Friday, October 31, 2008

Is the NAACP oppostion to Prop 8 fraudulent?

A lot of us have been puzzled by the NAACP's oppostion to Prop 8. Most responsible polling shows that over 90% of African Americans support traditional marriage and Prop 8. So why does the NAACP, the premier civil rights organization oppose Prop 8? The Protect Marriage Campaign may have gotten to the bottom of it in this story. Citing data from the Secretary of State, the Prop 8 people believe that the head of the LA Chapter of the NAACP has accepted nearly $200,000 from No on 8 through her Public Affairs company, AC Public Affairs, Inc.
According to the Protect Marriage campaign:
Campaign finance records reveal that Alice Huffman, President of the California State NAACP, the only major African American leader in California to endorse legalized gay marriage, has received nearly $200,000 from the NO on 8 campaign in “fees” through her company AC Public Affairs.

You can confirm the payments to ACPA by going to this link and scrolling down. The payments are listed in order of size, starting with the largest and descending. You will see a payment of $100,000 to ACPA on Oct 2, and another payment of $98,033.00 on Oct. 14th. These expenditures are classified as "Campaign Consultants."
Hmmm. I wonder what kind of consultation she did. The Protect Marriage story continues:
African American leaders throughout California were shocked when Huffman, as a member of the NAACP Board, endorsed the No on 8 campaign despite the statewide, unified voices of African American political and religious leaders in support of traditional marriage. Huffman has never taken a vote of NAACP chapters and members, which is customary before endorsing any state measure or proposition. Records show that Alice Huffman, through her AC Public Affairs Company, received $100,000 from NO on 8 on October 2nd of 2008 and another $98,000 on the 14th of October 2008.

Trina Williams, Vice President of Inglewood’s NAACP Chapter, said today that “no endorsement of ANY proposition is ever authorized without a resolution, a vote, and a majority vote of its members.” Williams indicated that to date, “the Inglewood NAACP has yet to receive any word from the national organization telling us to vote NO on Proposition 8.” Huffman appears in print advertising and mailers for NO on 8 along with one or two civil rights leaders supporting NO on Proposition 8.

“Alice Huffman has used her position without support of the vast majority of African American people and interfaith leaders in our communities in Los Angeles or California. It is very disappointing and misleading to say that she is representing the African American community or the NAACP, which is and has always been passionately in support of traditional marriage and traditional families,” said Williams.

So where is the outrage? Where are the drive-by media on this story? Did she agree to oppose Prop 8 in return for money? Or did the No on 8 people look around until they could find an agreeable civil rights leader (I mean real civil rights, not made up civil rights like gay marriage)? And why did she suspend the usual procedures of taking a vote of the membership?
According to Prop 8:
African American voters formed the largest supportive voting block for traditional marriage when it was on the ballot in California in 2000. Political experts anticipate that the African American vote will weigh in heavily on Tuesday, November 4th, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama. YES on Proposition 8 expects the turnout to be very helpful to its campaign.

No kidding! I hope the membership of the NAACP tells Ms. Huffman what they think of her! And I hope they vote Yes on 8!

Autism and Advanced Parental Age

Regular readers of this blog know that I have an interest in everything relating to fertility, and to delayed child-bearing. Here is more evidence that advanced paternal age may be a factor in a child's risk of autism. From the abstract:
After adjustment for the other parent's age, birth order, maternal education, and other covariates, both maternal and paternal age were independently associated with autism (adjusted odds ratio for maternal age 35 vs. 25–29 years = 1.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 1.6; adjusted odds ratio for paternal age 40 years vs. 25–29 years = 1.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 1.8). Firstborn offspring of 2 older parents were 3 times more likely to develop autism than were third- or later-born offspring of mothers aged 20–34 years and fathers aged <40 years (odds ratio = 3.1, 95% confidence interval: 2.0, 4.7). The increase in autism risk with both maternal and paternal age has potential implications for public health planning and investigations of autism etiology.

This differs from other studies I have posted, in that the mothers' age appears to be a risk factor, as well as the fathers' age.
We have been trying to fool Mother Nature by postponing fertility indefinitely. Women have learned to their sorrow that this is not always possible: advanced maternal age increases the risk of infertility. So it is now interesting to see that advanced paternal age can be a problem as well.
For those who are new to this blog, here is the theory: as a man ages, his "fertility" doesn't necessarily decline, in that his sperm count may be just fine. But it appears that when the DNA replicates, it does not replicate precisely. The older the man is, the greater the likelihood of small genetic defects appearing in his DNA as it replicates. When I say "small" genetic defects, I mean that they are not substantial enough to be fatal to the infant. But, these genetic defects are thought to be the cause of the increased risk of not only autism, as observed in this study, but also schizophrenia and cancer later in life as well.

I have posted evidence

Donor Conceived Persons demand their rights

This donor conceived person is demanding her rights. She wants to know who her father is.
The daughter of an anonymous sperm donor has filed a legal action against the attorney general of B.C., seeking to change the rules that currently deprive children born by way of "gamete donation" the identity and history of one of their biological parents.

Olivia Pratten filed the proposed class action in B.C. Supreme Court, claiming that the records relating to the identity of the biological parents of an adopted person are preserved, but the records relating to a gamete donor are only required to be preserved for six years.

Once destroyed, a person born by way of a donor cannot get the medical or social history of a donor, and cannot learn crucial components of their identity such as racial, cultural, religious and linguistic history, which may cause psychological distress, the legal action claims.

The state has actively assisted the separation of children from their parents, in this case, her father. The state should be in the business of enabling the connection between children and parents, not deliberately disrupting it.

Videos featuring Dr. Jennifer Morse

The video called Panel Discussion is Dr. J and Glenn Stanton. The video called Protect Marriage Rally has a few minutes of Dr. J in it, along with Glenn. These are the videos that originated at Skyline Church in La Mesa.

Check them and other good ones out here:

Prop. 8 supporters contend with vandals, city statute


Warning: Content may be inappropriate for children.

Supporters of Proposition 8 in Chino Hills, California, have met opposition from local officials as well as vandals. Prop. 8, which appears on the November ballot in the Golden State, would overturn the California Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual "marriage." Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) senior counsel Erik Stanley got a call from Calvary Chapel Chino Hills explaining their plight.

"They related to us that the city of Chino Hills was threatening to fine home owners $25 a day for putting 'Support Proposition 8' signs in the yards of their houses and was threatening to fine the church $250 for distributing the signs," he says.

Stanley took a closer look at the city's sign ordinance. "The city of Chino Hills has a very unconstitutional sign ordinance that would require anybody wanting to put up a political sign to go down to city hall and get a $250 permit before they could put one sign in their yard -- even if they made that sign themselves," he contends.

Prop. 8 signs were stolen from the yard of one family belonging to the church, and graphic messages were scratched into their two cars. The vandals keyed "Gay Sex is Love" into the car's paint, while also writing other degrading phrases in permanent marker "all over both vehicles." Additionally, the delinquents broke off an antenna on one car and bent the back windshield wiper on the other.

"Supporters of Proposition 8 should not be punished for their position on the marriage amendment," Stanley adds. "They are Americans, and they not only have a right to vote on and promote Prop. 8; they also have a right to be free of fear, intimidation, and the destruction of their property."

ADF sent a letter to Chino Hills Mayor Curt Hagman, outlining why the law violates constitutional rights, and the city attorney then wrote a response, assuring Stanley that the ordinance would not be enforced.

Updates from

Positive Trend
We seem to be picking up momentum with our ads and the grassroots effort. People are starting to learn that same-sex couples already have all of the rights and benefits of marriage under the domestic partners law and will not lose them if Prop 8 passes. They are also learning about the horrendous consequences of the ruling of the four San Francisco judges.

