Lisa Leff and Paul Elias - Associated Press Writers
SAN FRANCISCO- The mood was somber among radical homosexual activists after a bruising, three-hour hearing before the justices of California's highest court, who expressed considerable skepticism at the idea of overturning the state's voter-approved ban on so-called same-sex marriage.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=438792
Showing posts with label Proposition 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proposition 8. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Conservatives push to protect marriage in NC
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow
North Carolina's legislature is considering a marriage amendment to enshrine traditional marriage in its constitution.
Proponents of banning same-sex "marriage" hope to get a bill passed this year to put the issue before voters. Matt Lytle of the North Carolina Family Policy Council tells OneNewsNow it is a tough process.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=433930
North Carolina's legislature is considering a marriage amendment to enshrine traditional marriage in its constitution.
Proponents of banning same-sex "marriage" hope to get a bill passed this year to put the issue before voters. Matt Lytle of the North Carolina Family Policy Council tells OneNewsNow it is a tough process.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=433930
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Prop. 8's ripple effect - Christians still
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/10/2009
In the aftermath of Proposition 8's victory in California, many violent incidents have been directed at Christians. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League tells OneNewsNow about the latest act of vandalism -- this time in San Francisco. "Gays trashed a Catholic Church in the Castro district, which is the gay community, by putting swastikas on the church with the name of the pope and the archbishop from San Francisco," he explains. "All done to protest the church's rejection of gay marriage."
Continue...
In the aftermath of Proposition 8's victory in California, many violent incidents have been directed at Christians. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League tells OneNewsNow about the latest act of vandalism -- this time in San Francisco. "Gays trashed a Catholic Church in the Castro district, which is the gay community, by putting swastikas on the church with the name of the pope and the archbishop from San Francisco," he explains. "All done to protest the church's rejection of gay marriage."
Continue...
Monday, December 22, 2008
Bill Duncan on Jerry Brown
Ruth Institute Academic Advisory Board member Bill Duncan posted this analysis of CA AG Jerry Brown over at National Review On-line.
In a December 19 press release, the attorney general said: “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.” ...
To understand the depth of the betrayal here it is necessary to remember how we got to this point. In May 2008, the California supreme court announced that the state’s constitution contained a hitherto unseen mandate redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. In response, pro-family groups had gathered the requisite signatures to put Proposition 8 on the ballot. This measure would add a definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the California constitution, thus correcting the state court’s misunderstanding of that document.
The California supreme court decided not to wait for the people of the state to weigh in on marriage and allowed licenses to issue to same-sex couples beginning in June. The attorney general also did his part in opposing the amendment by changing the official ballot description from a neutral description (that the amendment would define marriage) to say that Proposition 8 “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.”
On November 4, it became clear that despite every effort by the judicial and political classes of the state to prevent their doing so, California voters had affirmed the principle that our inherited understanding of marriage as the union of a husband and wife deserved constitutional protection.
...
Opponents of the measure, including the city and county of San Francisco, then filed suit saying that Proposition 8’s single-sentence amendment was such a major change to the state constitution that it should have been approved by the legislature before going to voters and was thereby invalid. (This same legislature had twice voted to overturn California’s marriage law, enacted by voter initiative, despite a clear constitutional provision saying that a voter initiative could not be overturned by a legislative vote.) This is the case in which the attorney general has now decided that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is beyond the pale.
Ken Starr will be part of the legal team defending Proposition 8 on behalf of its proponents. It should be remembered that these proponents were granted the right to defend the marriage law only because the California supreme court gave them special permission to be part of the case. Without that permission, Proposition 8 would have gone without a voice in court.
All of this serves to confirm the worst fears of Proposition 8’s supporters. The political and legal elites of the state have done all within their power to endorse the idea that support for traditional marriage is the rankest kind of bigotry that does not deserve even a nominal word in its favor by government officials....
A court order invalidating Proposition 8 would also give the supreme court a super-constitutional power, above the amendment process provided for in the text of the constitution, to determine what subjects are germane to constitutional lawmaking by the people of the state. There is no other way to understand this new theory that a manufactured and unenumerated “right” can become so “fundamental” that it can no longer be the subject of a simple amendment. And, of course, who will decide whether a right has attained this stature? The California supreme court.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
'Day without a gay'
'Day without a gay': Supporters of gay marriage encouraged to call in sick to work to protest Prop 8
Forget that phoney stomach bug or make-believe migraine.
Same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to skip work by "calling in gay" on Wednesday as part of their campaign to overturn Proposition 8.
The first ever "Day Without a Gay" is being organized to show the nation relies on homosexuals and to raise awareness of the drive to legalize gay and lesbian marriage.
"We are all for a boycott if that's what brings about a sense of community for people," said Sean Hetherington, a comedian and personal trainer who came up with the idea with his boyfriend.
While organizers are encouraging people to skip work, they are also urging them to use their gay day effectively and spend time volunteering.
"You can take away from the economy and give back in other ways," Hetherington added.
Day Without a Gay will coincide with International Human Rights Day, and the idea for a gay workers boycott is modelled on similar stoppages by Latino immigrants.
Hetherington and his partner, Aaron Hartzler, came up with the idea after reading that furious gay-rights activists were calling for day-long strike to protest the passage of the Proposition 8 in November.
The ballot referendum reversed the state's previous decision to allow gay marriage.
The couple thought it would be more beneficial to encourage people to give their time to a non-profit organization. They they have received hundreds of emails from people looking for volunteers during the "Day Without a Gay."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/12/09/2008-12-09_day_without_a_gay_supporters_of_gay_marr.html
Their website - www.daywithoutagay.org - has also received more than 100,000 hits in recent weeks.
Not everyone should "call in gay," Hetherington said, urging high school students to stay in class and promising no retribution for people who decide to go to work.
Forget that phoney stomach bug or make-believe migraine.
