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

"Fine Line" Event

My blogging friend Carlotta - over at Christocentric - has done a great job of providing some details about the "Fine Line" event which was simulcast to hundreds of churches and seen live on the Internet via iProtectMarriage.com.

Here is a link to her post. Lots of great comments there, too.

The following comment is still awaiting moderation. But I wanted to bring it over here because I think that it brings home the point about true salvation verses following false prophets (which Jesus warned us would happen the closer we get to the last days).

The book of Jude contains similar warnings. It's placement - just before the book of Revelation - shows how important proper discernment will be (is!) in our day.

My comment (below) was in response to a blogger named Andrew. Here is what he wrote:

One could say that there are two fundamental components to the kingdom of God - salvation (I am forgiven and am going to heaven) and then sanctification (I am becoming more and more like Christ). It starts with salvation, and salvation here is salvation from the penalty of sins. But before one can be saved, a person has to come to the realization that they are a sinner and need saving.

Jesus said, “Go and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ because I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners.” If by calling homosexuality a sin will help but a single soul to realize their need for a savior and cause them to repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness and salvation all the effort and criticism should be worth it. “In the same way, I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who don’t need to repent.”

Saving marriages in this world is indeed important but saving souls for heaven is most important. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”.

My response:

You have made some really good points, Andrew.

I think that we now need to ask people who call themselves Christians, whether or not they have been born again. Jesus told us in Scripture, “you must be born again.” It is NOT an option. It is not a “denominational” difference. It is a fact.

The liberal side never seems to want to talk about repentance. Why is that? They also don’t like talking about the cross of Christ.

When Jesus walked the earth, he began his ministry by proclaiming, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

What you wrote regarding the joy of celebration (both in heaven and on earth) when even just one sinner being called to repent is born again in Christ as a result of their repentance, goes to show how important both repentance and being born again in Jesus really is! They go hand in hand. Can’t have one without the other.

I agree that the sanctification process takes time -perhaps our entire lifetime and beyond. A person who has truly given their life over to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a changed life. It is no longer the bondage of the flesh that rules them. They are set free in Jesus Christ. Their desire is towards holiness and righteousness. No one (on this side of heaven) ever completely “arrives,” but Scripture tells us “by their fruits you shall know them.”

A telltale sign of true repentance, salvation, and agape love for Jesus is our obedience to him and His Word. Jesus did tell us, “if you love me, keep my commandments.”

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

Don't Believe the Gay Hype

My "Official Voter Information Guide" arrived in the mail the other day. Today, I took some time to read what is stated about Proposition 8.

On the "title and summary" page, we read the biased selection of terminology which was prepared by the attorney general - who is obviously in the tank with gay activists.

It reads:

Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Initiative constitutional amendment.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Now if a person who is in favor of marriage remaining the union of one man and one woman - as it has been defined for thousands of years, btw - had been in charge of the wording, you can be sure that it would have read "RESTORES MARRIAGE." That is what the YES ON PROPOSITION 8 advocates are doing. (More about this in the argument for YES ON PROPOSITION 8 - below.)

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.

PROPOSAL

This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.

FISCAL EFFECTS

Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.

By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

The text of Proposition 8 states the following:

SECTION 1. Title

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

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Ah! Now we see the TRUTH OF THE MATTER! PROPOSITION 8 IS A MEASURE THAT IS MEANT TO PROTECT MARRIAGE AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED - THE UNION BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN! So, the question needs to be asked - why wasn't this title used in the text of the Proposition 8 title page?

Answer: BIAS!!

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 8

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it's not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits for gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits" as married spouses. (Family Code 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn't just about "live and let live." State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. (Education Code 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will.

Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.

However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to legalize gay marriage they should put it on the ballot. Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society. That is the wrong approach.

Voting YES on Proposition 8 RESTORES the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters. Voting YES overturns the decision of four activist judges. Voting YES protects our children.

Please vote YES on Proposition 8 to RESTORE the meaning of marriage.

