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.

'Gay' Judge Who Overturned Prop 8 Quitting

Good news here in California regarding the ongoing battle to keep marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman! 'Gay' judge who overturned Prop 8 quitting
Vaughn Walker's decision reversed votes of more than 7 million

Excerpt:

The homosexual federal judge in California who said that gender "no longer forms an essential part of marriage" when he ruled that voters in the state were constitutionally prohibited from defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is quitting.

The announcement regarding U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker comes from Rich Wieking, clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The announcement, released late yesterday, said Walker will step down as chief judge Dec. 31 and leave the court entirely in February 2011.

The change could create huge new possibilities should the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Prop 8 case now is pending, return any or all of the case to the lower court for further action, which is not unusual for the much-overturned appellate district.

Matthew McReynolds, counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, one of the many pro-family organizations that have worked on the Prop 8 case, said it's about time.

"The retirement of Judge Walker is significant because of the possibility the Prop 8 case will be sent back to the district court at some point," he said. "Judge Walker's exit from the federal bench can't come soon enough for the people of California, who are still reeling from his pronouncement that the majority of voters are irrational."

Walker, whose homosexual lifestyle has been documented locally, wrote in his opinion that overturned the votes of millions of California residents to amend the state constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage, that:


* "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."


* "Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."


* "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment."


* "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes."


* "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."


* "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."

Continue reading HERE

Hat Tip:

WorldNetDaily

Prop. 8 Lawsuit is Attack Against Natural Marriage & Our Republic

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE
June 16, 2010 -- For Immediate Release

Randy Thomasson’s comment on Prop. 8 Closing Arguments
“The lawsuit against Prop. 8 by Ted Olson and David Boies is more than an attack against natural marriage, it’s an attack against our republic and our democracy.”

WATCH: Randy Thomasson's comments on News10 Sacramento 6/16/10

Sacramento, California – California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, issued the following statement about closing arguments in San Francisco today in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment that reserved marriage licenses for “a man and a woman”:

“The lawsuit against Prop. 8 by Ted Olson and David Boies is more than an attack against natural marriage, it’s an attack against our republic and our democracy. Our republic, because a judge took this case and made a circus out of it, despite the word ‘marriage’ not being in the U.S. Constitution and the Tenth Amendment protecting states’ rights to define marriage. Our democracy, because the voters of California have twice passed ballot measures defining marriage, even defining marriage in the California Constitution. If the federal courts strike down Prop. 8, they will have declared war on the voters in 30 states that have defined marriage in their state constitutions.

"What will be the outcome of this case? Judge Walker, a homosexual himself, has been demanding answers to questions about issues that are not in the written federal or state constitutions, but are designed to set up the federal courts to unscientifically declare homosexuality an 'immutable' class, like race or sex. Doing this dirty judicial deed would trample religious freedom and free speech, which is specifically enshrined in the First Amendment.

“This kangaroo court is a public relations coup for homosexual-marriage advocates, who want to keep their ‘gay marriage’ drum beating loudly in hopes of stirring up donors and volunteers to reverse Prop. 8 on the ballot in 2012 or 2014. But it won’t work, because the natural, beautiful relationship of a man and a woman, united in marriage, is a standard indelibly etched on the human heart.”

-- end --

Randy Thomasson and SaveCalifornia.com are not party to the Prop. 8 case. Randy Thomasson has been defending marriage licenses and marriage rights for one man and one woman throughout California since 1994.

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.

Hat Tip:

Save California.com

Marriage: The Image of God

Recently, I shared the following link to Pastor Miles McPherson's awesome sermon on "Marriage: The Image of God" with a Facebook friend. I decided to watch the sermon again. It was originally presented back in February, 2008. Pastor Miles and several pastors from other Christian churches in the area actively encouraged people to sign the petition to get Proposition 8 on the ballot in November, 2008, and he visited churches as a guest speaker all around California to let Christians know how important it was to vote YES on Proposition 8. . As we all know, the measure made the ballot and was passed by the people of California. The majority of voters wanted marriage to remain defined as the union of one man and one woman.

If you are encountering opposition to such beliefs (especially if the opposition is coming from the liberal leftist churches), then you need to watch this sermon and find out exactly why God's plan for marriage is, was, and always will be defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Pastor Miles spells out why any other type of union (particularly homosexual unions) is a perversion of God's plan for marriage. God invented marriage! NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Therefore, government should not be twisting God's plan for the marriage covenant.