Same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to skip work by "calling in gay" on Wednesday as part of their campaign to overturn Proposition 8.
The first ever "Day Without a Gay" is being organized to show the nation relies on homosexuals and to raise awareness of the drive to legalize gay and lesbian marriage.
"We are all for a boycott if that's what brings about a sense of community for people," said Sean Hetherington, a comedian and personal trainer who came up with the idea with his boyfriend.
While organizers are encouraging people to skip work, they are also urging them to use their gay day effectively and spend time volunteering.
"You can take away from the economy and give back in other ways," Hetherington added.
Day Without a Gay will coincide with International Human Rights Day, and the idea for a gay workers boycott is modelled on similar stoppages by Latino immigrants.
Hetherington and his partner, Aaron Hartzler, came up with the idea after reading that furious gay-rights activists were calling for day-long strike to protest the passage of the Proposition 8 in November.
The ballot referendum reversed the state's previous decision to allow gay marriage.
The couple thought it would be more beneficial to encourage people to give their time to a non-profit organization. They they have received hundreds of emails from people looking for volunteers during the "Day Without a Gay."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/12/09/2008-12-09_day_without_a_gay_supporters_of_gay_marr.html
Their website - www.daywithoutagay.org - has also received more than 100,000 hits in recent weeks.
Not everyone should "call in gay," Hetherington said, urging high school students to stay in class and promising no retribution for people who decide to go to work.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Explanation of the Prop 8 legal challenge
Unless you've been living in a cave in Afghanistan, you know that Proposition 8 won at the ballot box and is being challenged in court. I am often asked, "What is going on? What does it all mean?" Ruth Institute's Academic Advisory Board Member Helen Alvare wrote this very clear explanation of the issues involved in the legal challenge to Prop 8.
Read it all here.
A few days after its passage Proposition 8 was challenged by same-sex “marriage” proponents, on the grounds that it was a “revision” to the state’s Constitution, and not an “amendment.” This is important because the ballot initiative process cannot be used to “revise” the state’s constitution. According to Sections 1 and 2 of Article XVIII of the California Constitution, revisions can only be made by a process which requires approval of two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature. Amendments, on the other hand, according to Section 3 of Article XVIII are allowed to be made by ballot initiative.
Of course then, the million dollar question is what marks the difference between a revision and an amendment? Needless to say, supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage -- whose petitions and amicus curiae letters in opposition to such petitions have already been filed with the court -- differ on this point. Both sides reach back into California judicial decisions for the relevant definitional language. They note that constitutional “revisions” alter “underlying principles” of the government and make “far-reaching changes to the nature of our basic governmental plan.” Amendments, on the other hand, make additions or changes within the lines of the original constitution, which, even if they result in “various substantial changes in the operation of the former system, “ add “nothing novel to the existing governmental framework of the state.”
Immediately, you can see that these definitions are not self-evident, let alone self-executing. Both sides, therefore, go further to make arguments based on prior cases in which ballot initiatives were upheld or overturned based upon their judicially-determined status as an amendment or a revision. These are not simple arguments, but their rough outlines can be sketched.
Supporters of Proposition 8 begin by emphasizing the “precious right” of the people to make laws via initiatives, noting in particular that with Proposition 8, the people are merely reinstating the law that prevailed in California since the inception of the state. They also note the brevity of Proposition 8’s language. It is fourteen words and touches one subject; marriage. They contrast this with an earlier ballot initiative determined to be a “revision” which had thousands of words and would have repealed or substantially altered 15 or 25 articles of the constitution, treated four new topics and “substantially curtailed functions of two branches” of the state government. They further argue that Proposition 8 is not like another initiative declared to be a revision – an initiative requiring California to give fewer rights to criminal defendants by conforming to the federal, versus the state, constitution’s interpretation of such persons’ rights. The California Supreme Court found that this was a fundamental transfer of power from a state to the federal government, and a “wholesale diversion” from a stated original purpose of the state’s constitution. ...
Opponents of Proposition 8, on the other hand, argue that it is a “revision” because it severely compromises “the core constitutional principle of equal protection of the law, depriving a vulnerable minority of fundamental rights, inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into the Constitution, and destroying the courts’ quintessential power and role of protecting minorities and enforcing the guarantee of equal protection under the law.” They eschew supporters’ reliance on the brevity of Proposition 8’s language, and call its effects to the court’s attention. They write that by “mandating discrimination” and tying courts’ hands from their usual role, the “underlying principles” of the California constitution are discarded and the “system of checks and balances” between governmental branches is fundamentally altered. Within this argument, they make the sub point that “equal protection” is not an isolated or discrete guarantee of the state’s constitution, but a principle that permeates its entire fabric.
Read it all here.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
In the face of hatred
From Meridian: A place where Latter-day Saints Gather
Editor's Note: As some of you know, Meridian was hacked into last week, apparently by Prop 8 opponents, and in the place of our content was placed a homosexual pornographic film. For free email updates from Family Leader on issues that affect family and religious freedom, click here.
It has been an interesting week.
The Chinese homily, “May you live in interesting times,” has its roots in a curse, not a blessing.
As I said, it has been an interesting week.
The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 (the proposed amendment to the California constitution defining marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman) built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday's election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8's slim passage into law.
I am a Los Angeles Police Department detective supervisor running a sex crimes unit covering the western quarter of the city, which also includes the area where the Los Angeles temple is located. I have a fantastic crew of 20 detectives who are an amazing mixture of races and sexes. I have several detectives who are openly gay or lesbian. This orientation has nothing to do with their efficiency as investigators. I deeply respect and like these individuals. I enjoy working with them. My life is often in their hands when we serve high risk search or arrest warrants. I trust them implicitly.
Obviously, the types of crimes we investigate bring us into regular contact with victims who are of an alternative lifestyle orientation. It is incumbent upon us that our compassion for these victims be no less than for victims who are heterosexual.