There is a new Field Poll coming out on Friday that shows that we have closed from a 17 point deficit to a 5 point deficit in one month. Remember, the Field Poll has always been skewed against us, so this is very good news. It confirms the trend we have seen in other polls that show us with a slight lead. We need to keep the momentum going.

Lots of Work for the Last Few Days
We definitely have the momentum but we must complete many additional phone calls and work very hard to get our vote out on Election Day. Please make a commitment to sign up for Election Day coverage, particularly from 4 pm to the close of polls at 8 pm at

Fundraising is going well and we have reached objectives on time. The are now over 76,000 donors – I am sure a record for California. Only 19% of the donors are from out of state compared to 30% for our opponents.

NAACP Scandal
While the majority of African Americans support Prop 8, the President of the California NAACP came out in opposition to it without so much as a vote of its California Branches. Now it has come out that the No on Prop 8 campaign paid her $200,000. Read more about it at:

No on 8 Showing Signs of Stress
The No on 8 campaign trotted out a group of bio-tech executives to say if Prop 8 passes, it will create a homosexual brain train to Massachusetts and give California a competitive disadvantage.
Check out other arguments they are making at

Another good ad from

Very reasoned and factual.

Teachers Empowerment Network

Public school teachers can go here to opt out of their union dues if they do not agree with the political stances of the California Teachers Assocaition:

California Teachers Empowerment Network
phone: 1-888-290-8471

They also have a website at

"Brad Pitt and the Meaning of Marriage"

Here is a great article! In this article, Christopher West lays out the argument agaisnt those who think Prop 8 is about discrimination. He used the example of Brad Pitt who gave $100,000 to NO on PROP 8 campaign.

PITT: "Because no on has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8."

View the argument against this comment here!

Elementary schools promoting homosexual agenda


California parents learned too late that some of their young children were being taught to accept homosexuality.

Brad Dacus, founder of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), says the indoctrination at "Coming Out Day" involved children as young as kindergarten at Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science in Hayward, California.

"This is an event where they have pictures [and] posters up, telling stories and encouraging people who feel that they are homosexual or opposite gender to freely express that and articulate and affirm that," Dacus explains.

According to a PJI press release, parents noticed that the posters -- which claimed to promote families -- depicted homosexual "families" only. The legal firm says the school is continuing to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month for the rest of October, but parents are being ignored in the process.

"There's been no opportunity for parents to opt out, no consideration and tolerance for the wide diversity of parents' views and perspectives that are different than this," Dacus points out.

On November 20, the school will host "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud," where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk."

"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" the Christian attorney asks.

Dacus is certain there are outraged California parents curious about what they can do to stop the indoctrination. "The parents who would like to contest or would like to fight it should contact us at Pacific Justice Institute," he adds.

Prop. 8 outcome key for America's future


Homosexual activists are paying close attention to the outcome of the upcoming election.

The results are crucial to the pro-family, traditional marriage foundation of America, and a wrong outcome could make things tough, according to Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

"More and more the Democrats are pushing for a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Nancy Pelosi's on record for that," he explains. "Barack Obama is calling for a full repeal of DOMA, the law signed by Bill Clinton that protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state gay marriages."

LaBarbera believes the California vote on Proposition 8, which would protect traditional marriage, would have national repercussions if it fails. "And if that doesn't pass, it's a bad sign for the pro-family movement, and the gay lobby would just be overjoyed and go into overdrive to promote their agenda across the country," LaBarbera contends.

In fact, if Prop. 8 fails and Democrats gain the White House and a congressional majority, a same-gender marriage bill is likely to pass in Washington, DC, in January, according to activists and city hall insiders. Evan Wolfson, executive director of the same-sex marriage advocacy group called Freedom to Marry, told The Washington Blade, "Where California goes, so goes the nation."

Numbers close in California pro-marriage proposition


SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A new poll shows California voters who oppose the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages slightly ahead going into Tuesday's election.

The Field Poll released Friday had opponents of the ban with a 49 percent to 45 percent edge. That's much closer than in previous surveys over Proposition 8.

The poll is based on a random sample of 966 likely voters conducted Oct. 18 to the 28. It has a sampling error rate of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points on the issue.

Twenty-seven states have approved anti-gay marriage ballot measures, including seven in 2006. Besides California, Florida is considering a ban this year.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

DR. J in the Media

Dr. J will be on CNN International today broadcasting in the US and the UK.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

A beautiful meditation on the blessings of marriage

An email from a friend:

Marriage, the unique sexual union of a man and woman, explaining why it is called “the act of marriage,” is the only relationship to make it out of the Garden. In that way it is a common grace, an undeserved blessing that is bestowed on everyone without their having earned it, like the rain that falls on the fields of both the righteous and the unrighteous. Even those who are not married enjoy some of the bounty of the fruitfulness that marriage has produced, and still produces, in the world. And children, in particular, benefit broadly and deeply from growing under the shade and nurture of the man and woman whose sexual union produced them.

Oh, but you say, “I do not believe in God, and I reject the notion that marriage is a blessing somehow formed, or conceived of, by God.” No one can truly believe in God on behalf of another. But the case for the unique definition and place of marriage does not rest only on such a belief. Evidence abounds that, like the rain, marriage is associated with good outcomes for those who enter into it or are committed to it. The evidence is overwhelmingly positive in this regard. And is that not exactly what we would expect to be the case, if marriage had, for sake of argument, been created as the one foundationally sound human relationship, “good,” indeed “very good,” as it were?

And this is not to say that effort plays no role in the success of marriage. To be sure, marriage, like everything else in the world we have now has been singed, tainted, damaged. Marriage has produced heartache as well as joy. With all due respect to Joni Mitchell, we will never truly get back to the Garden. There is, and will be, no “perfect” marriage because there are no perfect people. But marriage still in actual life, the highest plateau upon which to live out a committed sexual union relationship.

We recognize that, like the variations in the rain, the blessings of marriage are not entirely uniform or predictable. Nor does marriage flourish without diligence, dedication, sacrifice and love. This rule applies to nearly every human endeavor, from the attainment of Olympic gold to the mere satisfaction of a “job well done” to the even more significant successful raising of a child. So too we know that the farmer’s fields will not produce a uniform harvest, or that only by planting the seed will he guarantee the success of his crop. As we would think a fool the farmer that disclaims the rain for his fields, so might it not also be foolish to jettison the very meaning of what marriage is and always has been known to be?

Citizens of California, think clearly, act wisely, affirm the unique sexual relationship of marriage resoundingly.

Teachers pushing gay agenda

And the Prop 8 opponents attest that things such as this are not and will not happen:

Especially check out page 4--the teacher's union is promoting the incorporation of gay themes in the curriculum. “Explore various approaches to incorporating GLBT themes into the curriculum.”

A resonse to Prop 8 sign stealers

From an email to Dr. J:

I heard your talk at Our Lady of Peace in Santa Clara a few weeks ago and I have been talking to my friends about prop 8 (this lit up a few fireworks) and also have a “YES on 8” sign on our front lawn (2nd one since one was stolen)… so between the first sign being stolen and the arrival of the second one, I made a response…

Some Prop 8 Encouragement

Sent from a friend, with minor edits for length:

In the aftermath of the evil San Diego city council's vote to oppose Proposition 8, I'd like to share some very small but encouraging news.

First, in a residential/rural area of Escondido, I saw Yes on 8 signs everywhere. That evening, I saw a group standing at the freeway exit waving large pro-Prop 8 signs. I beeped and gave them a thumbs-up.

Second, yesterday evening I went out to place two Yes on 8 signs near my house. As I was walking to the location to post the signs, about five drivers gave a thumbs up. Then, as I began placing the signs, a man driving a truck stopped in the middle of the street and yelled, "What are you doing? I'm calling the police." I went over to him and asked, "What do you think I'm doing?" (meaning, I'm just here putting up signs.) He asked if I were stealing the signs! I said, "No, I'm putting up new signs. If you're for Prop 8, I'm on your side!" The man apologized profusely, and said that a lot of the signs have been stolen. I told him I was aware of that and was just placing new signs.