If you feel led to share your thoughts after viewing the video message, I encourage you to do so.

God Bless!

Christine

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)

Cartoon of Liberal Hypocrisy

While visiting a blog called Kevin's Korner I found this great cartoon of liberal leftist hypocrisy. Could not resist posting it here!




Hat Tips:

Kevin's Korner

World Magazine

Suit Filed to Prevent Harassment - Prop. 8 YES Voters

It's certainly about time for this!!! Should have been done a long time ago! The homosexual agenda radicals have been thoroughly abusive in so many ways. They have shown their true colors when they lose: NO TOLERANCE. At least this is a step in the right direction to correct their illegal harassment of voters with whom they disagree.

ADF attorneys file suit to stop harassment of Calif. marriage amendment supporters

ProtectMarriage.com suit challenges campaign finance law’s requirement to publicly disclose identity and employer of donors giving as little as $100


SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys together with ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California to prevent harassment of citizens who gave as little as $100 to support Proposition 8. The lawsuit documents incidents of harassment and retaliation by opponents who have targeted Proposition 8 supporters after their identities and employers were made public by the state as required by California campaign finance law.

“Putting the names and employers of the people who supported Proposition 8 on the Internet for anyone to see has caused serious problems. No one should worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes,” said James Bopp, Jr., lead attorney for the supporters of Proposition 8. “This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats.”


In November, over 7 million Californians approved Proposition 8. Under a California law, people who gave money to support Proposition 8 had their names, employers, and other personal information listed on the Web site of the Secretary of State of California.

After Proposition 8 passed, people who did not support Proposition 8 used the list of names to go after people who supported Proposition 8. Some people who supported Proposition 8 had their homes and churches vandalized, were forced to resign their jobs, and were even threatened with violence and death. To stop this harassment and these threats, this lawsuit asks the court to stop the release of the names and personal information of people who gave money to support Proposition 8.


“Our laws should ensure free participation in the democratic process, and not result in compromising the free speech and association rights of guaranteed to all Americans,” said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler, who is serving as local counsel in the case. “Citizens shouldn’t have to choose between being involved in the democratic process and subjecting themselves to acts of vengeance.”

The lawsuit challenges parts of California’s campaign finance laws that require people who donate as little as $100 to have personal information revealed on the Internet as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The lawsuit also challenges parts of the campaign finance laws that require reporting of donations after a proposition has been voted on as unconstitutional.


A copy of the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, in the lawsuit ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ProtectMarriageComplaint.pdf.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

CA Justices Recall Threat

Obviously, an LA Times blog would word such a post differently than I would. My choice of a title would have been, "Traditional marriage supporters threaten to recall California Supreme Court justices." Anyway, here's the post:

Gay marriage foes threaten to recall California Supreme Court justices
11:45 PM, November 19, 2008
Last week, the aggressive tactics of Prop. 8 opponents -- street protests, boycotts of business -- made headlines. This week, it appears that backers of the ban on gay marriage are the ones making threats. Yes on 8 forces are talking about a recall against members of the California Supreme Court if they throw out the measure.

To some, the recall talk marks another increase in the post-election battle and a response to the No on 8 protests:

"This push-back in the last two weeks has actually mobilized the Yes on 8 people," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. If the California Supreme Court were to overturn Proposition 8, "you will see a mobilized group like you have never seen in the state of California." Rodriguez said in an interview Tuesday that some religious leaders are discussing a potential recall of Supreme Court justices. He expects the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, and if that happens, "there are grounds for a recall. We saw that with Gray Davis," he said. "We have an oligarchy, an oligarchy in judges' role in the state of California."

Remember the Gray Davis recall? Well, one of the figures behind it thinks a Prop. 8 recall effort if the justices toss the measure out is a real possibility. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune:

If that happens, watch out for a "barn-burner of an election -- the biggest thing this state has ever seen," says recall election guru Ted Costa. Costa says he's already been contacted by some of the folks who would seek to recall Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno if Prop. 8 is scrapped. He thinks it's premature and risky because talk of a recall "would just (bleep) off the judges." Costa also doesn't sound like he's too thrilled about such a recall, saying it wouldn't be "healthy." Citing all the financial turmoil in California, he said, "If someone's going to do some recalling, that should be the focus."