Hard Choices
Working in such an environment, I found taking a position on Proposition 8 to be difficult. Even though I chose to follow the direction of our Church leaders in my voting decision, it was extremely hard for me to place myself on the line when it came to actively working to ensure the passage of Proposition 8.
Still, I watched in amazement as my fellow ward and stake members worked tirelessly, committing themselves full-heartedly to the cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Their faith strengthened mine, and I committed to participate in a sign waving public rally sponsored by our stake to be held at a local intersection.
By following through on this commitment, I found I had a greater stake in the battle than I had ever thought. I learned a number of hard and harsh lessons. And in the events following the election and passage of Proposition 8, I felt great anguish forcing me to drop to my knees in prayer – eventually coming to a more personal understanding of the Love of Christ and what he expects from me.
Read the rest of the article here.
Prop. 8 gift gets theater's leader in a ruckus
By Marcus Crowder mcrowder@sacbee.com
Published Nov. 11, 2008 in the Sacramento Bee.
Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.
Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.
Richard Lewis, the organization's executive producer, said the board of directors will conduct an emergency meeting on the matter this afternoon. He said it was too early to tell how this would affect Eckern's 25-year employment with California Musical Theatre.
In a statement released Monday, Lewis said: "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their longstanding support."
Links to Eckern's official donation information began appearing Thursday on sites such as the gay political activism site http://www.goodasyou.org/ and the more informal conversational forum www.datalounge. The measure was Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Local openly gay composer Gregg Coffin, who has written nationally produced musicals "Convenience" and "Five Course Love," found it initially difficult to express his feelings about the situation. "I feel so sad that someone from within my field and someone from within my community, who actually knows me, would contribute to an initiative that reduces me to second-class citizenship," Coffin said.
Read the rest of the article here.
Published Nov. 11, 2008 in the Sacramento Bee.
Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.
Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.
Richard Lewis, the organization's executive producer, said the board of directors will conduct an emergency meeting on the matter this afternoon. He said it was too early to tell how this would affect Eckern's 25-year employment with California Musical Theatre.
In a statement released Monday, Lewis said: "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their longstanding support."
Links to Eckern's official donation information began appearing Thursday on sites such as the gay political activism site http://www.goodasyou.org/ and the more informal conversational forum www.datalounge. The measure was Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Local openly gay composer Gregg Coffin, who has written nationally produced musicals "Convenience" and "Five Course Love," found it initially difficult to express his feelings about the situation. "I feel so sad that someone from within my field and someone from within my community, who actually knows me, would contribute to an initiative that reduces me to second-class citizenship," Coffin said.
Read the rest of the article here.
A letter from Pastor Jim Ortiz
Dear Whittier Daily News:
I’m so happy to be a citizen of this country where I have the right to freely exercise my religion, freely voice my opinions, peaceably assemble with others, and, when necessary, petition my government when I have a grievance.
Over these past many months we have seen the wonderful exercise of our democratic rights expressed through the various media and the ballot box. We have seen people on both sides of issues and political parties make their claims and woo the voters. And last Tuesday (Nov. 4) the people spoke and made their choices.
Now, we see candidates and political foes shaking hands and speaking magnanimously about each other. We see one administration graciously offering a hand of cooperation as it welcomes the transition to a new administration. Regardless of who got the fewest votes we all “win” when we accept the outcome and work together for the common good. And, this is how it has always been in our history and always should be.
Yet, sadly, we also see others who are not happy with the outcome of their particular issue marching in the streets, disrupting traffic, impeding travel and commerce, flashing finger epithets, picketing and threatening, yelling unprintable words of anger, bigotry, and hateful intolerance. They do all this while standing in front of houses of worship harassing parishioners as they enter to exercise their faith. And, they’re the ones holding the “Stop the Hate” signs!
Whatever your particular opinion is about the outcome of Proposition 8 (and this paper's opinion is well known!), the harassment of worshipers at churches and the threats against religious institutions, specifically the Mormon Church, is unacceptable and unworthy of a democratic people. This should be condemned! As an Evangelical Christian I do not share much common theological ground with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but, I do share our common love of natural marriage and traditional family. On this issue they are my Brothers and Sisters! The Mormons paid a hefty price disproportionate to their size for the passage of Proposition 8 both before and now after the vote. I commend them for their sacrifice and efforts. Yet, as significant as their part was they were only part of a coalition of millions of Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and other Christians and non-Christians alike. As well as Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisans, and ethnic groups of every color and hue who believe that only marriage between one man and one woman should be valid and recognized in California and is the most beneficial family structure for our children and our society.
On this issue I will stand with my Mormon brethren and other colleagues and friends and defend their right to petition their government, freely express their opinions, worship according to their conscience, and be free and protected from harassment and bigotry. For their right is my right, too! I call upon this paper to abandon its bias for a moment and do the same. Pastor Jim Ortiz, PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial AllianceSenior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God.
Pastor Jim Ortiz,
PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial Alliance
Senior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God
I’m so happy to be a citizen of this country where I have the right to freely exercise my religion, freely voice my opinions, peaceably assemble with others, and, when necessary, petition my government when I have a grievance.
Over these past many months we have seen the wonderful exercise of our democratic rights expressed through the various media and the ballot box. We have seen people on both sides of issues and political parties make their claims and woo the voters. And last Tuesday (Nov. 4) the people spoke and made their choices.
Now, we see candidates and political foes shaking hands and speaking magnanimously about each other. We see one administration graciously offering a hand of cooperation as it welcomes the transition to a new administration. Regardless of who got the fewest votes we all “win” when we accept the outcome and work together for the common good. And, this is how it has always been in our history and always should be.