Third, as I was driving home from work, there were several people waving Yes on 8. I parked and went over to talk to them. They said that they had received far more positive than negative reaction to their signs, like 10 to 1 in favor!

So, despite the San Diego city council's egregious vote, and the efforts of the media to marginalize, divide, and discourage us, please take heart.

There are still many people who understand marriage is a union of one man and one woman. With prayer, fasting, and God's help, we will win Prop 8 on November 4!

What you need to know about Prop 8

From American Family Association:

Joe Infranco, an Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) lawyer working on the Prop 8 issue, reports the following:

"As you are aware, the reports of criminal acts and vandalism against Prop 8 supporters is growing every day. I spoke with the campaign yesterday, and we now estimate that hundreds of thousands of campaign signs have been stolen or vandalized. These acts of vandalism take place on private property – homes and churches alike. The police have been flooded with reports on these acts, and appear powerless to stop it. We know of reports of cars being vandalized, church property spray-painted, a campaign worker being assaulted and needing 16 stitches, and so on. Blogs like the Daily Kos have even called for substantial donors to be identified from public records and harassed. The opposition is being funded by large corporations such as Apple, Google, and many others."

I urge you to watch this Prop 8 video (English version - Spanish version). After you watch it, please forward to friends and family.

Please vote Yes on Prop 8 and encourage others to do the same. Our children’s future is riding on the outcome.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

San Diego City Council Thinks it can Decide for San Diegans

"City Council votes 6-2 to oppose Prop. 8" reads the headline from the San Diego Union Tribune.

Read the article here. Add your comment to the 249 already posted. Clearly not everyone agrees with the council's decision!

Federalist Society Analysis of In re Marriage Cases

Today's second item that is germane to Prop 8 is an analysis published by the Federalist Society in a publication called, "The Modern California Supreme Court: Progressivism and Practical Constraints." The authors, Damien M. Schiff and Timothy Sandefur, are not known to me. As the title suggests, this publication is an analysis of recent CA Supreme Court decisions, including but not limited to a brief discussion of In re Marriage Cases. That is the decision that would be overturned by the passage of Proposition 8.
Full disclosure: I am an approved speaker on the Federalist Society Speakers' Bureau. This is a conservative organization for law students and lawyers. They are most emphatically NOT a social conservative organization. They have a goodly mix of libertarians and fiscal conservatives, many of whom are completely irreligious and even hostile to the social conservative worldview. This fact makes the analysis of Schiff and Sandefur all the more significant.
They question the Court's judgement in its claim that the terms "marriage" and "domestic partners" are different enough to justfiy the court's argument.
"the terms domestic partnership and civil unions do not appear to be derogatory, and it is questionable whether citizens have a constitutional right to be described by words they find preferable..."
But the real "money quote" in this article came next.
Far more significant in the Marriage Cases was the court's adoption of strict scrutiny in cases where the government classifies people on the basis of sexual orientation. This portion of the opinion will have far-ranging effects in the coming years. Under the Marriage Cases, the state may now discriminate between men and women more easily than it can discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Given that California remains the epicenter of major battles between traditionalists, located for the most part in the state's rural counties, and urban social liberals, a statewide ruling requiring school districts, public health clinic and all other government institutions to treat both groups with precise equality may result in serious conflicts in the decades ahead.

I have argued for some time (here and here and here.) that the end result of the legal trends would be a world in which gender is considered socially constructed and therefore subject to social engineering, while sexual orientation is considered fixed, immutable, and therefore the basis for creating a protected class. This analysis seems consistent with my intuition.
This analysis is also consistent with the arguments of the General Counsel of the Prop 8 campaign. He has been arguing that requiring defense of sexual orientation claims to pass strict scrutiny greatly increases the chance that in conflicts between religious liberty and sexual orientation, the state will now favor sexual orientation. Religious liberty claims are far more likely to lose.
Although the Federalist Society paper did not say this, I will say this: The disproportionate favoring of sexual orientation over religion is reason enough for fair-minded Californians to vote yes on Prop 8.

Pro-Marriage Efforts Attacked in Florida

From the Liberty Counsel:

In Florida, the web site reported that in the last week its computer system has been hacked and infected with viruses. The attacks are obviously designed to shut down their efforts in these final days before the vote.

The good news is that an Orlando Sentinel poll shows the amendment gaining support - up 5% in just a few days to 57% supporting. Florida law stipulates that 60% of citizens must support a constitutional amendment for it to pass.

+ + Voter turnout will decide the fate of marriage!

It is now clear that voter turnout will decide whether marriage survives in Florida. Alert your friends across Florida right now and urge them to join in signing the CitizenPledge to save marriage.

Go here to sign the Pledge:

Liberty Counsel has already identified more than 100,000 Florida pro-family citizens as part of our online get-out-the-vote effort. But we need to reach tens of thousands more.

Thank you in advance for your help, and for taking a stand for marriage.

“Big pro-Choice guy” Backs Proposition 4 on Los Angeles Radio

A morning talk-show host on “the most listened to news/talk station in America” who describes himself as “a big pro-choice guy” has told his listeners he will vote in favor of Proposition 4 because it takes into account “virtually every single objection the other side has been able to come up with.”

Bill Handel told listeners during his 8 a.m. “Handel Yourself in the Morning” program on KFI AM 640 news/talk radio in Los Angeles, “Am I going to vote for it? Yeah, probably. Even though I’m a big pro-choice guy, this one is so reasonably done, and it really does say, ‘Hey, parents have a right to be notified, and, if there’s any fear of parents somehow punishing you, then we have ways of dealing with that, and here they are.’”

Handel, a lawyer specializing in reproductive technology who also hosts KFI’s weekend program “Handel on the Law,” said the arguments of opponents of Proposition 4 are no longer convincing because those who crafted the measure took pains to answer objections to previous parental notification initiatives this time around.

“The proponents of this law have done a very good job of drafting into the law virtually every single objection the other side has ever been able to come up with and made it a reasonable alternative, have taken into account all the other side’s arguments and said, ‘We will take that into account and will incorporate that into the law and make sure your concerns are addressed across the board – health of the mother, being afraid of parents, judicial waivers, if you can’t reach the parents.’ I mean all of it, anything you can think of.”

Handel said Prop. 4 opponents were left with only two arguments – the “slippery slope” argument that says passage of parental notification would erode Roe vs. Wade, “which I think is a crock,” and the argument that such laws, though well-intentioned, don’t work because “in the real world” not all teens can go to their parents or families, to which Handel responded, “I don’t buy that.” Handel said those who drafted Prop. 4 have stolen the thunder of the opposition by including exceptions to cover all reasonable objections.

To hear the podcast of Handel’s comments on Proposition 4, click here.

Before you vote, watch this!

From AFA (American Family Association):

What are the key issues regarding the definition of marriage in the Nov 4th vote in California (Prop 8), Arizona (Prop 102) and Florida (Amendment 2)? (Although taped before a California audience, this program applies to all three states.) Using the alphabet, the key issues are identified in this program.

Hear from Ake Green (Sweden), David & Tonia Parker (Massachusetts), Jonathan & Elaine Huguenin (New Mexico), Melissa Fryrear (Colorado), Scott Hoffman (New Jersey), Maggie Gallagher (New York) along with several attorneys and many others. Those for homosexual “marriage” do not want these stories told. The truth is damaging to their cause.

Watch this video, then email it to your friends and family.

This program, entitled “The A, B, C’s of Protecting Marriage,” originated from Skyline Church in the San Diego area and was downlinked to approximately 170 church auditoriums on Sunday night Oct 19, 2008.

Homosexual propaganda rampant in Mass. schools

The president of a pro-family organization in Massachusetts says public schools in the Bay State have been negatively influenced by homosexual marriage.