When it comes to judicial recalls, one woman's name says it all. And Jon Fleischman utters it: "No government official is immune from the voters’ will, whether they be in the executive, legislative or, yes, even in the judicial branch. Remember Rose Bird?"

-- Shelby Grad

HT: LA Times Blogs

Battle for Marriage Continues

The Battle for Marriage Has Just Begun

November 4th was a pivotal moment in America's history: Californians held their government accountable by passing Proposition 8. For the second time in eight years, Californians decided that the government may not redefine marriage for its citizens. However, despite our convincing victory, 52% to 48%, radical homosexual activists have reacted with anger and renewed determination. In the last week since the election, several cities have seen protests by opponents of Proposition 8. Churches have been vandalized, church goers have been bullied.


This type of furry-fueled protestation only hurts their cause as average citizens are alarmed at the sight of church vandalism and intimidation of the religious community. In fact, this response proves the point that their political agenda will be imposed against the public's will-using the government as their tool to achieve their goals.

And now government officials are aligning against the very people they were elected to represent and serve.


Although Governor Schwarzenegger publicly opposed Proposition 8 from the beginning, he is now encouraging the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, just as they overturned Proposition 22.

This position is in direct contradiction to his previous position on this issue. Both times same-sex marriage legislation has come to his desk, he has vetoed it. In 2005, he vetoed the bill "out of respect for the will of the people" expressed through Proposition 22's passage. In fact, his spokesperson explained that "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state." Well, the court overturned Proposition 22 and then the people overrode the court. Californians have clearly decided in favor of preserving traditional marriage.


Now state lawmakers are also trying to overturn the will of the people by submitting amicus briefs in homosexual lawsuits against Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg announced this week that they and 44 other state lawmakers sent a friend-of-the-court brief expressing their support for overturning Proposition 8. Another lawsuit was brought ealrier this year to prevent Proposition 8 from appearing on the ballot, but it was denied by the court. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger stated his position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote." Yet the legislature and the governor are trying to derail the will of the people.


Governor Schwarzenegger owes the people of California an apology for his duplicitous positions on such an important issue as preserving marriage. State lawmakers must be held accountable for their willful attempts to subvert the will of the people.

Citizens should call Governor Schwarzenegger and lawmakers to express their outrage over this blatant assault on the initiative process.

Less than a week after the election, government officials are trying undo it.


Although past court decisions seem to favor our case, we cannot trust the same judicial system that overturned Proposition 22 to protect our Election Day decision.

We must remain active and hold our government officials accountable. This battle is far from over. Join us as we continue to push forward in our defense of marriage!


PS
In addition to calling the governor and lawmakers to remind them that we the people are their bosses-not vice versa-there is another action item. California Musical Theater official Scott Eckern is on the verge of losing this job because he donated money to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. Homosexual activists are demanding his termination for making a financial contribution to a cause he morally supports. What is truly outrageous is that this man could lose his job for expressing his religious and moral beliefs. To try and counter the negative publicity, Eckern has given an equal donation to the radical homosexual group Human Rights Campaign. Please contact the California Musical Theater about Mr. Eckern's ability to express his political beliefs without being punished.



HT: Email From Karen England of Yes on Proposition 8.com

Restoring Marriage in California!

Praise God for the victory of restoring marriage in California as being as He intends, and has stated in His Word: the union of one man and one woman!

Fox News has reported that California voters passed Proposition 8, overturning a state Supreme Court decision that granted gay couples the right to wed months ago.

Of course, the war of good against evil continues.

Within moments of the announcement that YES on Proposition 8 passed here in California, The San Francisco City Attorney's office says he plans to challenge the validity of the ballot measure that would change the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Although the presidential election results lead me to mourn for this nation, I praise God that He is still on the throne of heaven. Through prayer, fasting and work, thousands of the faithful in Jesus Christ had their pleadings and prayers to restore marriage here in California answered!

This decision will stave off what would have been a tsunami of liberal judge rulings across our nation to force same-sex marriage upon an electorate that does not want the definition of marriage changed by judicial fiat!

Praise Jesus!

Christine

P.S. - Just a note to anyone who happens to visit here and is mourning this decision. You will not have your right to have a CIVIL UNION with your same-sex partner as a result of this decision. It will just have to be called something else - not marriage.

Those who tried to call our position "hate" - listen up. This was NOT done to hurt you or your partners. I have attended many church functions that spelled out the necessity of preserving biblical marriage.