RON PRENTICE, President
California Family Council
ROSEMARIE "ROSIE" AVILA, Governing Board Member
Santa Ana Unified School District
BISHOP GEORGE McKINNEY, Director
Coalition of African American Pastors

It's Not Political, It's A Spiritual Battle

California Religious Leaders Call for Fasting, Prayer to End Gay Marriage.

Excerpt:

Hundreds of pastors have called on their congregations to fast and pray for passage of a ballot measure in November that would put an end to gay marriage in California.

The collective act of piety, starting Wednesday and culminating three days before the election in a revival for as many as 100,000 people at the San Diego Chargers' stadium, comes as church leaders across California put people, money and powerful words behind Proposition 8.

Some pastors around the state and nation are encouraging their flocks to forgo solid food for up to 40 days in the biblical tradition.

Jim Garlow, the pastor of the evangelical Skyline Church in San Diego County, said he expects up to 100 young adults to spend five-plus weeks on his campus, subsisting on soup, juice and the promise of societal salvation.

"This is not political to us. We see it as very spiritual," said Garlow, a leader of an interfaith coalition that has held monthly teleconferences, shared sermons and solicited donations for the ballot measure.

Alarmed by a California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, churches of many faiths have banded together in support of a measure that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They have become the single largest force behind the measure, recruiting volunteers, raising money, registering voters, manning phone banks and distributing campaign literature.

Continue reading here.

HT: Fox News Website

*******
Update @ 8:26 p.m. PT

Found a website with detailed commentary and valuable resources. Although it is from a Catholic viewpoint, many points contained in the material also agree with Biblical, Evangelical Christianity.

Why Catholics [Are] Against Same-Sex "marriage."

Write Letters to Restore CA Marriage

As we get closer to election day on November 4, 2008, it is very important for California Christians to write letters to the editor in support of Proposition 8!

Here are sample letters to consider:


To the Editor:

Marriage is a holy thing which our culture needs to respect more than it does. Same-sex "marriage" is not the way to do this. Same-sex "marriage" is not marriage. It is an imitation of the real thing. Our laws cannot enshrine the imitation without harming the real thing. Once the imitation is in place, you have to teach children that the imitation is real. You have to force ministers and the general public to violate their conscience and compel them to endorse the imitation. It's already happening. Catholic Charities can no longer offer adoption services in Massachusetts because they're forced to include homosexual adoption. So much for religious liberty! The imitation drives out the genuine and is cruel both to those who fall for the fake and to those who resist. I urge my fellow Californians not to fall for the imitation.

To the Editor:

Homosexual marriage is cruel to the innocent children doomed to grow up without one of their parents. Homosexual "marriage" denies that to the little boy who needs his daddy or the little girl who needs her mommy! How can grownups be so cruel to innocent children? Worse, homosexual "marriage" means the adults are doing this deliberately, all for their own selfish reasons. It's not as if death has cheated a child of a parent. Homosexual "marriage" purposely takes one parent away and tries to replace it with two of the same parent! Why would adults do that to a child? How can they be so selfish? I can't bring myself to vote for something like that. That's why I'm voting to support marriage: one-man, one-woman for life. It's the right thing to do.

HT: Concerned Women for America

Religious Freedoms At Risk

My sister in Christ, Carlotta, has an important and eye-opening blog post which points out exactly why same-sex marriage laws need to be opposed! Gay Unions Don't Affect Religious Freedoms? Think Again!

She writes:

Listed [at Carlotta's blog] are a few examples of what has transpired within this decade to many religious organizations and/or individuals where they were sued, forced or had ceased operations altogether to accommodate or avoid accommodating the newly defined “families.”

Go over there and read them. People, this is just the tip of the "homosexual agenda silencing religious freedoms" iceberg!

From a biblical and Christian standpoint, I add my comments:

You are exactly right, Carlotta. When sexual orientation/behavior/perversion “laws” are written, they inevitably are used to trump freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association rights. Guess who gets discriminated against?

