Friday, November 28, 2008

Misconceptions about homosexuality in Christian ministry

My friend Warren Throckmorton posted this summary of misconceptions he frequently sees among Christians about homosexuality, its origins and possible cures.
One - All gay people are attracted to the same sex because they did not bond with their parents or were sexually abused.

Untold pain and confusion has been caused to parents and their same-sex attracted children by well-meaning writers and counselors who promote this unsupported view of homosexual origins. The usual evangelical narrative is that persons attracted to the same sex did not get sufficient bonding or love from the same-sex parent and seek these experiences in the present via sexual relationships from members of the same sex. For males, the concept of an over involved, smothering mother is often thrown in as an additional family factor. In addition, claims have been made that most if not all same-sex attracted people have been sexually abused. ...
Two - Gays can change if they try hard enough.

Closely related to the prior misconception is the one the places the success of change squarely on the motivation of the same-sex attracted person. Like cause of sexual orientation, the research on sexual re-orientation is marked by a paucity of research. Anecdotes of change abound, but so do anecdotes of those who have tried to change and did not. ...
Three - The Christian response to homosexuality is to promote change of orientation.

Closely related to the above viewpoint, efforts to change sexual orientation have been advocated historically by many Christian ministries to homosexuals. However, the change is possible mantra has discouraged many Christian people who are sincere believers but simply find their brain responses remain directed toward the same sex. However, in my view, the proper focus of Christian ministry is fidelity to the teachings of Christ which, in this case, may lead to a celibate life or an acceptance that same-sex attractions may persist unfulfilled alongside opposite-sex attractions and heterosexual marriage. Some people may experience varying degrees of change, but any such change should not be considered a test of motivation or devotion to faith. ...
People who identify themselves as gay, lesbian and/or bisexual are wary of the Church due in part to the culture wars regarding status and marriage. Our gay neighbors are also offended by stereotypes regarding their family background, and the persistence and durability of sexual and emotional desire for same-sex relationships. Without compromising doctrine, those working with same-sex attracted people should bring the good news of forgiveness and grace, unburdened by misconceptions, to those who often see the church as an enemy.

Read it all here.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving from the Ruth Institute

The following was sent to the Ruth Institute by one of our friends. I thought it worth reprinting.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. I hope your favorite team won!
Dr J
Once again it is that time of year where our entire nation takes a day to render thanks. Have you ever stopped to think much about it? How fascinating it is, for to my knowledge, there is no other nation on earth that dedicates an entire day to the notion of showing gratefulness for our lives and blessings.

Many are familiar with Thanksgiving’s post-English colonist beginnings. It was first celebrated in Virginia on December 4, 1619 when Captain John Woodlief knelt in prayer and pledged “Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrivall at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.” And again, as best can be determined, in October or November 1621, when William Bradford led the “Pilgrim” colonists in Massachusetts in a feast with the Wampanoag Indians. Since, the holiday has been celebrated many times and under many circumstances.
While the idea of gratefulness and thanksgiving is not uniquely American, and thank goodness for that, it is true that prominent American leaders have often authored eloquent and profound expressions of thanks. These often accompanied times of great trial, stress and challenge. An example was when, in the midst of the dark days of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress declared, on November 1 1777, that “it is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the eighteenth of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts …”
Or later, on October 3, 1789, after the Constitution and Bill of Rights had both passed Congress, our first president George Washington proclaimed Thursday, the 26th day of November to be a national day of Thanksgiving. In 1790 Massachusetts Governor John Hancock issued his similar proclamation.
“Following President Washington’s initial proclamation of 1789, national Thanksgiving Proclamations occurred only sporadically (another by President Washington in 1795, one by John Adams in 1799, one by James Madison in 1814 and again in 1815, etc.)” many more official “Thanksgiving observances occurred at the state level. In fact, by 1815, the various state governments had issued at least 1,400 official prayer and thanksgiving proclamations.”
In 1863, in the midst of the War Between the States, President Lincoln made a proclamation which set a precedent for America's national day of Thanksgiving at a fixed annual date. The holiday we most closely know today as Thanksgiving had been recommended to Lincoln by Sarah Josepha Hale, a prominent magazine editor. Her letters to Lincoln urged him to have the "day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival."
Finally in 1941, after seeing the date moved up earlier by President Roosevelt, the date for Thanksgiving was officially set by Congress, fixed to be the fourth Thursday in November.

Interesting history, I hope you agree. But whatever the date, whatever the weather and whatever is happening in your world, even if made more difficult by today’s challenges, I hope this year you will take time to contemplate these proclamations of the past and celebrate all the things that you, and we, have to be grateful to God for.
For “what do we have that we have not received?” For those things I say … thanks!

Monday, November 24, 2008

Family breakdown costs New Zealand $1bn a year

Erosion of the family in New Zealand is costing the country at least $1 billion a year, according to new research commissioned by lobby group Family First. The report, The Value of Family, estimates for the first time the fiscal impact of single parenthood, divorce and decreasing marriage rates in the small, South Pacific nation, and finds that the cost over the past decade amounts to $8bn. New Zealand’s gross domestic product is around $211 billion (US$128bn), making the cost of family breakdown equivalent to about 0.5 per cent of GDP a year.

Family breakdown in New Zealand reflects trends in many developed countries, but the nation of not quite 4.3 million people has one of the highest rates of non-marital births -- ahead of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Canada -- and sole parents outnumber married parents among families with children. Some 49 per cent of children (65,000) live in a sole parent household, and such households have five times the poverty rate of couple households. The report, by Dr Patrick Nolan of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, is not the first to point out the toll that poverty takes on children’s health and wellbeing. But it is the first to go behind “child poverty” to the family breakdown that contributes to poverty. It also looks at the role welfare policies may play in non-marriage, family breakdown and “poverty traps”, but finds there is a lack of empirical research to go on.

However, it finds that married couples can also fall into poverty traps, thanks to taxation steps and the abatement of assistance as income rises. Under current tax schemes in New Zealand, married couples from low income families would be up to $15,000 better off in terms of income in the hand if they separated, because of the interaction of family assistance programmes. “The government has created a system which contains perverse disincentives for parents to get married or stay married,” says Family First NZ national director Bob McCroskie.

What the report also shows indirectly is a lack of interest on the part of government and researchers in the fate of the family based on marriage. Moreover, national elections are just two weeks away and yet hardly a word has been said by any party on this subject. The report calls for programmes and services to reduce unwed pregnancy and to help prepare couples for marriage and support them during marriage. It also recommends research on the relationship between government policy and family form. ~ The Value of Family, Family First NZ

Financial crisis sees divorce rates fall in Spain

After rising steadily for a quarter of a century, to more than 100,000 a year, divorce numbers in Spain went into a clear decline earlier this year, when the meltdown of the country's key property sector and the beginnings of the global financial crisis put an end to more than a decade of economic growth. With unemployment rising and house prices dropping, as many as 30 per cent of couples who might have divorced are hanging on. Some might even stay together permanently, says Madrid lawyer Antonio Prada. "The economic crisis would help to preserve marriages" in cases where the partners have at least friendly relations, he adds.

Couples who can't stand the sight of each other, however, are resorting to "internet divorces" based on standard contracts supplied by law forms charging low fees. These create problems, says Prada, because they do not deal with the details of dividing property, child custody and other specifics. Spain legalised divorce in 1981 and Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero's Socialist government made it easier in 2005, putting it on a no-fault basis. The economic slump is also bringing adult children back home as they lose their jobs or find difficulty obtaining mortgages or credit to start a business. The number of young people leaving home fell last year and the number of 30-somethings moving back has risen. ~ Deutsche Welle

Divorcing Italian couple charged with making their son suffer

A divorcing Italian couple who argued acrimoniously in front of their 12-year-old child and fought for his affection face prosecution for causing him psychological suffering. The charge, which carries a prison sentence of up to five years, was brought after a health visitor reported that the child was disturbed. Legal experts think there is no precedent for the case in Britain or Europe.

