In the face of hatred

From Meridian: A place where Latter-day Saints Gather

Editor's Note: As some of you know, Meridian was hacked into last week, apparently by Prop 8 opponents, and in the place of our content was placed a homosexual pornographic film. For free email updates from Family Leader on issues that affect family and religious freedom, click here.

It has been an interesting week.

The Chinese homily, “May you live in interesting times,” has its roots in a curse, not a blessing.
As I said, it has been an interesting week.

The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 (the proposed amendment to the California constitution defining marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman) built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday's election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8's slim passage into law.

I am a Los Angeles Police Department detective supervisor running a sex crimes unit covering the western quarter of the city, which also includes the area where the Los Angeles temple is located. I have a fantastic crew of 20 detectives who are an amazing mixture of races and sexes. I have several detectives who are openly gay or lesbian. This orientation has nothing to do with their efficiency as investigators. I deeply respect and like these individuals. I enjoy working with them. My life is often in their hands when we serve high risk search or arrest warrants. I trust them implicitly.

Obviously, the types of crimes we investigate bring us into regular contact with victims who are of an alternative lifestyle orientation. It is incumbent upon us that our compassion for these victims be no less than for victims who are heterosexual.

Hard Choices

Working in such an environment, I found taking a position on Proposition 8 to be difficult. Even though I chose to follow the direction of our Church leaders in my voting decision, it was extremely hard for me to place myself on the line when it came to actively working to ensure the passage of Proposition 8.

Still, I watched in amazement as my fellow ward and stake members worked tirelessly, committing themselves full-heartedly to the cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Their faith strengthened mine, and I committed to participate in a sign waving public rally sponsored by our stake to be held at a local intersection.

By following through on this commitment, I found I had a greater stake in the battle than I had ever thought. I learned a number of hard and harsh lessons. And in the events following the election and passage of Proposition 8, I felt great anguish forcing me to drop to my knees in prayer – eventually coming to a more personal understanding of the Love of Christ and what he expects from me.

Read the rest of the article here.

Prop. 8 gift gets theater's leader in a ruckus

By Marcus Crowder mcrowder@sacbee.com

Published Nov. 11, 2008 in the Sacramento Bee.

Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.

Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

Richard Lewis, the organization's executive producer, said the board of directors will conduct an emergency meeting on the matter this afternoon. He said it was too early to tell how this would affect Eckern's 25-year employment with California Musical Theatre.

In a statement released Monday, Lewis said: "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their longstanding support."

Links to Eckern's official donation information began appearing Thursday on sites such as the gay political activism site http://www.goodasyou.org/ and the more informal conversational forum www.datalounge. The measure was Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Local openly gay composer Gregg Coffin, who has written nationally produced musicals "Convenience" and "Five Course Love," found it initially difficult to express his feelings about the situation. "I feel so sad that someone from within my field and someone from within my community, who actually knows me, would contribute to an initiative that reduces me to second-class citizenship," Coffin said.

Read the rest of the article here.

A letter from Pastor Jim Ortiz

Dear Whittier Daily News:

I’m so happy to be a citizen of this country where I have the right to freely exercise my religion, freely voice my opinions, peaceably assemble with others, and, when necessary, petition my government when I have a grievance.

Over these past many months we have seen the wonderful exercise of our democratic rights expressed through the various media and the ballot box. We have seen people on both sides of issues and political parties make their claims and woo the voters. And last Tuesday (Nov. 4) the people spoke and made their choices.

Now, we see candidates and political foes shaking hands and speaking magnanimously about each other. We see one administration graciously offering a hand of cooperation as it welcomes the transition to a new administration. Regardless of who got the fewest votes we all “win” when we accept the outcome and work together for the common good. And, this is how it has always been in our history and always should be.

Yet, sadly, we also see others who are not happy with the outcome of their particular issue marching in the streets, disrupting traffic, impeding travel and commerce, flashing finger epithets, picketing and threatening, yelling unprintable words of anger, bigotry, and hateful intolerance. They do all this while standing in front of houses of worship harassing parishioners as they enter to exercise their faith. And, they’re the ones holding the “Stop the Hate” signs!