Your examples plainly show the answer to that question.

The “equality” and “tolerance” mantra is just a not-so-subtle guise that is designed, and determined, to silence Christians and God’s Word. Period.

In the secular humanistic and gay “christian” movement world, it appears that some are more “equal” than others and that “tolerance” is a one way street.

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

God’s Word has told us what that is.

Jesus, himself, specifically refered to how it would be the closer we get to His return:

The Days of Noah Are Here

As In The Days of Lot

We need to share those links with every Christian. Many are either ignorant or unaware of the dire consequences involved in the same-sex marriage issue.

God bless you, Carlotta, for writing openly about this topic. We need to keep Proposition 8’s YES votes in our prayers and share the TRUTH with as many voters as possible! Thank you for doing your part in the TRUTH war!

In Christ’s service,
Christine

I Protect Marriage

I Protect Marriage Website.

"It's not just about marriage."

"The way you vote will change your world."

"Who has the right to change marriage?"

"No society has ever lasted with an "anything goes" attitude."

"Which parent doesn't matter? A mom or a dad?"

"If you redefine marriage - what's next?"

"New Moral Code" on the Rise:

(Aug. 25, 2008) -- More adults under 25 are spurning traditional morality, according to longtime pollster George Barna. "We are witnessing the development and acceptance of a new moral code in America," said Barna. More...

Prop. 8's Interfaith Alliances:
(Aug. 24, 2008) -- Prop. 8's growing interfaith partnerships built on a commitment to traditional marriage are catching the eye of political analysts and media, such as the Los Angeles Times. More...

Unfair Ballot Title:
(Aug. 8, 2008) -- Supporters of Prop. 8 will appeal the decision to let stand an unfair description of the Nov. 4 ballot measure imposed by Attorney General Jerry Brown. More...


If You're Catholic:
(Aug. 4, 2008) -- The California Catholic Conference has thrown its support behind Prop. 8, declaring that same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions. More...

HT: I Protect Marriage - VOTE YES ON 8 !!!

Slap in the Face Against Traditional Marriage

How ridiculous is it going to get before the nonsense is stopped???

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage

Did you see that? A MARRIAGE LICENSE WAS REJECTED FOR A COUPLE SEEKING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!!

Excerpt:

Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.

So...I wonder where the advocates who usually say, "how does my same-sex "marriage" negatively affect yours?"

Well...here ya go!

This is only the beginning.

God save us from this madness!

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8 IN CALIFORNIA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008!!!

HT: World Net Daily

Additional resource:

Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council's letter to thousands of pastors informing them of their free speech rights.

Debate Is About Accepting Bad Behavior

Over at Illinois Family.org, there is an excellent article which gives us the deep down truth of the matter regarding the debate between homosexual activists, conservative Christians, and the marriage definition issue.

The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior.

Here is a copy of the article:

Respecting Homosexuals
7/30/2008 7:00:00 AM
By Thorin Anderson -Illinois Family Institute

Whenever there is conflict between homosexual activists and conservatives regarding the issues such as the acceptance of same sex marriage, we on the right are accused of a lack of respect for homosexuals.

But, I would like to make one thing clear. The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior. There are many human behaviors which we conservatives believe to be unacceptable. They range from lying and cheating to promiscuity before or during marriage. They include murder and rape and a host of other deeds, criminal or otherwise. To say that we don't respect someone when we disagree with their conduct is to suggest that confronting any bad behavior is inherently disrespectful. Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct? Should we stop confronting lying, stealing, or murder? Such a suggestion would be ludicrous.

All humans are worthy of respect as humans, period. But it is utter folly to imagine that behaviors people engage in are automatically respectable simply because a certain number of people are involved in them. Sad to say, many things we human beings do are not only unworthy of respect, but are destructive and dangerous. There is a reason why no one writes in any detail, in public, regarding the activities of homosexuals. And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies. There is not a newspaper in the country that would detail their private conduct, and most of our stomachs could not handle it. Yet, we are told we MUST accept such conduct as perfectly normal. Get out your Websters and look up "normal." Homosexuality in no way fits the definition of "normal." And, it requires no special genius to understand that!