Mass Resistance president Brian Camenker says that immediately after Massachusetts courts made homosexual marriage legal in his state, many schools had assemblies celebrating the decision. Those assemblies featured pro-homosexual speakers, teachers who announced that they would "marry" their same-sex partners, and homosexuals who announced they would pursue adoption.

Camenker points out the homosexual agenda was even promoted in middle schools and elementary schools. "David Parker was the parent of a kindergartner in Lexington, where they were telling the kids about same-sex families being normal just like their mother and father," he explains. "And they had gotten to the point, even by 2005, where they considered this so important to tell kids that they refused to allow parents to opt their own kids out of that propaganda and wouldn't even tell them when it happened."

Parker sued the school system, but Camenker says the judges ruled that, because homosexual marriage was legal in that state, parents had no right to opt out and also said that the schools were promoting good citizenship. (See related story) Camenker warns that public schools have become a major target of the homosexual agenda, and that the passage of homosexual marriage in other states will only embolden the movement.

This article compliments of

Independent Legal Analysis of Prop 8

Two different legal analyses of Prop 8 came across my desk this morning. Both of them are from competent legal authorities, and neither of them is connected with the Prop 8 campaign in any way known to me.
The first is an article in the San Diego Union Tribune, by University of San Diego Las professor Steven Smith. I am not acquainted with Prof Smith, although I have read articles of his.
His analysis supports the analysis I have offered throughout this campaign: On this issue, the intolerance is coming not from the Religous Right, but from the gay lobby and its allies. Failure to pass Prop 8 will decrease tolerance, not increase tolerance.

Americans generally want to be tolerant – to “live and let live.” So this depiction (seems to)... make a powerful case for legalizing same-sex marriage.

But the depiction also oversimplifies the matter, drastically. What it ignores is the existence of Americans – millions of them, most likely – who believe something like this: They acknowledge, or firmly insist, that gays and lesbians are human beings, as fully citizens and as equal in dignity and worth as their straight neighbors. These Americans recognize that gays and lesbians have often been the victims of senseless prejudice, discrimination and violence. They readily agree that gays and lesbians are as entitled to “the pursuit of happiness” as anyone else, and that it is a good thing for gays and lesbians, like everyone else, to enjoy stable, loving personal relationships.

What these Americans do not believe is that same-sex unions are in all respects equivalent to traditional marriage. More specifically, on moral or religious or purely prudential grounds, they believe that it is better for children to be raised in a family with a father and a mother. These Americans understand, of course, that reality often falls tragically short of the ideal. But it does not follow that the ideal itself should be abandoned.

And this is where things get complicated – and where the “live and let live” sentiment obscures more than it illuminates. That is because if same-sex marriage is legalized, and thus officially deemed equivalent to traditional marriage, then this settlement will converge with powerful anti-discrimination policies and laws that exist in every state and at the national level. The convergence would have legal consequences, and it would work upon culture. And the result would be, inevitably, that the traditional view, and those who hold it, would be disadvantaged in a variety of ways.

“Prediction is very hard,” as Yogi Berra observed, “especially about the future.” Nonetheless, our experience permits some modestly confident predictions about likely legal and cultural consequences of the convergence of same-sex marriage with anti-discrimination laws and policies.

Public schools may not be legally required to teach anything about marriage at all. But the fact is that they do teach about marriage, deliberately or casually, and a consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage will almost inevitably be that the schools would teach the full acceptability of such unions. People would still be free to disagree, of course. But children would, in effect, be officially instructed that parents and religions who try to teach the traditional views are wrong.

Institutions that adhere to the traditional view would be subjected to legal restrictions, some of them likely quite severe. In Massachusetts, the Catholic adoption agency was recently forced either to transgress church teachings by placing children with same-sex couples or else to get out of the adoption business. The agency chose to adhere to its beliefs. By forcing this choice upon the agency, the state acted to the potential detriment of thousands of children.

By the familiar logic that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is possible that institutions that adhere to the traditional view would eventually be denied tax-exempt status, as happened with Bob Jones University. That outcome would be the financial equivalent of fining such institutions millions of dollars for maintaining the traditional view.

a strong case can be made that the best accommodation – and hence the most tolerant course – is to recognize and respect “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” for same-sex couples while not legally equating this status with traditional marriage.

In short, the most tolerant position, albeit an inelegant one, may be the compromise that prevailed in California until recently – until the state Supreme Court, on fanciful grounds, invalidated Proposition 22, which the people overwhelmingly approved less than a decade earlier.

A Yes vote on Proposition 8 would be a vote to restore that condition of tolerance.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Chicago mayor opposes 'gay'-friendly school

Opposition to a school for homosexuals and lesbians in Chicago is growing.

The school has taken public input on setting aside the school as a safe haven for homosexuals, but Mayor Richard Daley has announced opposition to the idea. Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute was asked what that means to the campaign against it. (See earlier story)

"It gives enormous weight because, unlike in many communities, the school board in Chicago is not elected...," she explains. "They are appointed by Mayor Daley. So for [him] to come out in opposition to the school, my understanding is that carries enormous weight."

Even homosexual activist groups in the area are now opposing it on the grounds that it amounts to separate but equal treatment. Higgins is hopeful people will continue to voice their objections to the school.

"Expressing disapproval of homosexual conduct does not constitute bullying, and that is what homosexual groups are trying to conflate," she adds. "If it did, then it would mean any time we would express disapproval of any conduct, we would be bullying those people who engage in it. It would preclude us from ever making moral statements."

Advocates of the school -- proposed to open in 2010 -- say it is needed in order to combat the bullying, dropout, and depression rate among homosexual students.

The school board is expected to vote next month.

This article came from

Teacher outrage over dues money to homosexual agenda

An article from

The president of the Pacific Justice Institute says a large percentage of California public school teachers are outraged over the California Teachers Association's support for homosexual marriage. According to Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus, the CTA has funneled more than $1.2 million into the fight against California's Proposition 8. That proposition, if passed on November 4, would define marriage as between one man and one woman and amend the state constitution accordingly. Dacus also stated CTA's opposition to Prop. 8 has angered many public school teachers whose CTA membership fees have been used to fund the opposition campaign. In response, his group has launched a project called

"And what we are educating and defending the rights of teachers to opt completely out of their union and give all of their union dues, every single penny of it, a charity that's in agreement with their faith -- and our phone is ringing off the hook," he adds.

Dacus says outrage over the CTA's opposition to Prop. 8 is even being expressed by parents who are also upset over homosexual indoctrination in public schools. That indoctrination includes the "Children Coming Out" program.

"In fact we have some state laws that were passed that actually mandate this kind of indoctrination," says the attorney. "But parents are opening their eyes up; they're waking up."

Dacus encourages any teachers who are upset over the activities of their unions to visit

Utility paying price for homosexual support

This article comes from

California supporters of Proposition 8 are taking issue with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

Proposition 8 is designed to overturn the state Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual "marriage." Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute tells OneNewsNow why many voters are upset with the utility.

"Pacific Gas & Electric shocked and stunned many of its customers and shareholders when it decided to give $250,000 dollars -- a quarter of a million dollars -- specifically to oppose Proposition 8, which is a pro-marriage amendment to recognize marriage between one man and one woman," he explains.

American Family Association, a pro-family group based in Mississippi, sent its California subscribers an e-mail on the subject and, so far, 4,500 PG&E customers have cancelled service. Dacus expects that number to be 10,000 to 20,000 by Election Day. "People need to understand that there's [sic] two ways they can vote on this issue," he contends. "One is by going to the polls and voting for Prop. 8. The other is by choosing to switch from PG&E to an alternative natural gas provider -- and I think that in the long run, the latter can be just as important."

Dacus suggests those interested in alternative utility providers visit

Prop. 8 protects 'bedrock' of society

This article is from Rev. Ortiz, a Hispanic pastor in the LA area. It appeared in the Pasadena Star News.