The prosecution reported that the mother and father blamed each other for "shortcomings and educational errors in bringing up the child", with each parent trying to "discredit, devalue and undermine the other" in front of him and "project their emotions onto him, above all anger". This caused the child to become anxious and depressed, unable to concentrate or do his schoolwork, confused him and instilled in him "the conviction that his parents hated each other". Both parents persisted in arguing in front of the child even though he told them it was "making him feel ill". They had "manipulated" the child in an attempt to make him decide between them" as part of their divorce battle.

A Milan judge will decide early next month whether to go ahead with the trial. If it does go ahead, it could have implications for countless other cases. The case is a sign of growing social alarm over the effects of divorce on children. ~ Times Online, Nov 8

Pray for one Justice on the fence

Prop. 8 is totally in the hands of our California Supreme Court. One judge in particular, Justice Joyce Kennard, is on the fence.

While both sides cheered the court’s decision to take up the cases, Kennard’s lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.Kennard is the court’s longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples’ rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.“It’s always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn’t warrant review,” said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, “I would not think it would be encouraging,” said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.

Indoctrinating Children WARNING: Adult Material

Submitted by Laurie Higgins, Director of the Division of School Advocacy, Illinois Family Institute

Here are two examples of what public money has been used for:

In the spring of 2006, some parents were able to get hold of the hard copy of the curriculum for the mandatory year-long Freshman Advisory class and discovered that the diversity section was deeply troubling. The crowning gloryof our Freshman Advisory "Heterosexism" unit of the "Diversity" section of the curriculum was the "Terminology Match-Up" game wherein freshmen were given either cards with terms or cards with definitions, and then asked to "mill about and find their matches." The terms included the following: cross dressers; down low, which refers to married men having homosexual sex on the side; gender queer; homophobia (complete with Freud's idea about repressed homosexuality); MSM, which means men having sex with men; transphobia; pansexual; androgyny, and sex reassignment surgery.

This past spring, our Senior AP English teacher taught for the second year the egregiously obscene, blasphemous, pro-gay screed entitled Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes by Tony Kushner. The play revolves around two couples: married Mormon couple Harper and Joe whose marriage is disintegrating in large measure due to Joe's repressed homosexuality, which he eventually acts upon: and a homosexual couple, Louis and Prior. Louis leaves Prior when hef inds out Prior has AIDS, and then has a month-long affair with Harper's husband Joe.

There's also Roy Cohn, the unscrupulous, foul-mouthed, closeted, Jewish, Republican lawyer, who dies of AIDS; the black, homosexual, ex-drag queen nurse with the heart of gold, Belize; and the Angel with "eight vaginae" whose visits prompt sexual arousal and orgasm. The play is replete with references to orgasms, fellatio, semen, ejaculation, and f******. It includes the line "Suck my dick, Mother Theresa."

And despite claims by public school administrators and faculty members that they value "diversity," "honor all voices," and are committed to including "multiple perspectives," public schools censor virtually all resources that articulate conservative views on the nature and morality of homosexuality. Almost two years ago, I searched Deerfield High School's library book collection using the search terms"homosexuality," "gay," "lesbian," and "sexual orientation." There were about 75 books. Ten of them were books used for debate like Opposing Viewpoints and Issues in Focus, which include both sides of controversial issues. Of the remaining six dozen-plus that embody a single viewpoint, all were liberal. There was not one from a conservative scholar. This untenable imbalance is universal in public school libraries

Through Illinois Family Institute's new Division of School Advocacy, we hope to alert not only parents but all concerned citizens to both the nature and implications of continued efforts by activists both inside and outside of schools to use our money to indoctrinate children with their radical socio-political vision.

But even more important, we hope to equip community members to respond to these efforts. We plan on providing counsel, teaching seminars, and resources to help community members know what to look for, know how to obtain information, know what questions to ask, and know how to understand and respond to the specious secular arguments that are used quite effectively to transform cultural views through curricula and policy.

What I most want Christians to understand is that the stakes are too high forany of us to remain silent. What just forty years ago was utterly unthinkable and remains utterly reprehensible-legalized same-sex marriage-is just over the horizon in every state. Right now, public education is one of the central battlegrounds for the hearts and minds of our children.

So Sexy So Soon

(Found online here.)

Communication critical: Want to help your children navigate a sex-saturated culture? They'll need to learn your beliefs -- not those all around them.

For a generation, conservatives have discussed the dramatic and oftentimes negative effects of cultural changes on our kids. In So Sexy So Soon, liberals join in and talk about the pernicious effects of the “new morality” on children from the perspective of the other end of the political spectrum. [1] Diane Levin, professor of education at Wheelock College, and Jean Kilbourne, a senior scholar at the Wellesley Centers for Women, highlight the gravity of a hypersexual consumer culture: the insidious way in which advertisers and the media use sex to drive a wedge between children and parents, to create demand among children for provocative toys and clothes, and to redefine even kindergarten to include “sexiness.”

The authors describe a six-year-old, who asks his parents about pornography seen at a friend’s house, and a seven-year-old who cries in the bath because she thinks her body isn’t skinny or sexy enough. Issues that previously surfaced in adolescence are percolating down to kindergarten, and Levin and Kilbourne place the blame for this phenomenon squarely upon mass consumer culture.

Their response is a call for expanded government regulation and more time spent on “media awareness” at school. They also suggest scripts for opening conversations about how to enlist teachers and principals in the effort to keep classrooms and playgrounds free of sexual innuendo. Readers won’t agree with every suggestion, but common ground can be found with their emphasis on good parenting and good communication with kids.

Few parents are prepared to react appropriately to fairly explicit questions about sexuality from their kids in grade school—or younger. But parental response is crucial. Parents, horrified to hear that their five-year-old told a friend he wanted to have sex with her, (when asked, the child said he thought that having sex was the same as giving a hug), should use this as a springboard to a calm and loving discussion—one that builds the kind of relationship that will help transmit values.

If parents erupt in anger, children will still have the same questions and instead go looking to find explanations on TV and in the playground, the very places that presented poor information in the first place. Respectful but firm discussions with parents of children’s friends about media exposure for younger children during play dates and parental supervision at parties when children are older are also important.

Even the most cloistered upbringing cannot fully prevent exposure to popular culture. In fact, especially as children grow up, Levin and Kilbourne argue that this isn’t even really desirable, since young adults can only navigate successfully on their own if they have internalized their family’s values about sex, sexuality and moral behaviour. Children raised in a home with no television or internet connection are part of the broader, and increasingly vulgar culture.

Billboards and ads on buses are sexually suggestive when they are not actually explicit, as are magazines in grocery stores. Children internalize values more readily from their peers than from their families, and new research shows how powerfully media acts as a “superpeer,” shaping attitudes and behaviour among teens.[1] Levin and Kilbourne attribute weakening parental influence in part to the thorny nature of most discussions of sex and sexuality between parents and children.

Levin and Kilbourne are certainly liberal—they point approvingly to parents who take their daughter to a same-sex commitment ceremony as an example of open-minded parenting, for example. But as such, they are carrying a message to those who most need to hear it, those who have outright dismissed cultural concerns, pretending they are part of some conservative conspiracy. In the end, an increasingly sexual world affects all of us. “Culture warriors” must partner with liberals in order to effect change, whether in private life or public policy. So Sexy So Soon highlights some of the elements of the culture wars in which traditionalists and liberals can partner for the benefit of our kids.

Same sex marriage and its threat to religious liberty

By Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

(Found online here.)

Tactics used by gay marriage campaigners confirm believers’ worst fears.