No doubt many practitioners have found themselves harassed or worse by those who don't respect homosexuals and have taken it upon themselves to mock or injure them. Such actions are wrong. It is legitimate to demand respect as people, but it is absolutely illegitimate to demand respect for conduct that is simply disgusting on its face. And, consider the homosexual's attitude toward such virtues of fidelity and loyalty. No self-respecting woman would tolerate infidelity in her husband, but in the homosexual community, infidelity is not only allowed, it is a given. It is ironic that homosexuals demand such respect from the general community when they quite obviously have little respect for themselves or one another. Such proclivities reveal that, in fact, the homosexual lifestyle really is much less about deep abiding relationships than satisfying inappropriate sexual desires.

Let us be clear about something: Christian conservatives oppose the wanton satisfying of inappropriate sexual desires in anyone whether straight or homosexual. Those of us who disagree with homosexual conduct based upon the principles of the Bible and nature can do nothing to stop homosexuals from practicing their chosen lifestyle. But it is an egregious violation of our freedoms, principles, and character to demand that we accept it as normal.

Thorin Anderson is a member of the Pastor Advisory Council to Illinois Family Institute and the pastor of Parkwood Baptist Church on the south side of Chicago. Pastor Anderson is also the President of Men for Christ, an association that organizes annual weekend men's rallies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois on a rotating basis.



HT: PFOX email

Stop Making Biblical Judgments?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

In Defense of Marriage

In Defense of Marriage - Part I

Excerpt:

Marriage is far more profound than our contemporary culture would lead us to believe. It is a lifelong commitment that restrains self-centeredness, self-indulgence, and self-gratification. It is the one relationship that effectively prepares and conditions us for living in community with others. By restraining self-centeredness and promoting love of another, marriage then becomes the foundation for social order. When this commitment labeled marriage is reduced to nothing more than a mere contract between two consenting persons, one option among many, or redefined to accommodate any type of participants [or number], it ceases to provide the same societal benefits.

[Note: Click on title link to continue reading.]

In Defense of Marriage - Part II

Excerpt:

Attempting to promote monogamy among homosexual couples by rearranging marriage ignores the fact that homosexual acts are patently obvious distortions of the human biological design. We are born biologically male or female and as such we are sexually dissimilar but in complimentary ways. The male/female sexual union works, in other words. This is true of every species on earth. Every living organism has a particular way of reproducing and rearing offspring; its anatomy is biologically designed to support that way. If one believes we are products of an evolutionary process, then homosexual acts are a deviation from the procreative design and homosexuality is therefore a genetic defect because it fails to propagate the species. If one holds to the belief that we are created, then it defies the design and intent of the Creator. Either way homosexuality violates the given design.

In Defense of Marriage - Part III

Excerpt:

Now let’s examine the historical findings relative to those cultures that once held to a strong sexual ethic—in which monogamy is strictly reinforced through marriage—but later compromised that ethic, as we are now doing. According to Unwin’s thorough survey of history, any and every culture that embraces a philosophy of sexual freedom for a period of at least three generations will inevitably experience cultural decline (Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior, 1935).

There is not one single example in all of human history where this cultural pattern appears and there does not follow cultural demise consistent with Unwin’s conclusions. (I would estimate that we are in the latter stages of the second generation.)

History is replete with examples that testify to this fact. The Greek, Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires are just a few examples of cultures that began with a strong marriage-centered monogamy and later degenerated into liberal sexual practices (including homosexuality), which, according to the sociological and anthropological evidence, was central to their downfall. Of course, our own culture has suffered enormously in the wake of the American sexual revolution; the societal costs of paternal absence, divorce, and out-of-wedlock births have been staggering.