Yet, sadly, we also see others who are not happy with the outcome of their particular issue marching in the streets, disrupting traffic, impeding travel and commerce, flashing finger epithets, picketing and threatening, yelling unprintable words of anger, bigotry, and hateful intolerance. They do all this while standing in front of houses of worship harassing parishioners as they enter to exercise their faith. And, they’re the ones holding the “Stop the Hate” signs!
Whatever your particular opinion is about the outcome of Proposition 8 (and this paper's opinion is well known!), the harassment of worshipers at churches and the threats against religious institutions, specifically the Mormon Church, is unacceptable and unworthy of a democratic people. This should be condemned! As an Evangelical Christian I do not share much common theological ground with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but, I do share our common love of natural marriage and traditional family. On this issue they are my Brothers and Sisters! The Mormons paid a hefty price disproportionate to their size for the passage of Proposition 8 both before and now after the vote. I commend them for their sacrifice and efforts. Yet, as significant as their part was they were only part of a coalition of millions of Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and other Christians and non-Christians alike. As well as Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisans, and ethnic groups of every color and hue who believe that only marriage between one man and one woman should be valid and recognized in California and is the most beneficial family structure for our children and our society.
On this issue I will stand with my Mormon brethren and other colleagues and friends and defend their right to petition their government, freely express their opinions, worship according to their conscience, and be free and protected from harassment and bigotry. For their right is my right, too! I call upon this paper to abandon its bias for a moment and do the same. Pastor Jim Ortiz, PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial AllianceSenior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God.
Pastor Jim Ortiz,
PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial Alliance
Senior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God
Monday, November 10, 2008
Marriage Moves Voters
By William C. Duncan
Published at NationalReview.com.
Extending constitutional protection to traditional marriage is hardly a narrow partisan affair.
Beyond their practical effects, the very fact that 30 states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage in just over a decade is remarkable.
This week, Arizona, California, and Florida joined the 27 states with existing marriage amendments. The most interesting campaign was in California where voter approval of Proposition 8 reversed a May decision of the California Supreme Court. That decision had purported to discover a previously unknown mandate to redefine marriage as the union of any two people in that state’s constitution.
The Florida amendment had faced a difficult hurdle because it needed the support of 60 percent of voters for approval. Despite a much lower-profile campaign than California’s Prop 8, Florida’s Amendment 2 managed to garner 62 percent of the popular vote.
Voters in Arizona had narrowly defeated a proposed marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment had included a prohibition on marriage-equivalent statuses and the campaign against it seemed to have convinced voters that existing benefits for cohabiting couples were at risk. This time, the amendment (Proposition 102) merely defined marriage and was soundly approved.
Two practical benefits of the amendments are obvious. First, they will prevent (or, as in California, reverse) judicial decisions redefining marriage. Second, they make absolutely clear that the enacting state will not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
This second effect is becoming increasingly important. The recent repeal of Massachusetts’ residence requirement for same-sex marriage and the impending issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Connecticut mean that couples from other states can go to either of these to marry before returning home to seek recognition.
Typically, a state will recognize a marriage valid in another state even if it could not have been contracted in the recognizing state. There is an important historical exception, however, for marriages that violate that state’s laws — against incest and polygamy, for example. The marriage amendments certainly preclude any question as to what a state’s public policy on same-sex marriages is.
Read the rest of this article here.
Published at NationalReview.com.
Extending constitutional protection to traditional marriage is hardly a narrow partisan affair.
Beyond their practical effects, the very fact that 30 states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage in just over a decade is remarkable.
This week, Arizona, California, and Florida joined the 27 states with existing marriage amendments. The most interesting campaign was in California where voter approval of Proposition 8 reversed a May decision of the California Supreme Court. That decision had purported to discover a previously unknown mandate to redefine marriage as the union of any two people in that state’s constitution.
The Florida amendment had faced a difficult hurdle because it needed the support of 60 percent of voters for approval. Despite a much lower-profile campaign than California’s Prop 8, Florida’s Amendment 2 managed to garner 62 percent of the popular vote.
Voters in Arizona had narrowly defeated a proposed marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment had included a prohibition on marriage-equivalent statuses and the campaign against it seemed to have convinced voters that existing benefits for cohabiting couples were at risk. This time, the amendment (Proposition 102) merely defined marriage and was soundly approved.
Two practical benefits of the amendments are obvious. First, they will prevent (or, as in California, reverse) judicial decisions redefining marriage. Second, they make absolutely clear that the enacting state will not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
This second effect is becoming increasingly important. The recent repeal of Massachusetts’ residence requirement for same-sex marriage and the impending issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Connecticut mean that couples from other states can go to either of these to marry before returning home to seek recognition.
Typically, a state will recognize a marriage valid in another state even if it could not have been contracted in the recognizing state. There is an important historical exception, however, for marriages that violate that state’s laws — against incest and polygamy, for example. The marriage amendments certainly preclude any question as to what a state’s public policy on same-sex marriages is.
Read the rest of this article here.
Encouragement from a reader
Jennifer - I just read your article in the National Review and I want to applaud you for a great article. I live in Wisconsin and it is sad to read all the bad that is happening in response to the victory for the sanctity of marriage. Do you have direct contact with the church's that were involved with passing Prop 8? After reading about the targetting of the churches by the pro homosexual groups, I wanted to say thank you and commend the church's and people involved in getting Prop 8 passed. Pass the word on to stay strong and thank you.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Election Night Craziness
From a friend:
We went down to Election Central in San Diego on Tuesday night and things got a little "lively", especially with regard to Props 4 and 8.
My son and his friend got in the thick of things. They stood proudly and loudly supported life and traditional marriage. At one point, it got a little too intense for this mother's heart, so I went over to my son and said, 'Hey, let's go. Let's find where dad is.' He replied, 'Hey, it's ok mom. Remember, I play football.' Crusaders!