As wildfires blazed in California last week, anger at the outcome of the state’s referendum on marriage blazed across the country. After a hard-fought campaign over Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a clear majority of California voters endorsed it, and the gay marriage lobby was enraged.

Now, as same sex marriage campaigners take the issue back to the courts, it is unclear what the outcome of this battle will be. Will their demands trump the democratic process? It has happened before.

What is clearer than ever is that same sex marriage threatens religious liberty. Disagreement over the extent of that threat played a key role in the debate over Proposition 8. As an independent consultant to the campaign, I must say that the post-election behaviour of the opponents of Prop 8 does not reassure religious believers.

The editor of a new book, Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this way: “All six contributors (to the book)—religious and secular, left, center and right—agree that same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” The demand for same sex marriage brings in its wake a demand for identical treatment of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Churches that resist this demand can have their tax exempt status challenged, can be investigated by “human rights commissions,” and can have parts of their operation shut down completely.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign applied this argument in print and electronic ads. “Churches could lose their tax exempt status,” we said. “People could be sued for their personal beliefs.” The opponents of Prop 8 replied by calling us liars. Their argument was, “No church will lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex weddings.”

Note the sleight of hand: we made a general statement that churches could lose their tax exempt status, as well as have other legal problems. The opponents of Prop 8 brought up the one issue -- refusing to perform weddings -- which they knew the court had specifically exempted from legal challenge. On this basis, they accused us of misleading the public.

I personally was asked many times whether pastors would be forced to bless same sex unions. I told people the pastors were probably safe for now, but that the trend was not encouraging. The most likely outcome, I consistently said, was that the zone of religious freedom would become steadily more constricted. We cited many cases to support this prediction.

Catholic Charities in Boston shut down its adoption agency, rather than comply with the anti-discrimination requirement for the placement of children. A Knights of Columbus chapter in Canada was sued when it refused to rent out its hall for a same sex wedding reception. A Christian marriage counselor lost her job when she referred a lesbian couple to another therapist, rather than counsel them herself. A Christian photographer was fined by a Human Rights Commission in New Mexico because she refused to take pictures at the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.

The No on 8 forces claimed that the cases we brought up had nothing to do with marriage. Gays had used anti-discrimination law in these cases, not marriage law, to sue and otherwise harass churches and religious people. (In fact, marriage was an issue in some of the cases.) In effect the gay lobby argued: “We already have all the legal authority we need to do all sorts of Dreadful Things that You Don’t Like, so vote no on 8.”

Oddly enough, people of faith were not reassured by this message.

But refusal to take the religious liberty argument seriously was not the only way the No on 8 forces showed their hostility to religion. On the Sunday before the election, our opponents ran a truly despicable hate-filled ad against the Mormon church. The ad ran the day before the election, when it was almost impossible to respond to it.

Proposition 8 won the election. Over six million people voted for it for a whole variety of reasons. It is safe to say that the religious liberty argument played a significant role. People waved signs that said, “Proposition 8 = Religious Liberty” and “Proposition 8 = Freedom of Speech.” Even though no one could predict the exact form the legal harassment might take, many voters decided the risk to their own churches was unacceptable.

In the aftermath of the election, the No on Prop 8 forces have taken to the streets, attempting to de-legitimize the election. Their behavior toward religious people amply confirms our worst fears.

The gay lobby targeted the Mormon church. Thousands of protesters surrounded Mormon temples in Los Angeles and in Salt Lake City in an obvious attempt at intimidation. Protestors carry signs saying, “Mormon Scum,” a sentiment that would be widely condemned as bigoted if directed at anyone else. Envelopes with suspicious white powder arrived at the Mormon church in Utah and the Knights of Columbus headquarters in Connecticut.

People have called for the LDS church to lose its tax exempt status. An enterprising reporter found that the LDS spent a grand total of less than $3,000 in an in-kind contribution. The other “Mormon millions” were small contributions by thousands of individual members of the church. Gay activists are scouring the election law, looking for minor violations the church or its members might have made.

This attempt to enlist the government for intimidation actually illustrates the point that concerned us throughout the campaign. If you cross the gay lobby, they will use the legal system to go after you. By passing Prop 8, the voters declined to give the gay lobby any additional legal tools.

The authors of Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty were not exaggerating. The drive for same sex marriage really does clash with religious liberty. The nation-wide post-election outburst gives Yes on 8 voters all the evidence they need that they did the right thing.

Friday, November 21, 2008

“hot, angry tears of betrayal”

Find this article here.

Inside Catholic (

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.(Inside Catholic) - Cardinal Stafford was the Archbishop of Denver before Archbishop Chaput. He was in the Vatican for many years and is now the Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. Last Thursday night he spoke at Catholic University of America.

I'm amazed his speech has not made the headlines, but then, give it time.

I have been told that most of the Vatican curia were hoping Obama would be elected. Well, Cardinal Stafford is definitely not one of them.

“For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Stafford said, comparing America’s future with Obama as president to Jesus’ agony in the garden. “On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.”

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

I've interviewed Stafford before -- he is a man who speaks his mind, always. Some of what he said to me, I didn't put in print, to protect him from a media backlash.

Again quoting from the very fine article in the Catholic University newspaper:

“If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion,” said Stafford, an American Cardinal and Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. “In the intervening 40 years since Humanae Vitae, the United States has been thrown upon ruins.”

This destruction and America’s decline is, in part, due to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the life-issue cases of 1973, specifically Roe v. Wade. Stafford asserted these cases undermined respect for human life in the United States.

“Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic,” said Stafford.

It's nice to know that there is someone other than Archbishop Burke [corrected] in the Vatican who understands the reaction of many American Catholics to the election.

Stafford pointed, as have many others, to the continued importance of Humanae Vitae in understanding the tide of contemporary culture:

Humanae Vitae (“On Human Life”) reaffirms traditional Catholic teachings regarding abortion, contraception, and other human life issues. Pope Benedict XVI said in May it is “so controversial, yet so crucial for humanity’s future…What was true yesterday is true also today.”

The article in the CUA paper has a nicely edited video of the Cardinal's address.

Congratulations to Catholic University, its president, Fr. David O'Connell, the JP II Institute for Marriage and Family, and all concerned for hosting Stafford's lecture.

I'm sorry I missed it.

Here is the full text of the Cardinal's address:

Gay activists focusing on rights issues other than marriage

Keep an eye on the new gay rights projects....

Find this article here.

Gay rights advocates are rethinking their political strategy after losing the right to marry in California.

"There will be some hard questions asked about where marriage ranks on the list of possibilities and priorities" gays should focus on, says Steve Ralls of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

Votes in California, Florida and Arizona that bring to 29 the number of states whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage are likely to prompt more focus on passing legislation to include gays in laws covering hate crimes and discrimination, advocates say.

"Marriage is just an issue where the public is not there yet," says Clyde Wilcox, co-editor of The Politics of Gay Rights.

Many gays welcomed Barack Obama's victory. An Edison-Mitofsky survey at polling places found that 70% of gay voters chose Obama, compared with 53% of voters overall.

"We are very much a part of (Obama's) plan when he looks at the diverse patchwork that is America," says Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group.

Obama has voiced support for civil unions and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act so gays could enjoy the federal benefits, such as Social Security survivor payments, that married couples do. He opposes same-sex marriage but does not favor amending the Constitution to ban it. He has said he would work with the military to repeal the policy that bars gays from serving openly.

Amy Balliett, whose website,, mobilized thousands Saturday to protest the reversal of gay marriage in California, plans more demonstrations, but she says the economy must come first. "Barack Obama can't put his initial focus" on gay marriage, says Balliett, who wed her partner in California last month. "That is just not fair to our nation."

Gay advocates predict swift action on a federal hate-crimes bill that would allow federal aid to investigate crimes committed because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure, which then-senator Obama co-sponsored, passed Congress last year but was dropped from a defense authorization bill after President Bush threatened a veto.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would extend workplace protections to gays, also could resurface for an early vote, says Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Obama has favored the bill.