IT'S unfortunate that the Whittier Daily News ("Our View," Oct. 9) and some religious leaders in this community (Guest View, Oct. 5) have such a simple view of the issue of homosexual/same-sex marriage. To see marriage as a "human comedy," where people are only concerned about just "loving each other" and "sanctifying" their "devotion and feelings" for each other is a tragedy of narrow vision.

This simpleton view creates a monster like a cyclops! Such is the case when this newspaper sees life from only one dimension and encourages you to vote "no" on Proposition 8. Marriage is far more complex than even this newspaper's editorial cared to admit. As one who prepares couples for marriage, officiating 10-20 ceremonies per year, and serving this community for more than 37 years, please allow me to broaden your vision.

When you vote "yes" on Prop. 8, you understand the broader dimensions and implications of fundamentally changing the definition of the most important bedrock relationship of our society - marriage, and its inevitable corollary - the family. By inserting the true meaning of marriage into our state constitution you send a clear, concise message to our culture and our children that only the union of one man and one woman rightly qualifies to be called a marriage in its most basic form and purpose. Marriage was intended to create families, not just "loving, devoted" couples.

When you vote "yes" on Prop. 8, you are siding with more than 61 percent of California voters in 2000 and with 1.1 million California citizens in 2008 who signed petitions to put the proposition on the Nov. 4 ballot. You agree along with every culture, every country, every religion, every society and every honest social scientist from the beginning of time that the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, where children can be nurtured and raised in a stable and secure family environment.

When you vote "yes" on 8, you are not trying to punish or prohibit gay people from living their chosen lifestyle. Prop. 8 does not change or object to rights already established in law for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights and end-of-life care issues. When you vote "yes" on Proposition 8, you are proclaiming loudly that you don't want your children in California's public schools to be taught that homosexual/same-sex marriage is the same as your marriage to your wife or husband.

In fact, you keep your fundamental right as a parent to be the primary teacher of your family's core values, and not have that right taken away as it has already been done in Massachusetts. When you vote "yes," on Prop. 8, you will keep the fundamental right of free speech and religious freedom intact for your pastor, rabbi, priest, imam, elder, or faith leader when they act, teach, preach, or speak from religious conscience against the practice of homosexuality. This religious freedom is in jeopardy of being called "hate speech."

When you vote "yes" on Prop. 8, you will agree with me and my colleague, Felice Austin, in "Ask a Christian," when she says, "Proposition 8 will ensure that church and state remain separate in California. It will prevent morality from being legislated on either side. It will not infringe upon already established rights for homosexual/same-sex couples. It will protect the rights of people and organizations that believe in the traditional family from those who would use the muscular arm of the government to punish those that disagree with them."

We the people of California have the right to define what a marriage is. We're voting "yes" on Prop. 8 on Nov. 4.

The Rev. Jim Ortiz is senior pastor of My Friend's House Assembly of God and president of Whittier Area Evangelical Ministerial Alliance.

News coverage of prop 8 supporter tire slashing

Watch it here.

Is it just me or are just the opponents of Prop 8 the ones who are getting mean and nasty? They seem to be angry people in general. I haven't heard of any prop 8 supporters destroying anti-prop 8 property. Just wondering.

A fantastic Defense of Marriage!--The protection of Children

This is a fantastic movie put together! Watch it here.

Tolerance in Clairemont-tires slased, Yes on 8 in yard

Read this note from a yet another victim of "tolerance."

This morning, Saturday, October 25th, my neighbor knocked on the door to tell me I had tires slashed on my cars. I discovered a total of three tires slashed on two of our vans parked in front our house in Clairemont. We have a Yes on 8 sign posted in our yard. Several years ago when Prop 22 was on the ballot we had a Yes on 22 sign in our yard and had two tires slashed on our van. We purchased new tires and again two tires were slashed. They could not be repaired since they are always slashed on the sides, like today. Until election day, we parked away from our house. Our signs have been up for over a week with no problem so I hoped that the tolerant and loving tire slashers were no longer in the neighborhood. At first I had hesitated even putting a sign up for that reason. One of my friends asking for signs, asked for the ones that would give her the most chance of having her car or home vandalized. Inspired by her courage, we put a Yes on 8 sign up.

I have filed a police report, making it clear the connection with Prop 8. The officer taking the report was appalled at the lack of tolerance by those preaching tolerance, asking “Where is our freedom of speech?”

I notified all the San Diego TV news stations. Fox 6 news said they were coming out and a Channel 8 photographer came out interviewed me and photographed the vans with the slashed tires. It will air at 5, 6:30 or 11pm tonight. KUSI was not interested. Channel 10 was interested, but not in doing a story.

My husband and son are going out this evening to plaster the area with Yes on 8 signs. Our sign will stay up. We will most likely park away from our house though. I recommend taking your signs down when the polls close on election day. If Prop 8 passes, God-willing, there likely will be more incidences. This is just a foretaste of the tyranny that we will be under if Prop 8 loses. Speak out now and work and pray like crazy before it’s too late! Be sure to report any theft and vandalism so the word gets out to the police and press.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Another video link

You can see the video link to the story about the Parker family, here.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Education is a Prop 8 Issue

The gay lobby has spent the last week trying to convince the public that the Protect Marriage campaign is a bunch of liars. They say the Prop 8 education ads are not truthful. But every time the gay lobby mentions education, they are helping convince voters to vote Yes on Proposition 8. Here is why I think so:
1. The education issue is deeply troubling to the average voter. Most ordinary people are revolted by the idea of small children being taught anything about homosexuality, without their parents knowing about it. Little kids should be playing with play dough and finger paints. The schools should not be trying to go behind the backs of the parents and overturn their values.
2. The No on 8 campaign evidently hopes that the only thing that sticks in people's mind is that the proponents of Prop 8 are liars. But, as I showed in my previous post, the differences in interpretation that they are promoting as "lies" are not large enough to be significant to the average voter.
3. The No on 8 campaign is in no position to promise the voting public that small children will not be taught about homosexuality in the schools. They can not make this promise, and will not make this promise.
4. The videos of the families in Massachusetts are very compelling. These are real people. They seem like nice people, conscientious people, with whom ordinary citizens can identify. No matter what legal hair-splitting the No on 8 campaign comes up with, they can't deny that the Wirthlins and the Parkers really did have their children come home from school with stories of King and King. The Courts really did side with the school and the gay lobby. And the organizations that supported the schools in court, the Human Rights Campaign and the ACLU, are well within the ideological camp of those trying to assure the public that their parental rights are not endangered by gay marriage.
5. The gay lobby and their allies are asking the public to trust them: "Prop 8 has nothing to do with education," they say. "It is only about marriage," they say. They are asking public to believe that after they have gone to all the trouble of establishing gay marriage in California, they will sit back, fold their hands, and never mention the subject in the schools. But why should the public believe this? The gay lobby is very powerful and has been quite successful in Sacramento. Who are their allies? Why, the courts of course. And now we know that the schools are allies of the gay lobby. The Superintendent of Schools, an elected official, allowed himself to be used in a No on 8 ad. The California Teachers Association contributed one million dollars of their members' dues to defeat Prop 8. The CTA never explained to the public or their members how gay marriage is going to put books on the shelves or construction paper in the classrooms or money in the teachers' pockets.
So thank you, to the education establishment, for making it clear that you are an ally of the gay lobby. We don't have to accuse you of anything: you admitted it yourself.
This is the coalition telling the public to trust them: defeat Prop 8, and we'll never mention same sex marriage or homosexuality in the schools, ever again, we promise.
So keep bringing up education. Every time you mention education, the public gets nervous.
Every time they hear another news story about gay themes in elementary school, the public gets nervous. The infamous field trip to see a lesbian wedding. Every time they hear about a Coming Out Day or an Allies Week, they get nervous.