Later, Bishop Cordileone and Fr. Saroki came into the hall and I felt peace and protection. Thank you to our Bishop and the priests who courageously led us during this campaign!
Around 10 p.m., a large number of teens and young adults came in holding signs that read, 'Keep our teens safe. No on Prop 4'. Keep teens safe? How so? I asked an older woman who appeared to be "in charge" of the group of teens, how does this keep teens safe. She replied, 'I don't have kids. I really don't know and I don't care'.
God help us.
We went down to Election Central in San Diego on Tuesday night and things got a little "lively", especially with regard to Props 4 and 8.
My son and his friend got in the thick of things. They stood proudly and loudly supported life and traditional marriage. At one point, it got a little too intense for this mother's heart, so I went over to my son and said, 'Hey, let's go. Let's find where dad is.' He replied, 'Hey, it's ok mom. Remember, I play football.' Crusaders!
Later, Bishop Cordileone and Fr. Saroki came into the hall and I felt peace and protection. Thank you to our Bishop and the priests who courageously led us during this campaign!
Around 10 p.m., a large number of teens and young adults came in holding signs that read, 'Keep our teens safe. No on Prop 4'. Keep teens safe? How so? I asked an older woman who appeared to be "in charge" of the group of teens, how does this keep teens safe. She replied, 'I don't have kids. I really don't know and I don't care'.
God help us.
Winning Proposition: Marriage success.
By Jennifer Roback Morse
Find this article at NationalReview.com.
I can hardly believe the campaign for Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, is over and that we won. I will miss the cheerful yellow signs with their happy blue family people on them. Now that it is over, it is worthwhile to reflect on the significance of what the Protect Marriage coalition achieved. The people of California did not do anything rash or drastic here. They simply voted to enshrine the definition of natural marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution.
What does this victory mean?
The people of California want to wrest control of the legal definition of marriage from the judiciary.
The people of California are deeply troubled by the idea of small children being taught about homosexuality in the schools without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
The people of California do not want dissenters from the gay-marriage ideology to be treated as if they were racists.
The people of California want religious groups to be free to operate within their own value systems. People don’t want to unleash discrimination suits and other forms of legal harassment against religious bodies which hold that marriage is between a man and a woman.
It doesn’t mean:
Over five million Californians are bigots.
Gay couples will have their homes raided, (contra the outrageous anti-Mormon advertisement.)
Gay couples will lose their domestic partnership benefits.
Gays are second-class citizens.
Why does the victory of Proposition 8 matter?
A coalition of ordinary people pushed back against the gay lobby and its allies. Those allies include all the major newspapers, Hollywood, the judiciary, the governor, the attorney general, and academia. These allies did not hesitate to abuse their power. For instance, Attorney General Jerry Brown rewrote the title of the proposition in a way that cost us 5 to 10 percentage points in the polls.
But Proposition 8 proponents got more than it bargained for: ordinary citizens are sick of being pushed around. They aren’t going to take it any more.
The coalition of religious groups who worked for Prop 8 will not dissolve the day after tomorrow. Passing Proposition 8 required an unprecedented level of interfaith cooperation. Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews all worked together. I could feel mistrust melting away as we worked together to protect natural marriage. The solidarity we created will continue long after this particular election.
Interracial solidarity was strong on the marriage issue. Blacks and Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. Los Angeles County voted for Prop 8. That wasn’t Hollywood and Beverly Hills talking: it was the urban minority communities. They don’t seem to feel the need to be politically correct. Pro-marriage advocates of all races met and worked together, and will continue to do so.
The public is much more aware of the promotion of homosexuality in the schools. People will be monitoring the content of school curriculum in a way they had not done before. And since they now have the experience of being successful cooperating with others and promoting their views in the public square, they are much less likely to back down. If the gay lobby could have contained itself and lain low for a little longer, they might have been able to slip a lot of things past the public. Those days are over.
The public was disgusted by the grotesque bullying tactics of the No on 8 coalition. Although the anti-Mormon ad was produced by an “independent” group, no one from the official campaign condemned the ad. The media gave very little attention to the vandalism against Yes, but publicized the few isolated incidents of vandalism against No. But this media spin can’t work when the incidents are happening in your own neighborhood, under your own noses, to people you know. The No campaign should have distanced itself from people who were keying cars, egging houses and spray painting graffiti on churches. But it didn’t.
In short, the success of Proposition 8 is the success of a broad-based coalition of citizen activists who cared passionately about the meaning and future of marriage. The Protect Marriage campaign had literally a hundred thousand volunteers and over 70,000 donors. What Proposition 13 meant to the cause of citizen-generated tax reduction measures, Proposition 8 may mean to the cause of defending and defining marriage.
The judges who created same-sex marriage awakened a sleeping giant. And we won’t be going back to sleep any time soon.
— Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute.
Find this article at NationalReview.com.
I can hardly believe the campaign for Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, is over and that we won. I will miss the cheerful yellow signs with their happy blue family people on them. Now that it is over, it is worthwhile to reflect on the significance of what the Protect Marriage coalition achieved. The people of California did not do anything rash or drastic here. They simply voted to enshrine the definition of natural marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution.
What does this victory mean?
The people of California want to wrest control of the legal definition of marriage from the judiciary.
The people of California are deeply troubled by the idea of small children being taught about homosexuality in the schools without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
The people of California do not want dissenters from the gay-marriage ideology to be treated as if they were racists.
The people of California want religious groups to be free to operate within their own value systems. People don’t want to unleash discrimination suits and other forms of legal harassment against religious bodies which hold that marriage is between a man and a woman.
It doesn’t mean:
Over five million Californians are bigots.
Gay couples will have their homes raided, (contra the outrageous anti-Mormon advertisement.)
Gay couples will lose their domestic partnership benefits.
Gays are second-class citizens.
Why does the victory of Proposition 8 matter?