As for marriage, advocates say they will focus on education to sway not only lawmakers but the public. PFLAG plans programs in January in California, New York and Iowa in which parents of gays will talk to members of their churches, especially in minority communities where opposition to same-sex marriage is strong.

Most attention is on the Northeast, though. Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only two states where same-sex couples may marry. New York could be the next gay-marriage arena:

The Human Rights Campaign spent $120,000 to help Democrats take control of the state Senate, whose Republican leaders have blocked gay marriage bills passed in the majority Democratic Assembly.

eHarmony gives in to homosexuals


Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a heterosexual-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable "right" to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh?

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks -- heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. "Men seeking men" has now been enshrined with "I have a dream" as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

Neil Warren, eHarmony's founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A "Focus on the Family" author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all.

Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony's right to operate a lawful business that didn't give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great "sin" was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists -- and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model.

The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey's Civil Rights division "to cover investigation-related administrative costs." Oh, and that's not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:

Additional terms of the settlement include:

-- eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the "Diversity" section of its website as successful relationships are created using the company's same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

-- eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company websites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation";

-- The company has committed to advertising and public relations/marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the "fair, accurate and inclusive" representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because "litigation outcomes can be unpredictable." The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on eHarmony management's minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: more shakedowns of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.

Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.

Homosexual high school nixed until next year


The proposal for a homosexual school in Chicago has been withdrawn, but a pro-family advocate believes it will be submitted again next year.

Social Justice Solidarity High School was supposed to be a safe haven for homosexual youth and would have featured homosexual-friendly curriculum, but the school ran into opposition from both sides. Pro-family advocates opposed the use of taxpayer money to fund the school, while some homosexual groups opposed the school because they claimed it amounted to segregation. (See earlier story)

Laurie Higgins, director of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute, says proponents of the school had watered down the proposal to focus on all so-called "disenfranchised" students. "Some of the people on the design committee were unhappy with the watering down of the proposal, and they hope to finalize some plans and resubmit them with a stronger proposal, which I think means more affirmation of homosexuality," she explains. "That was a very disturbing report."

She opposes the school on the grounds that it uses taxpayer money. Higgins contends that Chicago schools have other problems that the money would be better used to address. "Listen, we do need to make schools comfortable places as best we can for all students, but those means do not justify the ends of affirming ideas that are both fallacious and destructive to individuals and society," she concludes.

Homosexual advocates plan to introduce new plans for the school in 2009.

Prop. 8 opponents rejecting democracy


According to a conservative media watchdog, the mainstream media is completely ignoring a wave of quasi-fascism that has descended upon California and several other states by radical homosexual activists who don't respect the will of the people.

Brian Fitzpatrick, senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, recently wrote a column called "Crouching Fascism, Hidden Media." He says on November 4, a majority of voters in liberal California approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment declaring that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in the state. But he points out that militant homosexuals have not respected that decision and have vandalized property, threatened people, and mailed white powder to Mormon churches. Fitzpatrick calls that "fascism."

"Fascism rejects democratic values. We see outright rejection of democracy in California. We see people trying to turn to the courts," he explains. "We see people trying to victimize or punish people who voted against them -- and this is not the American way. It's a very frightening cultural development."

The national media, Fitzpatrick adds, has been AWOL concerning these incidents. "All we've seen is continued coverage of this issue as a civil rights battle or this issue as a blow against homosexuals and homosexual couples. We see emotional pitches," he says. "We see no serious analysis of the significance of homosexual or same-sex marriage, whether it's good or bad for society."

Fitzpatrick, whose columns appear regularly at OneNewsNow, believes America has not yet seen political violence of the kind that led to takeovers of Germany and Italy by fascist elements before World War II. He contends if media outlets do not investigate these current incidents, expose the perpetrators, and pressure the government to press charges, only greater political violence can be anticipated -- even eventually against the media themselves.

They Won’t Know What Hit Them

Read it and weep. This is the guy who turned Colorado from red to blue. he also took down Marilyn Musgrave, a Congresswoman, in that state. Find it online here.

A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified. Carroll was among the dozens of targets of a group of rich gay philanthropists who quietly joined forces last year, under the leadership of a reclusive Colorado technology mogul, to counter the tide of antigay politics in America that has generated, among other things, a succession of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. Carroll had sponsored such a bill in Iowa and guided it to passage in the state House of Representatives, the first step toward getting it on the ballot.

Like many other state legislatures last year, Iowa’s was narrowly divided. So all it would take to break the momentum toward a constitutional marriage ban was to tip a few close races. If Democrats took control of the House and Senate, however narrowly, the initiative would die, and with it the likelihood of further legislation limiting civil rights for gays and lesbians. And, fortuitously, Carroll’s own reelection race looked to be one of the closest. He represented the liberal college town of Grinnell and had won the last time around by just a handful of votes.

Over the summer, Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics.

Carroll certainly didn’t catch on until I called him after the election, in which Democrats took control of both legislative chambers, as well as Carroll’s seat and four of the five others targeted by Gill and his allies. Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism. But Carroll was sufficiently intrigued to propose that we each log on to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board’s Web site and examine his opponent’s disclosure report together, over the telephone.

Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Shar­on. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”

To continue reading, click here.

Proposition 8 hostility 'got out of hand,' Assembly speaker says

Find this article on-line here.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said today she is "appalled" at the hostility that has been directed at African-Americans since the passage of Proposition 8.

According to exit polls, 70 percent of black voters supported the gay marriage ban measure, which has caused friction between gays and blacks.

But during a meeting with The Bee's Capitol bureau, Bass said that lost in the post-mortems over Proposition 8 is that black support for the measure was "a generational issue" that divided younger and older African-Americans.

The Los Angeles Democrat, who is California's highest-ranking African-American elected official, said she was "really appalled at how quickly (the issue) was racialized, and it wasn't even analyzed."

"I have friends in Los Angeles, who are African-Americans in the (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community, and they went out to protest the vote and had racial epithets hurled at them," Bass said. "A couple of them were fearful and they left because they were threatened."

Bass, who opposed Proposition 8, said she was "appalled at how quickly some members of the LBGT leadership went there, as opposed to saying, 'what did we or didn't we do in the campaign?'"

The No on 8 campaign, she said, failed to do enough campaigning in the black community "and the LBGT leadership is looking back at that."

"I do think that people have pulled back a way from some of the hostility - I mean it got out of hand," she said.

Bass said she was contacted by some LBGT "leaders who asked me if I would be helpful in terms of negotiating and mediating."

"I declined because I felt that they were bypassing black LBGT leadership," she said.
The speaker said "there's a lot of healing that needs to take place."

"But I think the first place that the healing needs to happen is in the LBGT community - white and black," she said.

Bass said leaders in the gay community need to do a better job of outreach in the black community.

She said that while campaigning for an Assembly candidate in San Diego, she was surprised when a group of African-American ministers told her they supported Proposition 8 because of "liability" concerns.

The speakers said the ministers were worried they would be sued by gay church members if they declined to marry them.

But in a decision in May that sanctioned gay marriage in California - before it was repealed by the voters - the state Supreme Court ruled "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples."

Boycotting the New York Times for Unfair Prop 8 Coverage

Some of our readers may be interested in Don Feder's overall project of boycotting the New York Times:

NY Times Leaves Out Relevant Details in Coverage of Prop 8 Lawsuit (online here)

Don Feder, editor of the Boycott The New York Times website (, noted that The New York Times intentionally left out most of the relevant details in reporting on the ongoing effort to overturn California's Proposition 8 (the marriage-protection amendment to the state constitution) in an article the paper published on November 18.