People look at the Wirthlins and the Parkers, and they want to do their part to prevent something like that from happening in California. They know, or have a pretty good idea, that passing Prop 8 is not a panacea: the gay lobby and its allies can acheive their objectives in other ways. But the voting public also knows that if Prop 8 fails, the gay lobby and their allies will be emboldened to press their advantage in the educational system and elsewhere.

Education is a reason to vote Yes on Prop 8.

Friday, October 24, 2008

San Diego Auxiliary Bishop Cordileone's Statement to City Council

I am very proud of my bishop. Please share this message far and wide. Dr J

Most Rev. Salvatore Cordileone
Auxiliary Bishop
Catholic Diocese of San Diego

October 21, 2008

Dear Mayor Sanders and Members of the San Diego City Council,

Those of us who favor preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman in California are wondering what ever happened to our democracy.

In 2000, 61% of voters – 4.6 million citizens – voted in favor of Proposition 22, which placed the traditional definition of marriage into the California Family Code. The will of the majority was overturned by four Supreme Court Justices on May 15th of this year. It is true that citizens should ensure that ballot propositions they present be able to pass constitutional muster. But defining marriage as it has been understood in every society since the beginning of the human race is hardly the stuff of which unconstitutional laws consist.

Trusting in the democratic process, many people expended vast resources of time, energy and capital to qualify the language of Proposition 22 as a constitutional amendment, and it was certified shortly after the Supreme Court decision as Proposition 8. Concerned about the confusion and legal quagmire that could result not only in California but all throughout the country due to same-sex marriages contracted between the time of the implementation of the decision and the hopeful passage of Prop 8, the attorney general was requested to stay the decision until after the election. Such an action would seem to be a common sense move to protect the public good. Nonetheless, he refused do so. Then, in an unprecedented move, he also changed the title of the proposition after its qualification for the ballot in a way that prejudices the wording as much as possible against the initiative.

Next, we hear of “Yes on 8” signs disappearing repeatedly, all throughout the state, with impunity. A pro-Prop 8 worker in Modesto was attacked, and so severely beaten he had to be rushed to the hospital and given stitches. And yet, not a peep from our elected officials decrying this violence and intolerance. A little over a year ago, a letter of mine was read in these very chambers when you were debating signing onto the Amicus curiae brief to urge our State Supreme Court to rule the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. In the letter, I stated that this issue was divisive, and we needed to unite our community; that point was rejected as being untrue. The experience over this last year has more than adequately demonstrated that it is true.

Now we find our City Council poised to speak for our entire city in taking a stand against Proposition 8. Have you taken a survey of the citizens of the San Diego area? The movement in support of Prop 8 began here in San Diego and has spread like an October wildfire all throughout the state. At this time, the polls indicate that supporters for Prop 8 outnumber its opponents. How can you presume to speak for the entire city when a majority – or at least, a very sizeable minority – is in favor? What would the other side think and feel if you voted to support Proposition 8? Why are our thoughts and feelings not worthy of equal consideration to theirs, especially when we can offer many rational, cogent arguments to justify our position? We support marriage because marriage benefits everyone; we abhor violence and unjust treatment against people who disagree with us. Nonetheless, we are accused of discrimination. Who, though, is being discriminated against now?

A little over two weeks ago, I stood on the same stage with some of you at the San Diego Organizing Project’s rally for our youth. I was happy to be there and even felt obliged to attend, because I can hardly recognize this city from what it was when I grew up here in the 1960’s. I could walk home alone from elementary school and fear no harm. My friends and I could play in the streets without our parents having to worry for our safety, and we all had secure homes to return to. That is why I was so gratified by your commitments to make the youth of our communities a top priority. What, though, can be a greater benefit to children and young people than growing up with their mother and father married to each other in a low-conflict relationship? We need to be supporting and strengthening the institution of marriage for the sake of children, not redefining and weakening it. Yes, many people find themselves as single parents through no fault of their own, and they need and deserve our praise and support for the sacrifices they make to give their children the best possible up bringing in less-than-ideal circumstances. But to intentionally deprive children of a mother and father is something quite different. After having made such laudatory and inspired commitments to our youth, please, do not now sell them down the river by telling them that it’s not important for them to have a mother and a father.

Please do not divide our community any more bitterly than it already is. Please do not betray the trust the public has placed in you. Please do not disenfranchise those who worked so hard to give Californians the opportunity to decide. Rather, please place principle over politics, and allow the democratic process to work, unencumbered and objectively. Please, do not give up on the idea that democracy is a good thing when allowed to work according to its principles. Please, let the people decide, fair and square.

Sincerely yours,

Most Rev. Salvatore Cordileone
Auxiliary Bishop
Catholic Diocese of San Diego

Another powerful video

This one from Value Voters USA.

Click here.

California School Holds 'Gay Day' for Kindergartners

Parents in Hayward, Calif., were shocked to learn their children were being taught to be "allies" of homosexuals, WorldNetDaily reported.

Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science reportedly did not inform parents of its pro-homosexual activities, which included "Coming Out Day," "Ally Week" and Gay and Lesbian History Month.

Pacific Justice Institute attorneys, who are advising the parents, said the school also is planning to host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, an event where students will hear adapted tales such as Jane and the Beanstalk.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said this demonstrates why Californians need to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"Do we need further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8. has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergarteners.

"This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."

Read the entire article from WorldNetDaily.

Petition prayer to Bl. Louis & Zelie Martin

God of eternal love,

You give us Blessed Louis and Zelie Martin,

the parents of St. Therese,

as an example of holiness in marriage.

They remained faithful to You in all the duties and trials of life.

They desired to raise their children to become saints.

May their prayers and example help Christian family life to blossom in our world today.

If it be Your Will, grant me the grace I now ask of You [the passage of California Propositions 4 and 8],

through the intercession of Blessed Louis and Zelie Martin,

and let them be counted among the Saints in Your Church.

Through Jesus Christ, our Lord.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

Are the Prop 8 Ads Truthful? Part II Legal Hair-splitting and other Mumbo-Jumbo

The opponents of Prop 8 are doing their best to discredit our ads, because they realize that the ads are swaying the public. I thank them for continuing to call attention to the education issue. I believe this issue benefits our side, for reasons I will explain below.
Their argument is that our ads are false because Prop 8 has nothing to do with education, only with marriage. The Superintendent of Schools, Jack O'Connell made a an anti-Prop 8 ad, saying that our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." These decisions are made at the local level.
Technically, this is true. But if a school district elects to teach comprehensive sex education, then they are required by the Education Code to teach about marriage.
Here is the quote from the Ed Code
"Education Code 51933 specifies that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education, but if they choose to do so, they shall comply with the requirements listed below.... instruction shall encourage communication between students and their families and shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