A coalition of ordinary people pushed back against the gay lobby and its allies. Those allies include all the major newspapers, Hollywood, the judiciary, the governor, the attorney general, and academia. These allies did not hesitate to abuse their power. For instance, Attorney General Jerry Brown rewrote the title of the proposition in a way that cost us 5 to 10 percentage points in the polls.
But Proposition 8 proponents got more than it bargained for: ordinary citizens are sick of being pushed around. They aren’t going to take it any more.
The coalition of religious groups who worked for Prop 8 will not dissolve the day after tomorrow. Passing Proposition 8 required an unprecedented level of interfaith cooperation. Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews all worked together. I could feel mistrust melting away as we worked together to protect natural marriage. The solidarity we created will continue long after this particular election.
Interracial solidarity was strong on the marriage issue. Blacks and Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. Los Angeles County voted for Prop 8. That wasn’t Hollywood and Beverly Hills talking: it was the urban minority communities. They don’t seem to feel the need to be politically correct. Pro-marriage advocates of all races met and worked together, and will continue to do so.
The public is much more aware of the promotion of homosexuality in the schools. People will be monitoring the content of school curriculum in a way they had not done before. And since they now have the experience of being successful cooperating with others and promoting their views in the public square, they are much less likely to back down. If the gay lobby could have contained itself and lain low for a little longer, they might have been able to slip a lot of things past the public. Those days are over.
The public was disgusted by the grotesque bullying tactics of the No on 8 coalition. Although the anti-Mormon ad was produced by an “independent” group, no one from the official campaign condemned the ad. The media gave very little attention to the vandalism against Yes, but publicized the few isolated incidents of vandalism against No. But this media spin can’t work when the incidents are happening in your own neighborhood, under your own noses, to people you know. The No campaign should have distanced itself from people who were keying cars, egging houses and spray painting graffiti on churches. But it didn’t.
In short, the success of Proposition 8 is the success of a broad-based coalition of citizen activists who cared passionately about the meaning and future of marriage. The Protect Marriage campaign had literally a hundred thousand volunteers and over 70,000 donors. What Proposition 13 meant to the cause of citizen-generated tax reduction measures, Proposition 8 may mean to the cause of defending and defining marriage.
The judges who created same-sex marriage awakened a sleeping giant. And we won’t be going back to sleep any time soon.
— Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Ruth Youth Proclaim International Mormon Appreciation Day!
In response to the truly despicable, bigoted advertisement, Home Invasion, produced to defeat California’s Proposition 8, the members of Ruth Youth proclaim November 5, 2008 to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.
Whereas: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are exercising their legal first amendment free speech rights by participating in the political process, rights that are dear to all Americans of all religions.
Whereas, the advertisement was generated by an “independent” group calling itself Courage Campaign Issues Committee.
Whereas: the ad has been condemned by representatives of Catholic and Protestant Churches.
Whereas: the Protect Marriage, Yes on Proposition 8 campaign has called upon the No on 8 campaign to repudiate the ad.
Whereas: the No on Proposition 8 has been completely silent in the face of this outrageous display of anti-religious bigotry.
Whereas: the No on 8 Campaign has shown very clearly that they want the exclusive right to define what counts as discrimination and hate.
Whereas: the campaign to protect natural marriage by passing California’s Proposition 8 has been called the largest grassroots political campaign in history.
Whereas: attacks on the religious freedom of one group threaten the religious freedom of all religions.
Whereas: Ruth Youth is an international, interfaith coalition of youthful souls of all ages who support natural marriage, in law, culture, media and academia.
Whereas: we are grateful to the members of the LDS Church for their participation in the campaign to protect marriage from being radically redefined by unelected judges.
Whereas: We are proud to have been part of said campaign, and we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the members of the LDS Church.
Therefore, be it proclaimed:
We, the members of Ruth Youth, hereby declare and proclaim November 5, 2008, to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.
We hereby express our gratitude toward and solidarity with our LDS brothers and sisters. No matter how the election for Proposition 8 turns out, we are grateful to the courageous, dedicated, and always cheerful members of the LDS Church.
Whereas: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are exercising their legal first amendment free speech rights by participating in the political process, rights that are dear to all Americans of all religions.
Whereas, the advertisement was generated by an “independent” group calling itself Courage Campaign Issues Committee.
Whereas: the ad has been condemned by representatives of Catholic and Protestant Churches.
Whereas: the Protect Marriage, Yes on Proposition 8 campaign has called upon the No on 8 campaign to repudiate the ad.
Whereas: the No on Proposition 8 has been completely silent in the face of this outrageous display of anti-religious bigotry.
Whereas: the No on 8 Campaign has shown very clearly that they want the exclusive right to define what counts as discrimination and hate.
Whereas: the campaign to protect natural marriage by passing California’s Proposition 8 has been called the largest grassroots political campaign in history.
Whereas: attacks on the religious freedom of one group threaten the religious freedom of all religions.
Whereas: Ruth Youth is an international, interfaith coalition of youthful souls of all ages who support natural marriage, in law, culture, media and academia.
Whereas: we are grateful to the members of the LDS Church for their participation in the campaign to protect marriage from being radically redefined by unelected judges.
Whereas: We are proud to have been part of said campaign, and we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the members of the LDS Church.
Therefore, be it proclaimed:
We, the members of Ruth Youth, hereby declare and proclaim November 5, 2008, to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.
We hereby express our gratitude toward and solidarity with our LDS brothers and sisters. No matter how the election for Proposition 8 turns out, we are grateful to the courageous, dedicated, and always cheerful members of the LDS Church.
Our friend Leland strikes again
The man with the refurbished Prop 8 sign (shown in the "Going Green" post below) has protested one of his favorite websites, BoardGameGeek, for blocking ads from ProtectMarriage.com after some regulars complained.