"Tuesday's story is a continuation of The New York Times' biased coverage of the entire Prop. 8 campaign," Feder wrote on "In evaluating The Times' coverage of any issue, what's not reported is as important as what is."

The Times story focuses on California Attorney General Jerry Brown's request that the State Supreme Court review the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in response to protests and lawsuits.

Among the facts The New York Times conveniently left out of the story are the following:

• Same-sex marriage was never part of the California Constitution. It was forced on the state in May, by an edict of the same court now being asked to rule on the legality of Prop. 8.

• Despite massive opposition by the mainstream media, including The New York Times, Prop. 8 passed by a vote of 52% to 48%. Now, citizens of 30 states have enacted marriage-protection amendments, by an average vote of 68%.

• In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Prop. 22, a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman. The Court swept that aside with its mandate, necessitating the marriage amendment.

• Those demonstrations by opponents of Proposition 8 the paper mentioned in passing are often aimed at the Mormon and Catholic Churches and are frequently violent. At one, an elderly woman was assaulted by an anti-Prop. 8 mob.

Feder's commentary on The Times' ongoing distortion of the California marriage debate is available here.

CA Supreme Court Grants Our Requests

On Wednesday, November 19, the California Supreme Court granted all of the requests submitted by regarding the three lawsuits filed against Prop 8. We are very pleased by this action. Specifically, the Court
  • Refused to block the full implementation of Prop 8 pending the outcome of the litigation
  • Accepted jurisdiction over the case, which will facilitate a speedier resolution
  • Granted ProtectMarriage's request to have standing as the defender of the interests of the voters that passed Prop 8. Otherwise the defense would have been solely up to Attorney General Jerry Brown who opposed Prop 8 and tried his best to undermine its passage.
  • Refused the request of Campaign for California Families and the Liberty Council to represent the voters in the case. Campaign for California Families opposed the qualification of Prop 8 and never cooperated with the campaign to pass it. To help undermine our efforts, Jerry Brown supported the participation of this outside group.

It is important to remember that we won Prop 8 because we worked together with a coordinated strategy and message. In this delicate post election period, it is important to continue to do so.

Many different organizations, some that were supportive of the campaign and some that were not, are sending out emails with conflicting messages and strategies., of which CatholicsforProtectMarriage and CCG are members, is the only organization representing the team you were a part of to pass Prop 8. We need to continue to stick together. An update on current and future objectives for the coalition is posted below but I would like to emphasize two important points:

  • We do not support efforts or suggestions to recall any judges.
  • We discourage counter demonstrations and any acts that would incite our opponents.

Please continue to offer your prayers and suffering for people are committing acts of intimidation against the voters and supporters for Prop 8, for the political leaders who are instigating them, and for the many people who are suffering as a result.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

For the Common Good,
Bill May, ChairmanCatholics for Protect Marriage

(415) 651-4171

Letter from Chairman Ron Prentice

Dear Friends,

Many people have asked what the Yes on 8 campaign has in mind for next steps. There has been, unfortunately, some chatter from outside groups who claim to represent the Yes on 8 campaign, that has resulted in confusion as to what we are doing. As you know, – Yes on 8 is the only official campaign in favor of Proposition 8. It was our group that qualified the measure for the ballot and raised the approximately $40 million to pass the initiative. We had significant help from some critical allies like the National Organization for Marriage, Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. But is the only committee that passed Prop. 8. Some other groups are attempting to use the passage of Prop 8 for fundraising and publicity purposes. I’d like to address what we are focusing on, what we are not focusing on, and ask for your continued prayers in support of our efforts.

Legal Challenge. Our most important work now is to defend the People’s right to enact Proposition 8. We have asked the California Supreme Court to set a hearing to decide on the challenges that have been filed against Prop 8 because we are confident that the Court will do the right thing and uphold our right to enact the measure by initiative. By encouraging the Court to hear and decide these cases now, we are hoping to avoid years of costly litigation over Prop 8 as the cases would normally wind through the court system. We have also urged the Court to deny all of the requests for preliminary injunctions that would suspend Prop 8 while the cases are pending in the Supreme Court.

Since we, as the Official Proponents, were not originally named in the lawsuits, we have asked the Court to allow us to formally intervene as official parties, so we can vigorously defend Prop 8. Also, we are opposing the efforts of other groups to intervene in the cases, including the Campaign for California Families which actually campaigned against Proposition 8 until a short time before the election. Since we are the only organization representing the official proponents and the campaign committee that was responsible for passing Prop 8, allowing outside groups to participate in the defense of Prop 8 will only harm our chances of success.

Public relations. We continue to work vigorously in the court of public opinion to defend Proposition 8. Our campaign firm, Schubert Flint Public Affairs, is still on board and is working on long-term public relations strategies for consideration by the Executive Committee. Schubert Flint and members of the Executive Committee have given hundreds of media interviews over the past two weeks defending Proposition 8 from attack.

Future planning. Because we fully expect to prevail in court, we expect that, at some point, we will need to defeat a ballot proposal by advocates of same-sex marriage. Our opponents have threatened such a proposal as early as 2010. We are already beginning the planning process to lay the groundwork to defeat a future proposed initiative that would legalize gay marriage. What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us. We are fully confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, even if some members of the Court disagree with the issue. We encourage all supporters of Proposition 8 to set aside any discussions about the possibility of recalling any justice of the Court. We see no need for such discussion. For now we must allow the Court to make the correct legal decision. Making threats to recall justices from office is counter-productive and harmful to our chances of winning in Court.

Counter-protests. Many of our supporters have asked about holding events to offset the numerous protests that have been held by our opponents. We organized a press conference last Friday in Southern California that was heavily attended by the media. This event showcased the vast support that Proposition 8 received from a wide array of groups, including representatives of numerous faith traditions and ethnic backgrounds. Beyond that rally, we do not encourage supporters to organize local demonstrations or counter-protests. Doing so will only spawn further protests from our opponents and potentially spark street corner confrontations. Criticism of our opponents’ tactics is mounting daily and they would dearly love to provoke our supporters into a confrontation that makes us look like aggressors. Every protest our opponents launch features angry gays screaming at California voters. They call voters bigots and homophobes, and many of them have used racially derogatory terms in referring to African Americans and their strong support for Proposition 8. Their protests are doing great harm to their public position.

Fundraising. We currently have a campaign surplus which is allowing us the ability to continue defending Proposition 8 for a period of time. However, we will likely launch a new fundraising effort in a few weeks to ensure that we have the financial resources necessary to compete in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion. As you consider giving, please remember that our committee is the only committee that represents Proposition 8 – defending it before the courts and with the public.

Prayers. Please keep the leadership of the campaign, our consultants and our supporters in your prayers. All of us have been targeted by gay activists with vile emails, phone calls and threats. We are praying for those like Scott Eckern, who was forced to resign as Artistic Director of the California Musical Theater because he gave our campaign a $1,000 donation, and for the owners of El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles who are being boycotted because an employee supported us. One supporting business was forced to shut down its Web site and send all phone calls to voice mail due to the disgusting harassment by our opponents. These are just a few examples of those who have been subjected to hateful actions by our opponents who, ironically, demand tolerance from others but seem so incapable of showing tolerance themselves. Thank you for your continued support of traditional marriage and Proposition 8.

Thank you,
Ron Prentice

Chairman, Yes on Proposition 8

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Above the Hate

Please sign the petition below to join us as we stand together to say "Enough!" to the campaign of hate and intimidation being waged against the LDS Church and other supporters of California's Proposition 8.

Click here.

'Gay' activists engage in 'hate crimes' against Christians


Homosexual militants have been conducting legal demonstrations in opposition to Proposition 8's victory in the election; however, one Christian believes the increased attacks and harassment of supporters of traditional marriage are illegal and should be treated as such.

Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) is calling on law enforcement to provide protection in light of recent assaults on the Christian community. A Michigan church called Mount Hope was recently attacked by a self-titled homosexual anarchist group called Bash Back.

Homosexual activists, according to Cass, have made it a regular practice to protest outside of California's churches, and he contends something should be done about it. "We're calling for the police to protect people of faith for standing for traditional values," he says.

In a CADC article, Cass points out the blatant media bias by liberal news outlets. He believes, if the tables were turned and Christians were vandalizing the property of and physically assaulting homosexuals, "we would never hear the end of it in the media." He notes because the victims are Christians and not homosexuals, the pro-homosexual media covers it up.

Cass admits he wonders why the incidents have not been called hate crimes. "Had the same level of violence and rhetoric been directed toward homosexuals or their groups, there would be accusations of hate crimes," he suggests.

He is urging churches to protect their members, saying that since the people have "democratically affirmed marriage, the true violent colors of fringe homosexual activists are being revealed." Despite growing persecution, Cass contends this is no time for Christians to allow others to run down their rights.

"The rights of Christians to peaceably gather in worship is something that can be abrogated at will by anybody, including these most vociferous homosexual activists who have no qualms coming in and doing the most blasphemous and sacrilegious acts right in the middle of a Christian worship service," he says. "It's time that we stand up."

Cass is asking people to go to the CADC website and sign a petition that will be submitted to appropriate authorities.

The insane rage of the same-sex 'marriage' mob


Before Election Day, national media handwringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The right was, in the words of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by "insane rage." Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook with fear.

But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued; no nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis and self-autopsy.

In fact, in the wake of campaign 2008 there's only one angry mob gripped by "insane rage": left-wing same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved Proposition 8, a traditional marriage initiative, by 52 percent to 48 percent.

Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 responded with threats, fists and blacklists.

That's right. Activists have published on the Internet an "Anti-Gay Blacklist" of Prop. 8 donors. If the tables were turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming "McCarthyism" faster than you could count to eight.

A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has been besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who have disrupted business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Out of fear for their jobs and their lives, workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the bullies.

Scott Eckern, the beleaguered artistic director of California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation to the Prop. 8 campaign. Rich Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, is next on the chopping block after the anti-Prop. 8 mob discovered that he had also contributed to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Calls have been pouring in for his firing.

Over the last two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website "JoeMyGod," are common across the left-wing blogosphere: "Burn their [expletive] churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."

Read the rest of this article here.

Legal battle over Calif. marriage amendment opens new chapter


California's Supreme Court has issued a temporary order upholding Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. (See video report)

On Election Day, voters in the Golden State -- 52 percent to 48 percent -- passed Prop. 8, amending the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage and turning back a summertime ruling by the state highest court legalizing same-sex "marriage." Now that same court will hear several legal challenges to the voter-approved measure.

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute explains that the court will keep Prop. 8 in place, but will hear three of six lawsuits filed to strike it down. "They're going to be hearing arguments on the matter, probably in January," says the attorney. "This is not good for the defense of marriage in that this state Supreme Court is willing to seriously entertain overriding the voice of the voters of California."

And overruling the voters' decision is a serious matter. Andrew Pubnow, an attorney for Yes on Prop. 8, wrote in legal papers: "When using the initiative process to amend the Constitution, the people exercise their sovereign power of self-government. The three branches of government must accord profound respect and great deference to that authority."

According to Dacus, there is another reason this week's ruling is a setback. "This state Supreme Court is the same court that legalized homosexual marriage in the first place," he points out. "And the fact that they have decided to go ahead and seriously considering striking it down is very disturbing." Homosexual activists, he adds, are trying to force on the peoplesomething that is against their will.

Constitutional authorities in the Golden State say it all comes down to the difference between and "amendment" and a "revision." Opponents of Prop. 8 argue it is a revision, which can only be accomplished legislatively -- through a constitutional convention or a proposal from the state legislature that is then ratified by the voters.

The state Supreme Court has refused to allow homosexual couples to marry before it issues a ruling, expected in the coming weeks.

Prop. 8 opponent: We want full civil marriage rights

Editor's Note: The following is based on a transcript from "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News," which airs on CNN at 10 p.m. ET Saturdays and Sundays.

(CNN) -- More than a week after voters in California, Arizona and Florida passed ballot initiatives outlawing same-sex marriage, thousands of people across the country protested the bans in simultaneous rallies Saturday.

In California, Proposition 8 overturned a May ruling by the California Supreme Court that struck down a 2000 ban on same-sex unions. It passed 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

CNN's D.L. Hughley spoke to sex columnist Dan Savage about the ongoing battle to legalize same-sex marriage in California. Savage is the author of the popular syndicated sex advice column "Savage Love."

Hughley: On November 4, the same day Barack Obama was elected president, voters in California approved the measure that makes same-sex marriage illegal in the state of California. Seventy percent of blacks and 53 percent of Latinos voted to ban gay marriage. So is the gay community holding minorities responsible for this? Here with me now is syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage. How are you doing, Dan?

Savage: Good. I want to jump right in there, because minority communities and the gay community aren't two separate things. There are gay and lesbian African-Americans and gay and lesbian Latinos, who have really done the most disservice by those folks in the communities of color.

Hughley: Now how do you feel? Election night, you campaigned hard for Obama, you worked hard for him. How did you feel after the election?

Savage: We were elated. I was ecstatic ... Barack Obama won. ... And then the next day, we had to sit down and open the papers and read about the approval of this measure. It was very, very bittersweet. And you know, my boyfriend and I, when George Bush won, we had a long conversation the day after. We talked very seriously about moving to Canada because we're just done with being attacked that way we're attacked in this country for our sexual orientation. And then we found ourselves having that exact same conversation the day after Barack Obama won the election because of what happened in California.

Hughley: Why do you think that so many -- the large percentage of African-Americans -- voted for Proposition 8, and Latinos?

Savage: Well, there is a lot of outreach that has to be done -- that falls to the gay community, to do outreach to voters of color. But voters of color also have to step up and take some responsibility. It's the responsibility of white people not to be racist. It's the responsibility of men not to be sexist. And it is a responsibility of all of us not to be homophobic.

Hughley: I have to say, honestly, I don't -- I'm not particularly homophobic. But when I read the bill the way it was written, it was a little confusing. When I read it, it asked me to make a decision that didn't -- that I couldn't quantify on the ballot. I can't, for whatever reason, is it my religious upbringing, I don't condone a gay lifestyle, but I also don't condone the government being involved in two people's affairs. So there was no place for me to vote. And I think a lot of black people I talked to found themselves in the same quandary. Had I been more religious, maybe I would have voted yes to ban.

Savage: It needs to be articulated around religion and homosexuality is that you can have your theology and also sign off on gay and lesbian civil rights and full enfranchisement, including marriage. You know, a lot of Christians think Jews are going to hell. Right? And yet Jews can get married in our culture. No one's attempting to strip Jews of their civil rights in our dominant Christian culture. ... Because you know what? If you're going to hell for being gay, ain't that enough? Ain't you going to suffer enough when it's all over? Do you really need to be persecuted here on Earth too?

Hughley: Here's what I think. I've seen a lot of people, gay activists, make the comparison of basically equating their struggle with the struggle of black people throughout the civil rights era. And that hits me even me kind of wrong.

Savage: And me too.

Hughley: Because historically, millions of people died and they were disenfranchised. Some of them couldn't have a name. This is about one segment, like to be married. And I think that that is none of my business. But I also think that what you asked -- I've never met a black atheist. I never have, because we are so rooted in theology, we are so rooted in all these things, that even me, who -- I'm not a regular churchgoer -- had a hard time going, this is -- this goes against what I was taught.

Read the rest of this article here.

Healing the gay/black divide

Gay-rights leaders seek to dampen animosity sparked by Prop. 8's passage.