So, you see, the Superintendent is technically correct: each district decides whether to offer comprehensive sex ed.
However, 96% of the districts choose to offer comprehensive sex ed. This choice triggers the obligation to teach "respect for marriage and committed relationships." Prop 8 is significant because it overturns the judicial decision that redefined the term "marriage." The 96% of school districts that offer comprehensive sex ed, will be required to teach respect for this new definition of marriage. Maybe schools will opt out of comprehensive sex ed, rather than comply with this provision. Maybe they won't. But those that offer sex ed, will have to comply.
You tell me: who is being misleading here?
Further, the Department of Education has a checklist for districts that offer comprehensive sex ed. This is a tool for school districts "to help guide your review of material for compliance with the Education Code 51933." I hope to have a copy of this checklist posted in the next couple days, so readers can see it for themselves. The seventh item on the checklist states:
"Instruction and materials teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." As you can see, there is no grade level specified for this particular requirement.
Interestingly enough, several of the items on the checklist do specify the grade level. For instance, "Commencing in seventh grade, instruction and materials provide information about the effectiveness and safety of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods in preventing pregnancy, including emergency contraception." The specificity of these requirements, in contrast with the open-ended requirement about teaching respect for marriage, leaves open the possibility that children younger than 7th grade could be taught about marriage, in its new meaning.
So who is being misleading here?
It depends on whether you think the ads are saying "with 100% certainty, small children will in fact be taught about gay marriage," or whether you think the ads are saying, "it is a distinct possibility that children of all ages could be taught about gay marriage."
The ad states: "Teaching children about gay marriage will happen here unless we pass Proposition 8."
This is the only statement in the ad that our opponents can possibly questioning. Every other statement tells what happened in MA, or reports what is in the Education Code. And notice this statement does not say at what age children will be taught about gay marriage. It doesn't say it will happen in all schools. It says it will happen, which is undoubtedly true: it will happen in some schools for children of some ages.
I doubt that this qualification will reassure the voting public.
There is one other slightly misleading thing about this whole argument. Even if we do pass Prop 8, it may still happen that children are taught about gay marriage in the schools. The gay lobby has other vehicles for acheiving its objectives: vehicles such as SB 777, which prohibits anything that "promotes a discriminatory bias" based on sexual orientation. But this fact is not particularly reassuring to the public.
The No on 8 Campaign is counting on the public to care about these finely grained legal distinctions between what is directly required vs. what is indirectly required. Oddly enough, the polls suggest that the public isn't buying it.

Are the Prop 8 Ads Truthful? Part I, What the Judge Approved

The opponents of Prop 8 are claiming that our ads are false and misleading. I did a taping for a CNN segment yesterday, in which the interviewer allowed Kate Kendall to accuse the campaign and by extension, me of lying. A commenter on an earlier post, Brian, repeats the claim that we are lying.
So how about it? Are the Prop 8 ads false?
Charge #1: a judge in Sacramento said our ads were misleading. Truth: there was litigation over the language in the Voter Information Guide. The judge asked that we not say schools will be REQUIRED to teach children as young as kindergarten about marriage. We changed the language in our ballot arguments to reflect this.
The Superior Court ruled that the language in the Voter Information Guide is "an accurate statement of the law." The No on 8 side did not appeal this ruling. For the record, here is what the Voter Information Guide says:
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."
This is the language that passed judicial muster. This is the language that our ads seek to dramatize. It is simply untrue for the opponents of Prop 8 to claim that the judge threw out our arguments.
The argument that we are lying seems to hinge on the difference between "could" be forced and "may be required." These are pretty weak reeds.
And for the record, Brian, my commenter down in the earlier post, I have read the entire 120 page opinion In re Marriage Cases. I have the relevant passages of the Education code in front of me. I confess I haven't read all the Massachusetts cases, but I have read excerpts from them.
Nice try.

San Diego City Council opens its Big Mouth Again!

I just got this via e-mail. You'll have to cut and paste the e-mail addresses, if you care to let the City Council know what you think.
This is absurd!!!

This Tuesday October 28 at its 10am meeting, the San Diego City Council will vote on a Resolution which states that the City of San Diego officially opposes Proposition 8. This implies to other Cities and States, that you, as a citizen of San Diego, do not support Proposition 8: that you oppose traditional marriage. This Resolution by the San Diego City Council will attempt to be passed without any public polling, rather, the Resolution will be based on the unilateral opinion and decision of the San Diego City Council.

What can you do?:

TODAY!! Call or email the City Council members listed below and tell them that you support Proposition 8. Remind them that they are ELECTED officials, elected to represent the WILL of the people, and not make unilateral statements on behalf of its citizens without proper polling! Urge them to drop the City Resolution on Proposition 8 entirely and not make a statement at all regarding Proposition 8. Tell them that, with regards to Proposition 8, they do not speak for you!!

Please do not hesitate, your call and/or email is urgently needed, please do this now!!
We must all bond together in one loud voice to ensure this Resolution is not passed.

Please forward this to at least ten people asking them to do the same.

Mayor Jerry Sanders:
Telephone: (619) 236-6330
Fax: (619) 236-7228

District 1 / City Council President Scott Peters
Telephone: (619) 236-6611
From North County (858) 484-3808
Fax: (619) 236-6999
Chief of Staff email:

District 2 Councilmember Kevin Faulconer
Telephone: (619) 236-6622
Fax: (619) 236-6996
Chief of Staff:

District 3 Councilmember Toni Atkins
Telephone: (619) 236-6633
Fax: (619) 595-1481
Chief of Staff:

District 4 Councilmember Tony Young
Phone: (619) 236-6644
Fax: (619) 236-7273
Chief of Staff:

District 5 Councilmember Brian Maienschein
Telephone: (619) 236-6655
From North County: (858) 673-5304
Fax: (619) 238-0915
Chief of Staff:

District 6 Councilmember Donna Frye
Telephone: (619) 236-6616
Fax: (619) 236-7329
Chief of Staff:

District 7 Council President Pro Tem Jim Madaffer
Phone: (619) 236-6677
Fax: (619) 238-1360
Chief of Staff:
Consultant to Rules Committee:

District 8 Councilmember Ben Hueso
Telephone: (619) 236-6688
Fax: (619) 231-7918

Response to Anonymous comment

I am responding to an Anonymous comment.
When I pass houses that proudly display the very misleading happy-go-lucky blue family and yellow-backdrop Yes on Prop 8 sign, I swell up with tears.

I am 19 years old. I am gay.

What you, my fellow Californian and American, impose on me with the signs you display in front of your house is a feeling that I am not welcomed in your great society....In my perspective, I feel like I am walking past a bunch of "F*** YOU FAG!" signs... and although that is not what you intend, the unintentional goal was met - and quite forcefully.

Anonymous: We don't hate you. We do welcome you. We think every legitimate objective of gay and lesbian citizens can be met without redefining marriage. We don't think this campaign is primarily about you. We think it is about the meaning of marriage.
I think it is tragic for you to go around thinking that millions of people hate you. They don't agree with your views, but that's life in a free society. We don't hate you.
Anonymous, you are young, and still forming your sense of yourself as a person. I truly hope your self-esteem does not depend on the voters of California!
I have an article on this, here.
The facts are that gays and lesbians already had all the material benefits of marriage through the domestic partners laws. The gay lobby has chosen, for reasons best known to themselves, to make same sex marriage a great symbolic issue. But individual gays and lesbians can decide anything they want. You can look at those signs and see the largest single grass-roots campaign in the history of self-government. You can see families trying to protect their rights to raise their children in accordance with their values.
Or you can look at those signs and take it personally, as if it is all about you. I feel quite confident in saying that it isn't all about you.
The supporters of Prop 8 are not trying to hurt you. Honest.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Yes on 8 T-Shirts

Spread the word without saying a thing! Get your T-shirts here!

Each religious is group doing what it does best!

Prayer to Blessed Junipero Serra for the passage of California Propositions 4 and 8

Blessed Padre Junipero Serra, apostle and patron of the land of California, who founded missions thoughout this state dedicated to the glory of God and the spread of Christianity, we beg your intercession during this election season.

Today, California is awash in a sea of spilled innocent blood, pornography, and perversion. The one and triune God who you labored to bring to California's native peoples is being steadily forgotten, shut out from public discourse, and blasphemed by so many of her residents today.

Through your intercession, we beg that California return to its Christian roots through the passage of Propositions 4 and 8 on November 4, and that hardened hearts be turned once again to our Heavenly Father. We ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts

Find this article on-line here. Send it to your friends.

"It's far worse than most people realize."

This is an in-depth article demonstrating how legalized same sex marriage in Massachusetts has affected education, public health, domestic violence, adoption, business, government mandates, and much more!

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Educators' dues being used against Prop. 8

Find the original article here.