[It] is the height of arrogance, ignorance, or both that argues against the unique nature of marriage and its necessity to social stability and well-being. However, with more than four decades following the American sexual revolution, this should not be surprising because, as Sorokin pointed out, “in the conditions of spiritual, moral, and mental anarchy … it is difficult to maintain sexual sanity” (Sorokin, p. 55).

In Defense of Marriage - Part IV

Excerpt:

Abuse within male homosexual relationships is as high as 46 percent (“Domestic Violence in Gay and Lesbian Couples,” www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence). Among lesbian couples, some research shows that the lifetime prevalence of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4 percent. Given that same-sex “marriage” would exist in name only without its essential defining elements, its application to homosexual couples would, most likely, not serve to arrest the high rates of domestic abuse among gays.

[In] regards to homosexual couples, the concept of fidelity is a popular myth. In the book The Male Couple, the author reports that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, “Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships” (McWhirter, The Male Couple [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall] 252, 253).

[In]short, marriage and the natural family function as the cornerstone of civilization; even the slightest deviation from this absolute definition destabilizes this vital institution and begins to produce a series of deleterious effects. Do we really believe that redefining marriage in even more radical terms will somehow improve the situation?

HT: Center for Christ and Culture: The teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven

A Fool's Wager

A must read!

A Fool's Wager – Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Marriage?

by Gary DeMar

HT: The American Vision

Black Leaders Reject Same-sex "Marriage Rights"

Update @ 7:46 a.m. PT

Just received the following email:

Black Leaders Reject Gay "Marriage Rights" on Air in San Francisco

Activist groups determined to destroy marriage have always hidden their anti-democratic agenda behind false analogies to civil rights. By invoking the great legacy of America's civil rights movement, radical activists hope to convince America to let them force their view of marriage and their family upon our children and grandchildren.

California is the latest state to be saturated with claims that marriage is a form of bigotry and legal segregation - in anticipation of the California marriage amendment vote in the fall. This false "civil rights" logic was the basis for the California courts recent decision to strike down marriage in our nation's most populous state.

There is absolutely no legal, social or historical logic behind the claim that marriage is an expression of bigotry on a par with racism. But that has not stopped many in the national media from heralding California-style "gay marriage" as part of the historic progression of civil rights in America. Given this media bias, pro-family groups are often outmaneuvered because they are not able to mobilize communities that can effectively challenge the core argument of marriage opponents.

But the authentic civil rights leaders who are part of the Alliance for Marriage are able to challenge the "civil rights" deception - and to do so in places where support for this deception are strongest.

In a radio advertisement to begin airing in the San Francisco area on Catholic Radio - and soon on Catholic Radio nationally -- Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality, one of the nation's "Big Four" historic civil rights groups, takes head-on the false civil rights analogies foisted by the radical activists.

Here is an excerpt from the ad which should encourage you:

"In the 1960s, CORE organized the Freedom Rides, co-sponsored the historic March on Washington with Martin Luther King, Jr., and participated in the Freedom Summer project in Mississippi, where three CORE civil rights workers were murdered.

But today in California, an elite, well-funded group of activists have hijacked the proud, historic legacy of America's civil rights movement to advance their own radical social cause - "same-sex" marriage.

Same-sex marriage is NOT a civil right.

As the community that endured both slavery and segregation, African-Americans will always reject the lie that radical activists have a "civil right" to redefine marriage. That's because my community - perhaps more than any other - understands in very real terms the consequences of family breakdown. When marriage declines, children and society both suffer.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don't have a civil right to redefine marriage for our entire society."

The Alliance for Marriage is proud that our national coalition has - from its very founding - been lead by civil rights leaders with the courage and conviction of Niger Innis. Too often, Americans of goodwill are intimidated by the threat of being labeled as bigots for believing what the vast majority of people - of every creed and color - regard as common sense. But the African-American leaders in the AFM coalition have always proclaimed the widespread view in their community that there is no civil "right" to redefine marriage for all of society.

Thank you for helping us to make their voices heard - in San Francisco and across the nation. Thank you also 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 of Alliance For Marriage