Christians who believe and follow God's Word rose up in droves to say, "homosexual activists and your supporters (including radical liberal rogue judges) - you have gone to far."

I am asking each of you for tolerance and respect towards those who have voted to restore the traditional, thousands-of-years-old, definition and meaning of marriage here in California. Tolerance is not a one-way street - although the homosexual lobby wants to make it seem that way.

One last point. Those who voted YES ON PROPOSITION 8 are not "bigots." The Christians who follow God's Word know this. It is time that the public realizes this, too.

To those who refuse to show tolerance and respect for the decision rendered by voters here in California - and wish to continue their vitriole of labeling us "bigots" - here is what BIGOT means for me:

Bible
Is
God's
Only
Truth

More Evidence For YES ON PROP 8!

Neil over at Eternity Matters has a post up that shows how VERY IMPORTANT it is for California to VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8 on Election Day, Tuesday, November 4, 2008!!

Gay Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

Neil writes:

As I mentioned in We told you so, even while the GLBT lobby is on their best behavior pending the vote on Proposition 8, we see more and more examples of their supporters doing the opposite of what they claimed would happen: Aggressive indoctrination of youth as young as kindergarten.

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

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

More here.

My comment at Neil's blog:

The battle over this issue is getting SO NASTY! Signs stolen from yards, cars damaged because they have a YES ON PROPOSITION 8 sticker on them. I could go on and on.

What bothers me the most, though, is the unashamed LYING from the “No on Prop 8″ people! There is a commercial where a superintendent of schools claims that “marriage” isn’t taught in public schools! THAT is a bold faced LIE! It is written directly in the Education code! If gay “marriage” stays legal in CA, then it WILL be taught in schools! There is no doubt about it!

I have to search for it, but there is an entire curriculum drawn up already which will be used to further indoctrinate children. Plus, they want to change all the textbooks to include gay “history” in EVERY SUBJECT! After church today, I will look for the info and share it here.

Please keep the YES ON PROPOSITION 8 ballot measure in your prayers! We need God to move throughout CA to bring hearts more in line with what He designed for marriage - the union of one man and one woman!


HT's:
Eternity Matters

Fox News

Commentary: Hate in the Name of Love

Commentary: Hate in the Name of Love
by Dennis Prager, guest columnist

'It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate.'

Note: This column first appeared on Townhall.com on Oct. 21, 2008. It is used with permission.

Next to the presidential election, California's Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.

It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had — the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage — as between men and women — is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.

But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

The reason for this change is obvious — to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.

Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society — people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays — to now think of themselves as bigots.

According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."

What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.

And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.

The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion-dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."

It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal — proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."

But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."

Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate — because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who still want marriage to remain man-woman?

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of four books



HT: CitizenLink

What Same-Sex "Marriage" Has Done To Massachusetts

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools
The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.

Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.

Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.

Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.

Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".

Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.

Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples
Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.

Government mandates
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.

Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)

Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

The public square
Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!

The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.

A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.

Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.

The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion
Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.

It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.

HT: Mass Resistance

Welcome News for Biblical Marriage!

AFM Welcomes Viva La Familia of CA as the Newest Voice for Latinos on Marriage

California’s Latino community was empowered to protect marriage today in the nation’s most populous state by a new advocacy group that is launching a statewide media blitz over Spanish-language media. The ads feature a Latino superstar urging Latinos to vote “Yes” on Prop 8. The Latino leadership of Viva La Familia will urge Latino voters to support Proposition 8.




The Alliance for Marriage Foundation – the coalition that blazed the path to bring America’s Latino community to the forefront in support of marriage -- welcomes Viva La Familia to the historic battle to protect the future of marriage for our children and grandchildren.

The formation of Viva La Familia is particularly important in California, because any move to protect marriage and advance the interest of families in California – and across the country -- must include the massive and fast-growing Latino community.

“The white Christian evangelic movement needs to understand that they can’t win this battle alone,” said Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, a board member of Viva La Familia, and President of the Sacramento-based National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. “They simply don’t have the sheer numbers necessary to win.”

The movement to protect marriage is often characterized in the media as a project of the conservative Christian subculture. “The Viva La Familia ad campaign is an effort to build the numbers necessary to win,” added Rodriguez.

Mexican movie star Eduardo Verastegui is featured in the ad campaign launched statewide, which encourages Latinos to vote “Yes” on Proposition 8, a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. The ads will air on Spanish-language radio and appear in print.