He writes:
"After seeing how afraid the enemies of traditional marriage and family are of open expression of opinion even in this one very small and cloistered neighborhood of the web, I just have to wonder what we can expect if Proposition 8 fails and they then feel like they have the mandate they need to completely reorder society in general according to their own self serving preferences. I hate to even think about it."
Here is what he posted on the website's thread:
"Now I’m the one who is shocked, Aldie. You’re actually kowtowing to the politically ‘correct’ thought police on this one, are you?
As far as I’m concerned Barry’s objection is made in the same spirit as the folks who’ve been going around stealing or destroying people’s Prop. 8 yard signs or besieging people’s homes when Prop. 8 signs are posted on their house out of reach (to keep it from being stolen or defaced) or vandalizing the homes and/or cars of people who dare to display Prop. 8 signs or stickers...
Barry, what I think of your attitude is best exhibited by what I did with the yard sign someone destroyed in my front yard.
PS: I'd be just as incensed if an anti-Prop. 8 advertisement led to this kind of censorship. This is the exact opposite of being “an open, welcoming community”. But for the record, an anti-Prop. 8 ad would have at most only caused some people to voice disagreement, not a request for censorship."
He writes:
"After seeing how afraid the enemies of traditional marriage and family are of open expression of opinion even in this one very small and cloistered neighborhood of the web, I just have to wonder what we can expect if Proposition 8 fails and they then feel like they have the mandate they need to completely reorder society in general according to their own self serving preferences. I hate to even think about it."
Here is what he posted on the website's thread:
"Now I’m the one who is shocked, Aldie. You’re actually kowtowing to the politically ‘correct’ thought police on this one, are you?
As far as I’m concerned Barry’s objection is made in the same spirit as the folks who’ve been going around stealing or destroying people’s Prop. 8 yard signs or besieging people’s homes when Prop. 8 signs are posted on their house out of reach (to keep it from being stolen or defaced) or vandalizing the homes and/or cars of people who dare to display Prop. 8 signs or stickers...
Barry, what I think of your attitude is best exhibited by what I did with the yard sign someone destroyed in my front yard.
PS: I'd be just as incensed if an anti-Prop. 8 advertisement led to this kind of censorship. This is the exact opposite of being “an open, welcoming community”. But for the record, an anti-Prop. 8 ad would have at most only caused some people to voice disagreement, not a request for censorship."
The Return of Open Attacks on Religious Minorities: Prop 8's Legacy
Maggie Gallagher's response to the vicious ad mentioned in the previous posting. Find it online here. Gallagher is the president of NOM--National Organization for Marriage.
Well this is certainly change.
The voices of tolerance in California are concluding their campaign against Prop 8 with this TV ad, which engages in a level of blatant religious hatred I've never seen in American politics. Ever.
I don't think its been seen in American politics since the late 19th Century attacks on Catholics, which may be why the Catholic Conference in California was so quick to denounce the ad.
It depicts two young Mormon missionaries (they are identified as LDS) invading a home and ransacking their belongings. It's ugly in the extreme.
Remember, a vote for Prop 8 in California leaves same-sex couples protected by full marriage-equivalent civil unions. None of that matters. If you think marriage means a husband and wife you are just like a racist and you can be treated any way they want.
Apparently people who think they are the civil rights movement of the century do not think they have to behave with even minimal decency towards those of us who disagree with them. These are not some outliers in the wacky blogosphere.
These are the leaders of the gay marriage movement in America who made and ran this ad.
A very revealing (and scary) moment.
Every decent voice needs to stand with the LDS folks against this kind of vicious attack on their faith community because as American citizens, they have exercised their civil rights to vote, organize, and donate.
Well this is certainly change.
The voices of tolerance in California are concluding their campaign against Prop 8 with this TV ad, which engages in a level of blatant religious hatred I've never seen in American politics. Ever.
I don't think its been seen in American politics since the late 19th Century attacks on Catholics, which may be why the Catholic Conference in California was so quick to denounce the ad.
It depicts two young Mormon missionaries (they are identified as LDS) invading a home and ransacking their belongings. It's ugly in the extreme.
Remember, a vote for Prop 8 in California leaves same-sex couples protected by full marriage-equivalent civil unions. None of that matters. If you think marriage means a husband and wife you are just like a racist and you can be treated any way they want.
Apparently people who think they are the civil rights movement of the century do not think they have to behave with even minimal decency towards those of us who disagree with them. These are not some outliers in the wacky blogosphere.
These are the leaders of the gay marriage movement in America who made and ran this ad.
A very revealing (and scary) moment.
Every decent voice needs to stand with the LDS folks against this kind of vicious attack on their faith community because as American citizens, they have exercised their civil rights to vote, organize, and donate.
Truly Awful Ad from the No on 8 Campaign
Vote now for Prop 8. Get all your friends and family to the polls today.
Gay marriage activists have sunk to new lows: they are running this ad, which makes a disgusting, vicious, attack on Californians who happen to be members of the LDS Church who have peacefully organized, voted, spoken and donated in order to protect marriage.
Right now they are going after Mormons, but don't think they won't come after you and your rights too. This vile ad expresses the contempt our opponents have for religious liberty and for the very idea of tolerating people who disagree with their views on marriage.
Every faith community in America--every decent voice in America--needs to stand up now and express our solidarity with the LDS Church against these outrageous attacks. Stand up and fight for marriage, for our rights, and for the very idea of tolerance and decency in American political life! (Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, just weighed in on National Review Online, click here).
If you don't live in California, call up a friend or relative who does. Tell them to get to the polls and vote Yes on 8. Write a letter to the editor to your local paper, and protest this ugly outburst of blatant religious bigotry on a small faith community in America. These powerful politicians need to know: This is an attack not on one small church but on all of us in America who believe in religious liberty and basic human decency.
(In Florida, vote Yes on 2, in Arizona, Yes on 102, and in Connecticut, Yes on Question 1).