In a letter addressed to "Dear Community," a high-powered coalition of gay-rights leaders is calling for an end to the scapegoating of African Americans for the passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California. Nine painful, anger-filled and vitriolic days passed before this request for calm appeared, and although the letter is sensible and encouraging, words alone will not undo the damage.

Since an election-day exit poll found that 70% of black voters supported Proposition 8, tensions between gays and blacks have exploded on the airwaves, in newspaper columns and on the Internet. The letter, however, notes that blacks make up a small part of the 52% of California voters who supported Proposition 8. Furthermore, it says, a recent analysis of that exit poll determined that it was too small to "draw any conclusions on the African American vote."

Many in the gay community believed, perhaps naively, that shared minority status would create a sense of sympathy between the two groups, and that casting gay marriage as a benchmark in civil rights history would cement that bond. Yet some African Americans were more offended than impressed by the comparison of the right of homosexuals to marry and the right of blacks to vote or to share public accommodations. Then there is the irony of one civil rights dream fulfilled the same night another was deferred. Much has been made of the possibility that a surge in support for Barack Obama helped pass Proposition 8, but according to political analyst Nate Silver of, exit polls show that first-time voters, 83% of whom cast ballots for Obama, voted against the measure by 62% to 38%.

This has been a wrenching loss for advocates of same-sex marriage, but it should provide an opportunity to forge allegiances. Black people need to hear how denying gays the right to marry devastates families and diminishes us all. Gays need to know that they will find less "hate" and religious dogma among blacks than they imagine, but also a deep grief over the disintegration of the nuclear black family and fear that gay marriage will further erode it. Efforts are quietly underway in Los Angeles to initiate these conversations. We hope they create a truly broad, communitywide imperative for an end to discrimination and for equal rights for all.

Find this article here.

WALL: A mandate for traditional, not gay, marriage

Black voters sent a 'mixed' message

Homosexual marriage is not a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are. In fact, traditional marriage isn't even a civil right. But don't try telling that to the gay-rights activists who have descended upon the left coast to protest the passage of California's Proposition 8. Most telling is the outrage by these activists, the media and at least one washed-up celebrity being hurled at black voters in California. At the same time 95 percent of black Americans were casting their ballots for Barack Obama, black Californians, at a ratio of more than 2-to-1, rejected homosexual marriage by passing Prop 8. The "people" - not the politicians or the activist courts - have spoken. But liberals can't leave well enough alone.

In San Francisco, signs of protest read: "Marriage is for everyone." No, it is not. With that logic, we could marry off children (say 8 or 10 years old) or "kissing cousins." Marriage, as clearly defined through the ages, is between one man and one woman. You don't need a constitutional amendment for that - it is inherently implied commonsense.

Another protest sign read: "No on Hate." Disagreement does not equate to hate. Opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with discrimination and activists need to stop mixing the two. Whether a person's rights are violated based on discrimination is a wholly separate issue and should be handled that way. Tolerance doesn't preclude clearly defined lines between what is and is not acceptable in modern society.

Most fervent - and troubling - of this debate though is the bubbling race war between white liberals and black conservative Democrats. Comedian Roseanne Barr (who knew she still existed?) wrote on her Web site this week: "they [black Californians] are just as bigoted and ignorant as their white Christian right wing counterparts." And she is just as ignorant as the activists who equate civil rights and gay rights.

Black civil and religious leaders - rightfully - have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex. Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to "sit at the table." Whites - gay or not - already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison. Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is - is beyond the pale.

The media hasn't helped. One news headline trumpeted: "Who is to blame?" (for this apparent voter lapse in judgment). When the public has so clearly spoken on the issue of gay marriage (just as they gave Mr. Obama a mandate), why would the media suggest something is wrong with voters? Is there blame for voting for Mr. Obama?

Read the rest of this article here.

Why same-sex 'marriage' matters

Despite the fact that Americans just elected one of the most liberal presidents in history, they also voted to uphold traditional marriage in every state where it was on the ballot. Gay activists (and a few Episcopal bishops) would have you believe that votes against gay "marriage" are a result of bigotry, the equivalent of racism or sexism. After all, they argue, what's wrong with two people loving each other and wanting to publicly proclaim it? Doesn't the world need more committed love, not less? S.T. Karnick, writing in the autumn issue of SALVO magazine, points out that homosexuals may already "marry" in any number of places, under the auspices of any number of organizations. Churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and numerous others "either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex 'marriages' or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies."

No law prevents these religious organizations from conducting such rituals, nor would most Americans expect or want the government to dictate doctrine to churches. But if and when same-sex "marriage" becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it. And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals.

Right now, individuals and corporations may choose to treat same-sex unions the same way they treat traditional marriage, or not. As Karnick writes so succinctly: "This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position." What's at issue here is government-enforced recognition that same-sex "marriage" is legally identical to traditional marriage, no matter the individuals' or institutions' religious beliefs.

Government intrusion on religion is what's at stake.

Despite what proponents of gay "marriage" argue, there are serious and wide-ranging implications for society by redefining something so fundamental. Already in Canada and Europe, pastors have been threatened with legal challenges as a result of teaching traditional Christian doctrine on marriage. And what about parents who want the right to be the ones teaching morality to their children? Will they have a legal leg to stand on when public schools teach that gay "marriage" is okay? Already, thanks to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), homosexuality is being introduced in schools at younger and younger ages. Just a few days ago, kindergarten students at a California school were given pledge cards produced by GLSEN and asked to sign them to support a "harassment-free school." Parents protested. But is there a day coming when such protests would bring charges of discrimination, punishable by law?

"Equality" laws in Great Britain recently forced a Christian adoption agency there out of business. Like a similar case in Massachusetts (where same-sex "marriage" is law), a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Wales can no longer continue its work of placing abandoned and abused children in homes. Why? Based on its Christian beliefs, St. David's Children sought out only homes with a mother and a father. As one British MP pointed out, there are plenty of other adoption agencies gay couples could have used. The government, because of innocuous-sounding "equality" laws, has essentially told the agency it can no longer base its work on its Roman Catholic tenets because they are, in effect, discriminatory. That is frightening. Exactly who are these laws supposed to be liberating, or for that matter, protecting?

Read the rest of the article here.

Censoring political cartoons?

Not all of these cartoons appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune, even though their creator is the editorial cartoonist for the UT. I wonder why not???

Check them out.

STOP abortion from becoming a universal human right


On December 10th, pro-abortion groups will present petitions asking the United Nation's General Assembly to make abortion a universally recognized human right. The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute created an alternate petition drive that calls for government to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. They need at least 100,000 signatures by December 10th, the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Dr. Phil and Prop 8

The Dr. Phil show will be discussing Proposition 8. It is scheduled to air Fri Nov 21KFMB Ch 8 3pm in San Diego, which provided the opinion of each side of proposition 8. The audience was actually separated into half. Yes vs. No. Very insightful show.

Pastor Jim Garlow spoke for our side, as did Maggie Gallagher and Jeff Flint, and all three gave an excellent presentation of solid facts and information.

Mayor Gavin Newsome was one of the opposing guests and he actually said, pertaining to the passage of proposition 8, "sometimes the majority is wrong".

Dr. Phil and Prop 8

The Dr. Phil show will be discussing Proposition 8. It is scheduled to air Fri Nov 21KFMB Ch 8 3pm in San Diego, which provided the opinion of each side of proposition 8. The audience was actually separated into half. Yes vs. No. Very insightful show.

Pastor Jim Garlow spoke for our side, as did Maggie Gallagher and Jeff Flint, and all three gave an excellent presentation of solid facts and information.

Mayor Gavin Newsome was one of the opposing guests and he actually said, pertaining to the passage of proposition 8, "sometimes the majority is wrong". Unbelievable!!