Verastegui, who is prominently featured in the ads, is best known in America as the leading actor and producer of the award-winning movie “Bella.” But he has deep “pop-culture” roots in the Latino community, having starred in several hit “soap operas” on Televisa and even named one of 50 Most Beautiful People by People En Español. He’s been called by the some “the Brad Pitt of Latin America.”

Viva La Familia, an advocacy organization that includes Latino leaders such as Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, Jr., Dr. Jessie Miranda, and Gilbert Montelongo, was formed to reach out to the Latino community in California on public policy issues of marriage and family.

The Alliance for Marriage Foundation has been at the forefront of the battle to protect marriage all across America. In California, the Alliance sponsors Californians for Marriage, Yes on Proposition 8, an organization that helped to qualify the marriage protection initiative for the California ballot. In Denver, the Alliance for Marriage Foundation recently organized a rally for over 5,000 Latinos working together with the Archdiocese of Denver.

Thank you for your friendship and partnership in our efforts to ensure that more children in America are raised in a home with a mother and a father.



Matt Daniels, J.D., Ph.D.
Founder and President


HT: Matt Daniels - Alliance for Marriage

YES Prop 8 Signs Stolen

So, you don't really think that the homosexual activists who are pushing gay "marriage" upon us here in California aren't out to silence Christians, conservatives, and traditional marriage advocates?

The evidence OF THIS FACT is already clear:

Was your Proposition 8 sign stolen?

There are reports from all across the state of voters' Yes on Proposition 8 signs being stolen or vandalized. If you are the victim of this intolerance and bigotry, please send the following information to LaTanya Wright: Name, Address, Zip and Phone Number.

We will make sure your sign is replaced as soon as possible. Email LaTanya at: ltgwright@gmail.com.

300 signs supporting Proposition 8 stolen from Chino Hills church

There was a sign on a neighbor's lawn on my block which was displayed in support of the VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8 ballot measure. Two days later, it was stolen!

See? The silencing of those who disagree with homosexual activists is happening already!

Don't let what has happened in Massachusetts happen in California!

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8 ON ELECTION DAY - NOVEMBER 8, 2008!!!

How Ironic Is This?

Same-sex marriage advocates in Florida, Arizona, and California may face their toughest opponents in the wave of new, minority voters set to hit the polls next month.


Initiatives on those states’ Nov. 4 ballots would define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thereby prohibiting same-sex marriage.


Gay-rights supporters worry not only that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has pledged to oppose such efforts but also that his candidacy will bring out record numbers of blacks and Hispanics to vote for him. Those two groups vote mostly for Democratic candidates but often are cultural and religious conservatives who tend to oppose same-sex unions.


About 6 percent of California voters are black, and 15 percent are Hispanic.


“It’s a Catch-22,” Andrea Shorter, campaign director of California’s gay and civil rights coalition And Marriage for All, told The New York Times.

Continue reading:

Obama Voters May Scuttle Same-Sex Marriage Efforts

HT: NewsMax

Oct. 1st Webcast For Marriage!

Important Webcast for Marriage!

While only those 18 and older will be voting on Proposition 8 next month, their decision will have the greatest impact on those unable to vote: children. Young people are constantly bombarded with messages in the media and at school that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are acceptable and good for our society. Many are confused by the conflict that arises between the culture and their family's morality. Pastor Miles McPherson of Rock Church in San Diego is particularly concerned about the impact of homosexuality on young people.

Tomorrow [TONIGHT! OCTOBER 1ST!] his church will hold a special rally for young people that will be broadcast throughout the state and nation. We encourage you to tune in and help young people you know better understand this crucial issue. The Fine Line: a Rally for Youth, Young Adults, and Parents

The Fine Line: a Rally for Youth, Young Adults, and Parents will be held at 7 p.m., Wednesday, October 1, 2008, at the Rock Church in San Diego. The non-partisan event is free and open to the public.

The Fine Line also will be broadcast live via satellite to approximately 150 churches throughout California who have signed up with the CCN Network. (Locations may be found by going to http://www.iprotectmarriage.com/.)

The iProtectMarriage.com website is also prepared to live stream the event to thousands of users statewide.


"The goal of The Fine Line is to equip and empower young people and their parents to engage on this issue, and go out and DO something," said Miles McPherson, senior pastor of the Rock Church, and a former professional football player with the San Diego Chargers. "The church is under attack. Marriage as designed by God, between a man and a woman, is under attack. We need to motivate young people to be informed, to be strong, to be out there in the real world, confident and active."