Most important, let me repeat: get to the polls. Vote for Prop 8 like your life--or at least your religious liberty--depends on it.
God bless you,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
Gay marriage activists have sunk to new lows: they are running this ad, which makes a disgusting, vicious, attack on Californians who happen to be members of the LDS Church who have peacefully organized, voted, spoken and donated in order to protect marriage.
Right now they are going after Mormons, but don't think they won't come after you and your rights too. This vile ad expresses the contempt our opponents have for religious liberty and for the very idea of tolerating people who disagree with their views on marriage.
Every faith community in America--every decent voice in America--needs to stand up now and express our solidarity with the LDS Church against these outrageous attacks. Stand up and fight for marriage, for our rights, and for the very idea of tolerance and decency in American political life! (Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, just weighed in on National Review Online, click here).
If you don't live in California, call up a friend or relative who does. Tell them to get to the polls and vote Yes on 8. Write a letter to the editor to your local paper, and protest this ugly outburst of blatant religious bigotry on a small faith community in America. These powerful politicians need to know: This is an attack not on one small church but on all of us in America who believe in religious liberty and basic human decency.
(In Florida, vote Yes on 2, in Arizona, Yes on 102, and in Connecticut, Yes on Question 1).
Most important, let me repeat: get to the polls. Vote for Prop 8 like your life--or at least your religious liberty--depends on it.
God bless you,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
California supporters of same-sex 'marriage' losing money
From OneNewsNow.com.
Many teachers and utility consumers in California are angry over campaign contributions made by a teachers union and a utility provider in support of homosexual "marriage."
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been keeping tabs on the California Teachers Association (CTA) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and working with American Family Association to expose the companies' support of same-sex marriage. Both companies made large financial contributions to fight Proposition 8, which would restore California's definition of traditional marriage and overturn the recent court ruling legalizing homosexual marriage in the Golden State.
"After Pacific Gas & Electric gave a quarter of a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, and after the California Teachers Association gave over a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, they are now financially taking a hit," Dacus explains.
According to the attorney, more than 5,000 people -- many of them teachers who are disenchanted with CTA's political donation -- have cancelled service with PG&E and are now obtaining service from companies that generally charge less as well as support family values.
"Countless numbers of public school teachers [who are] outraged with their teachers union are contacting the Pacific Justice Institute and downloading information from ChooseCharity.org in order to switch from this union and have all of their union dues given to a charity that's in agreement with their faith instead of the union," Dacus adds.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, Dacus hopes the campaign against the two organizations will continue. More information about California utilities that support traditional marriage is available at NOtoPGE.com.
Many teachers and utility consumers in California are angry over campaign contributions made by a teachers union and a utility provider in support of homosexual "marriage."
Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been keeping tabs on the California Teachers Association (CTA) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and working with American Family Association to expose the companies' support of same-sex marriage. Both companies made large financial contributions to fight Proposition 8, which would restore California's definition of traditional marriage and overturn the recent court ruling legalizing homosexual marriage in the Golden State.
"After Pacific Gas & Electric gave a quarter of a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, and after the California Teachers Association gave over a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, they are now financially taking a hit," Dacus explains.
According to the attorney, more than 5,000 people -- many of them teachers who are disenchanted with CTA's political donation -- have cancelled service with PG&E and are now obtaining service from companies that generally charge less as well as support family values.
"Countless numbers of public school teachers [who are] outraged with their teachers union are contacting the Pacific Justice Institute and downloading information from ChooseCharity.org in order to switch from this union and have all of their union dues given to a charity that's in agreement with their faith instead of the union," Dacus adds.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, Dacus hopes the campaign against the two organizations will continue. More information about California utilities that support traditional marriage is available at NOtoPGE.com.
Monday, November 03, 2008
'President Obama' could overturn marriage amendments
From OneNewsNow.com.
California, Arizona, and Florida have constitutional amendments on the ballot to ban homosexual "marriage." Liberty Counsel examines the Florida amendment as well as the repercussions of the federal election.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the stakes are high in Florida because passage of a constitutional amendment requires 60 percent of the vote. "Right now the polls show about 57 percent in favor of the amendment. The good news is only 34 percent oppose the amendment," he explains. "There is an undecided factor in there. I believe that factor will swing for us when they go to the polls."
However, he also points out the national election could affect all states in terms of homosexual marriage. If elected president, Barack Obama has promised to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which currently means states cannot be forced to recognize homosexual marriages that are legal in other states.
"Now if that happens, that will be like removing the dam and same-sex marriage will flood across the country, notwithstanding the fact that a state even has a constitutional amendment," he contends. "A state will be required to recognize either Massachusetts or California or some other state's same-sex marriage law. That means same-sex marriage will literally rush across the borders of all 50 states."
Staver urges people from every state to think carefully before they cast their votes on Tuesday.
California, Arizona, and Florida have constitutional amendments on the ballot to ban homosexual "marriage." Liberty Counsel examines the Florida amendment as well as the repercussions of the federal election.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the stakes are high in Florida because passage of a constitutional amendment requires 60 percent of the vote. "Right now the polls show about 57 percent in favor of the amendment. The good news is only 34 percent oppose the amendment," he explains. "There is an undecided factor in there. I believe that factor will swing for us when they go to the polls."
However, he also points out the national election could affect all states in terms of homosexual marriage. If elected president, Barack Obama has promised to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which currently means states cannot be forced to recognize homosexual marriages that are legal in other states.
"Now if that happens, that will be like removing the dam and same-sex marriage will flood across the country, notwithstanding the fact that a state even has a constitutional amendment," he contends. "A state will be required to recognize either Massachusetts or California or some other state's same-sex marriage law. That means same-sex marriage will literally rush across the borders of all 50 states."
Staver urges people from every state to think carefully before they cast their votes on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)