Many Christian teachers in California are upset with their union for donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat Proposition 8, and then writing a check for another million dollars on top of that. California Teachers Association, the state affiliate of the National Education Association, has made the donations to kill Prop. 8, a November 4 voter initiative that would overturn the state Supreme Court's decision in May to legalize homosexual "marriage." After stating it only makes recommendations to union members -- "The final choice is always up to you," the union states on its website -- CTA contends passage of the proposition would establish "one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set of rules for everyone else. That's not fair."

Finn Laursen, director of the Christian Educators Association International -- which offers educators an alternative to the liberal efforts of the NEA -- reacts to the news of CTA members' dues being used to undermine traditional marriage. "That's obviously what the union has decided," he says. "That money speaks loudly so they're going to invest in the political arena in one of their agendas."

According to Laursen, many Christian educators are also upset with the national organization. "Our phones have been ringing off the hook -- not only since this news, but even [about] the millions upon millions of dollars that the NEA has been investing in the Obama campaign," he shares.

California teachers can make their dues send a message the California group, he adds. "They can ask that all political contributions that come out of their dues be returned to them," says Laursen.

Then teachers can utilize the funds in any fashion they want, he explains, including donating to causes they can endorse. Laursen says many calls they have received want information about joining Christian Educators Association International.

CTA's State Council of Education, which consists of more than 800 member delegates, determined the union's recommendation on Prop. 8.

Opposition to CA Prop 8: Hate in the Name of Love

The entire article can be found here.

Next to the presidential election, California 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."

Prop 8 Q and A video page:

YouTube links:
Proposition 8 Question and Answers:
Will same sex marriages hurt others?
Sick and tired of intolerance?
Are others supporting Prop 8?
Will courts overturn it again?
Didn't we already vote on this?
Don't others deserve the same happiness?
Will existing rights disappear?

Dr. Morse is in this video!

Check it out:

She is at 4 minutes, 15 seconds.

Where is the love?

Toe-tapping video on the not-so-merry mishaps of Prop 8 signs:

Monday, October 20, 2008

CA churches rally for Prop. 8

LA MESA, Calif. (AP) - Dozens of California churches linked by satellite have held a rally in support of a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Proposition 8 will end same-sex "marriages" in California if it passes on November 4.

Rev. Jim Garlow, whose Skyline Church hosted the Sunday night rally, urged Christians to be loving but fearless in upholding the biblical definition of marriage. He said many people who disapprove of same-sex marriage have been frightened into silence. "The number-one ingredient that causes people to compromise is when their desire for respectibility from other persons outweighs their reverent fear of God," said Garlow. "We must fear God more than man -- whatever it costs us."
Garlow and other pastors in the simulcast event urged California Christians to fast and pray and get out the vote in favor of Proposition 8 on Election Day.

Read the article here.

Yes on 8 sign mischief has escalated to a whole new level.

From a reader:
Yesterday my husband and I had the privilege of meeting a family a few streets over from us. We drove past shortly after an unwelcome car had been parked in front of their house (explained by the homeowner, below). We stopped to offer our support. Like many who are displaying "Yes on 8" signs in our neighborhood, the family is Mormon. Another neighbor told us that several high schoolers had been threatened and even beaten up for expressing support for Prop 8.

From their neighbor:
In response to having lawn signs stolen on a regular basis in our area, we decided to display our position on Prop 8 with a large banner.

This afternoon a couple of women pulled up in front of our home and started painting on the windows of their car. I guess they disagreed with us.

As they were painting these messages, my husband came out and asked them if they would like to have a conversation. The "conversation" consisted of them calling us bigots, promoters of hate & prejudice, parents who didn't protect their children and un-Christian (this last comment causing my 11 year old son to cry because he IS a Christian and is so very proud of it!) My husband and children tried to engage in conversation to share our concerns and point of view and were met with increased intensity and anger. Their entire message was that we were closed-minded, motivated by hate and prejudice.

In the end, we left them to their project...knowing that sharing and trying to understand one another's point of view was NOT something they were interested in. Here's what we were left with in front of our home. (See photos below.) By the way...we live across the street from a kindergarten playground...what a nice thing the kids will be able to see at recess and as they walk to and from home.

Now for the good news...since this happened this afternoon we've had all kinds of people drive by taking pictures, talking with us and expressing support. In fact, a wonderful family from our school stopped by to tell us how sorry they were. They are voting No on 8 and long ago we decided that we would be that balancing force for each other in the universe. I was impressed by the way they went out of their way to make sure all was well with us and to let us know that they supported us even though we disgree on this issue.

THIS is the American way... I wish this whole election process would be designed to promote these types of feelings among neighbors instead of the hate and intolerance that seems to be becoming such a prevalent part of our daily lives.

Well, that's what's happening at our house this weekend. Hope all is well with you and...don't forget to VOTE!!!

Prop. 8 Supporters Not Folding Their Tents

Could the tide be turning?

Surprised to be a Donor Conceived Person

I just looked at the video Betsy posted. A young man describes his reaction to finding out that his father is not his father. His mother was impregnated with an anonymous sperm donor. The young man is astonished and staggered. Wow. Money quote: "It doesn't change anything, and yet it changes everything."

Sunday, October 19, 2008

A follow-up to the previous post

And this video:

A first-hand look at the effects of being a Donor's son.

Who am I?

Check out this video:

It's depressing that many children don't know WHO they came from.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

What is Equality?

That is the question raised by this very interesting column in the Yale Daily News.
Equal protection principles basically amount to the idea that individuals in similar conditions should be treated similarly. This ostensibly raises the problem, though, of determining which conditions are relevant (implying sexual orientation is an irrelevant difference).

What interests me, however, is the assertion (the crux of this kind of argument) that they are treated differently. Marriage laws typically state that one is entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex. A denial of equal protection, then, would mean that the law prohibits gay men from marrying women. I seriously doubt there is a legal ban anywhere from gays entering into heterosexual marriage. A gay man has as much entitlement to marry a woman as I do. To put it another way, I, a straight man, have equally little (in three states, equally much) opportunity to marry another man as a gay man does. ...
The only way to use the argument that there is no equal protection under the law is to, well, ignore the content of law that is supposedly being unequally applied. This is different than a black person being denied a job a white person would get. Everyone — gay or straight — is allowed a heterosexual marriage, and everyone is equally denied a homosexual marriage. ...
the argument relies on the reading of the Constitution that says everyone has the right to marry who he wants, not that everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. This is a dangerous formulation because the Constitution requires that everyone have the same legal privileges, not that everyone have a fit between his privileges and preferences.

Requiring that, in order for true equality, everyone must have a privilege that matches his preferences is too much work to ask the word “equality” to do.

Here is another variant of the same concern: the word "equality" is not a stand-alone word. It is a concept which requires a referent. Who is equal to whom, for what purposes? The gay lobby takes it as self-evident that marriage equality requires that the legal definition of marriage be genderless. Mr. Harris in effect, proposes that equality means that everyone is equally permitted to marry an opposite sex partner.
I have yet a different proposal, inspired by CA's domestic partnership law. CA permits same sex couples to register as domestic partners. California also permits opposite sex couples, over the age of 62 to register as domestic partners. In effect, this rule treats intrinsically sterile couples the same way. Why doesn't this count as equality? For some purposes, obviously, it does. We have to specify the referent, before the term "equality," has any meaning.

Brides and Grooms are allowed back in CA

This story reports on the changing legal status of Brides and Grooms in CA. The story quotes Yours Truly.
Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the pro-marriage Ruth Institute, said, “The Supreme Court has changed the definition of marriage for everyone. This case shows that marriage can be either a gender-based institution or a gender-neutral institution.

“Sacramento told this nice couple that they can not have a gendered marriage: They are Party A and Party B, whether they like it or not,” said Morse, a Register columnist. “We need to be prepared for the gay lobby to spin our opposition as ‘see how it feels’. But this is not correct. There is no neutral ground. It is either a gender institution or it is not, and it will be for everybody. Pretending that it treats everyone the same is fundamentally dishonest and should not fool anyone.”