The event will be simulcast by Church Communication Network from the Rock Church, San Diego's largest Christian congregation and one of the fastest growing churches in the United States. Known for its multicultural and innovative worship and community service, the Rock features a high-tech sanctuary that seats 3,500. The Mountain View, Calif., based Church Communication Network provides programming in an array of ministry areas.

The youth-oriented evening will include music by rock groups the Katinas and Stellar Kart, and McPherson will speak. Live and video guests will include Ron Luce of Teen Mania, a youth outreach organization; Sean McDowell, a youth oriented Christian apologist; Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, an organization that trains Christians to think clearly about their faith; Yvette Schneider of Exodus International, a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ; skate pros Brian Sumner and Christian Hosoi; and Kyle Loza, pro freestyle motocross rider and X Games gold medalist.

The program will culminate with an interactive panel in which speakers will present information on why we should vote yes Nov. 4 on Proposition 8, the Protect Marriage Amendment.

The Fine Line is one of three planned simulcast events in support of Proposition 8. Others include a broadcast presentation for pastors and Christian leaders which took place last Thursday, Sept. 25, and a future broadcast presentation to churches Sunday, Oct. 19.

Additional Resources:

The Rock Church

Exodus International

Sean McDowell

Stand To Reason

Teen Mania

Additional Upcoming Events to Support Proposition 8

The following are upcoming events sponsored by various Protect Marriage coalition members in support of Proposition 8.

Oct. 02, 2008 Orange County Protect Marriage Townhall
When: October 02, 2008
Where: Covenant Presbyterian Church (St. Andrews Hall)
1855 N. Orange Olive Road
Orange, CA 92865

Oct. 09, 2008 San Bernardino Protect Marriage Townhall
When: October 09, 2008
Where: Echos of Faith Christian Center
11255 Central Ave.
Ontario, CA 91762


Oct.11, 2008 Auburn Town Hall Rally
When: October 11, 2008
11:00 - 12:00 a.m.
Where: Auburn Library Garden Theater
350 Nevada St
Auburn, CA

Oct. 19, 2008 Ventura County Federalist Society, "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Legal Issues"
When: October 19, 2008
Where: California Lutheran University - Lundgren Events Center
60 West Olson Road
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

More on Proposition 8


Donate to Yes On Proposition 8 Today!


Three R's of Proposition 8


The Ten Declarations For Protecting Biblical Marriage


Legal Rights of Pastors



Is Your Church Participating in Citizen Sunday?



The Legality of Voter Registration in Churches



Quotes on CHRISTIAN CIVIL DUTY

CHRISTIAN CIVIL DUTY

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."


-- John Jay, President of the Continental Congress
and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court


"God commands you to choose for rulers, 'just men who will rule in the fear of God.' . . . if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted."


-- Noah Webster, author of the first American dictionary


"When we [Christians] withhold our influence and participation, we yield by default to those who promote immoral and destructive policies."


-- Dr. James Dobson


"If America is to survive, we must elect more God-centered men and women to public office; individuals who seek Divine guidance in the affairs of state."


-- Rev. Billy Graham


THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."


-- President John F. Kennedy, 1961 Inaugural Address


"We believe that all men are created equal, because they are created in the image of God."


-- President Harry S Truman, 1948 Inaugural Address


"The founding fathers had to refer to the Creator in order to make their revolutionary experiment make sense; it was because "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" that men could dare to be free."


-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in an article
for the Episcopal Churchnews Magazine



RELIGION AND MORALITY

"How could a society fail to perish if, while the political bond is relaxed [for freedom], the moral bond were not tightened? And what makes a people master of itself if it has not submitted to God?"


-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America


"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government."


-- President George Washington, 1796 Farewell Address


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


-- President John Adams, 1798 letter
to a Massachusetts militia division


"The principal of equality . . . follows inevitably from belief in the brotherhood of man through the fatherhood of God."


-- President Calvin Coolidge, 1924
address to the Holy Name Society


"The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we can emphasize that enough these days.

"If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."



-- President Harry S Truman, 1950 address
to the Attorney General's Conference





*Note: many of these quotes are taken from William J. Federer's Three Secular Reasons Why America Should Be Under God


HT: Yes On Proposition 8.com