now, look at this "obsolete" entry at dictionary.com:

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.

Origin:
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)
n.
Obsolete A kind of wood used in making knife handles.
Archaic
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:

Dudgeon

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.
Dudgeon

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

I drink it to thee in dudgeon and hostility.

Sir T. Scott.
Dudgeon

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:

Synonyms

huff
miff
pique
resentment
ruffled feathers
umbrage
bitterness
anger
displeasure
fury

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!!

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

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."

Yep...now 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.

Excerpt:

“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:

JoAnn
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.

Karen
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 Protectmarriage.com:

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 FoxNEWS.com, 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 FoxNEWS.com 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.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice
Chairman
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8


www.protectmarriage.com

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 ProtectMarriage.com 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 ProtectMarriage.com, we wish you and your family a blessed Easter.


Sincerely,

Ron Prentice
Chairman
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8

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:

Quote:

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