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Donor conceived person's "right" to know their genetic identity

Interesting commentary on donor conceived person's "right" to know their genetic identity.

Take special note of the comments.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Substance sickens pro-lifers


Operation Rescue is concerned about the lack of investigation of an alleged chemical attack against pro-life warriors at a Wichita, Kansas, abortion clinic.

Operation Rescue's headquarters is next door to the abortion clinic where the incident happened. Spokesperson Cheryl Sullinger was there.

"There was a chemical substance spread on the driveway near where pro-lifers pray at George Tiller's abortion clinic, and it made two women very, very sick," she explains. "They were vomiting; one had to be treated at the emergency room -- she had swelling of the eyes."

Doctors said the reaction came from exposure to a foreign substance and was not related to any viral or bacterial infection. Sullinger says two aspects greatly concern her.

"We think that this kind of attack against pro-lifers is shocking and it's cowardly," says Sullinger. "And the fact that the authorities don't seem to be interested in stopping this kind of thing really is troubling to us."

That alone, she suggests, encourages repeat performances. Operation Rescue has reported death threats recently, as well as vandalism at the property.

Homosexual activists accused of 'domestic terrorism'


SALT LAKE CITY - The Mormon church on Friday blamed opponents of California's homosexual marriage ban for sending hoax mailings containing white powder to temples, while a group that also supported the measure condemned "acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

Investigators have not publicly cited any evidence that the mailings were linked to the Mormon church's support of the measure, and a gay rights group in Utah disputed that gay protesters were involved.

The letters were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the church, where powder spilled on a mail clerk's hand, and to a temple in Los Angeles. Both packages tested nontoxic, the FBI said Friday.

The two temples were sites of recent protests against the church's support for a California ballot initiative that superseded a court decision allowing gay marriage. The Mormon church, whose official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said it is stepping up security.

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few," church President Thomas S. Monson said in a statement.

The Utah Pride Center, a gay rights group, put out its own statement calling the powder hoaxes and acts of vandalism "deplorable."

However, the group said, "It is false to conclude that yesterday's suspicious package came from gay protesters. Overwhelmingly, gay and allied Utahns have expressed their pain, frustration and commitment to securing rights through peaceful demonstrations and marches."

The coalition that ran the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 also issued a condemnation Friday."

The NO on 8 campaign was about civil rights and seeking equality for all Californians. We have said time and again that the Mormon church deserves the same respect as any other religion," said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group.

The FBI is still investigating both cases, spokesman Juan T. Becerra said, noting that it's a crime to release a substance to threaten harm and stoke public fear.

"Even if you send a hoax threat, you're still in violation of federal law," Becerra said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to lawmakers and media members killed five people and sickened 17 in 2001. Since then, hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up but usually turn out to be harmless.

Separately, the coalition of religious groups behind the successful measure held a news conference to denounce protests carried out since Election Day.

The backlash has included calls for a boycott of Utah ski resorts and California businesses whose owners donated to the cause."

Our opponents do not like the outcome and that is to be respected. They fought hard and they feel defeated and that is understandable," said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign. "What they do not have the right to do, however, is to harass and intimidate people. And they do not have the right to commit acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

Meanwhile, five civil rights groups asked California's highest court Friday to annul the ban on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups, not just gays.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the state Supreme Court to prevent the change from taking effect.

The petition is the fourth seeking to have the measure invalidated. But it's the first to argue that the court should step in because the gay marriage ban, which overturned the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay unions, sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities.

Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.

"The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality," Paterson said. "Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?"

Calif. homosexuals try to 'gut democratic process'

An article from

Attorneys are getting set to square off before the California Supreme Court to protect traditional marriage.

Voters decided earlier this month to overturn the state high court's legalization of homosexual "marriage," but activists have filed suit to overturn the outcome. Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, comments on the situation.

"We see the opponents of marriage and democracy trying to bypass the political process and use the courts to overturn the will of the people," he contends. "This lawsuit is nothing but a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process. It's really a reprehensible lawsuit."

Since it is the same court that legalized homosexual marriage, Lavy notes that activists apparently feel confident they can defeat the amendment vote. "If the court wants to overturn this amendment, they would be well advised in thinking about the power of recall that the voters in California would have because I would think the voters would exercise that," he adds.

Recall, according to Lavy, is the process voters can use to remove people from public office. In 2003, voters in the Golden State recalled Governor Gray Davis, replacing him with current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Also Write to California Supreme Court Justices!

Here are the California Supreme Court justices who will, once again, be deciding on the fate of marriage EVEN THOUGH the will of the people have overwhelmingly spoken TWICE in two elections by voting in favor of traditional marriage.

Please send them an email and let them know you expect them to uphold the will of the people by not overturning Proposition 8. Afterall, we are living in a democracy, governed by the will of the people. AND the people have now spoken TWICE in support of traditional marriage.

Please email and address each Supreme Court Justice by name in your email to ensure they each receive a copy.

Please spread this message! Let's all bond together with one loud voice in support of marriage.

In God we trust.

Here are the names of the justices: Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.

A Public Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger

Remember, you don't have to be a Californian to take part in this fight to protect marriage. In fact, the more letters received from around the country, the stronger our voice!

Please send a letter directly to the Governor, or your local paper. Please stay engaged. We are still battling for the sanctity of marriage.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

Perhaps you have forgotten what you stated in 2005 when you vetoed the two bills pertaining to gay marriage "out of respect for the will of the people". And also in 2005, you stated your position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. . . The will of the people should be upheld".

Well sir, "we the people" of California, the very people who voted for you, have not forgotten your statements, nor have we forgotten why we elected you into office in the first place: to serve the people, to uphold the will of the people.

In 2000, and now in 2008, we the people have voted in favor of traditional marriage. Our proposition 22 vote was overturned. Will our proposition 8 vote now be overturned also? Perhaps any future vote will be subject to overturn. Even a vote for you.

This is America, democracy at its finest. The people have spoken TWICE in favor of traditional marriage between only a man and a woman. Please respect and honor our vote, after all we are the people who voted for and elected you into office.

Your Name Here

Research to counter document sent to school administrators

From a reader:

I have a son in public school in Kindergarten here in Colorado. Are you aware of this document below? I had read before that it was being sent to school administrators across the country. I hope I don't have to worry about this yet, but I want to be prepared for any future problems or try to steer the school in a better direction.

Maggie Gallagher on Fox News on Prop 8 Intimidation

--I thought this would interest you. This is not a game to me. What we are hearing is very, very disturbing. Thanks for your support. ~Maggie

Fox News, America's Newsroom, "Prop 8 Protests," November 14, 2008.
Click here to watch the video.

Palm Springs woman presses charges

The Palm Springs Police have urged the woman from the now-infamous Palm Springs "No on 8" protest to press charges and to identify suspects. They have requested a copy of the news footage as evidence.

Here is the article:

Friday, November 14, 2008

Are you available to stand with your friends in support of marriage?

One of the Ruth Institute’s good friends in San Diego, Mary Kuyper, has organized this, peaceful, legal demonstration. Everyone, please consider going.
~Dr. Morse

Tomorrow Sat Nov 15 there will be a huge national day of protest against prop 8. Cities across the nation will be protesting at 10:30am pacific time.

Here in San Diego, there will be a protest/march against prop 8 starting at 6th and Upas to the SD Co Admin Bldg. At 1pm, there will be a no on 8 rally at the SD Co Admin bldg.

Please see details at this link:

Are you available to stand with your friends in support of marriage?

This will be a peaceful and mostly silent stance to show the opposition/press that we stand-fast for traditional marriage AND the will of the people who recently voted for prop 8.

If you can join us at 12:30am near the Sd Co Admin Bldg. please email for additional details.

For those of you receiving this email out of town, there will most likely be a protest in your City also.

Silence = acceptance. Not on my watch! Are you in?