Whatever your particular opinion is about the outcome of Proposition 8 (and this paper's opinion is well known!), the harassment of worshipers at churches and the threats against religious institutions, specifically the Mormon Church, is unacceptable and unworthy of a democratic people. This should be condemned! As an Evangelical Christian I do not share much common theological ground with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but, I do share our common love of natural marriage and traditional family. On this issue they are my Brothers and Sisters! The Mormons paid a hefty price disproportionate to their size for the passage of Proposition 8 both before and now after the vote. I commend them for their sacrifice and efforts. Yet, as significant as their part was they were only part of a coalition of millions of Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and other Christians and non-Christians alike. As well as Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisans, and ethnic groups of every color and hue who believe that only marriage between one man and one woman should be valid and recognized in California and is the most beneficial family structure for our children and our society.

On this issue I will stand with my Mormon brethren and other colleagues and friends and defend their right to petition their government, freely express their opinions, worship according to their conscience, and be free and protected from harassment and bigotry. For their right is my right, too! I call upon this paper to abandon its bias for a moment and do the same. Pastor Jim Ortiz, PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial AllianceSenior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God.

Pastor Jim Ortiz,
PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial Alliance
Senior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God

Gay Activist Opposes Church Protests

Last month, I posted this letter from fellow retired LAPD officer John Smith. He was one of the first LAPD officers to “come out of the closet” during the early 1990s. In his letter, Smith explained why he voted YES on Proposition 8 and gay protests at churches. John and his partner live in Southern California, and I am honored to consider him a friend.

Today, as I listened to the news talking about the Prop 8 protests, I dusted off my retirement shadow box which displays my retired police badge. I reflected back on the oath of office I took as a young man - the day I joined the Los Angeles Police Department. As I took this oath, I gave my word to “always live my life as an example to all.”

Although I am retired, these words hold deep significance to me. Like most cops, I know the how difficult it is to do the right thing – especially when “the masses” disagree with you. Just as the “gay community” expresses their outrage over the passage of Proposition 8, I also want my voice to be heard.

As a retired police officer who is also gay, words cannot describe my anger at the gay community’s violent response to the passage of Proposition 8. I am deeply offended by the hypocritical behavior of the gay community.

I am not an openly religious man. In fact, I have rarely (if ever) discussed my personal religious values. Until now.

I believe in God.

I believe in the American right to worship in peace and free from interference.

Find the rest of the article here.

Bill Duncan's analysis of the Prop 8 legal Challenge

Our Academic Advisory board member Bill Duncan sent me this analysis of the legal challenge to Prop 8, being raised by the No on 8 crowd:

Jennifer,

I think the challenge will be unsuccessful. First, identical suits have been brought in Oregon and Alaska to no effect. A revision is a major change to the constitution, typically a major structural change. Proposition 8 is a classic amendment, addressing only one subject in a focused way. Contrary to what the plaintiffs claim in their lawsuit, the amendment does not address “sexual orientation” or “rights,” it merely defines marriage. The Alaska Supreme Court and Oregon Court of Appeals have recognized that these narrow amendments are just that and not revisions of the constitution.

In addition to being an affront to the voters of the state, a negative decision by the California Supreme Court would be a dramatic expansion of the legal distinction between amendments and revisions and would surely open the door to a multitude of lawsuits challenging any amendment approved by voters (for instance, the redistricting amendment approved last week or the earlier term limits amendment). The constitutional amendment process would be superfluous if the California Supreme Court were given a de facto veto over every voter approved amendment.

This is not to mention the other practical reality that repudiating Proposition 8 would be a massive confiscation of resources—specifically the resources provided by supporters of the proposition. If this revision argument were valid it should have been worked through pre-election.

Those are the legal arguments and I think they are compelling. The wild card, and it’s pretty wild, is the willfulness of the California Supreme Court. The argument that Proposition 8 is a revision is not strong but neither was the argument that the California Constitution has always contained a mandate to redefine marriage (perhaps written in invisible ink). So, we have to take the challenge very seriously.

Albertsons rejects the Knights of Columbus

I recieved this letter in my in-box, with a cover letter from another friend who lives in Carlsbad. I did not see this incident, and only know about it second-hand.

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you about the management at the Albertson's store located in Carlsbad CA at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue.

I am a patron of this store and have been shopping there every week for the past four years. Today the store manager, Alan, made a decision that makes it impossible for me to ever shop in that store again.

The Knights of Columbus were conducting a fund raiser for The Mentally Challenged. The funds raised for these adults stay in our community and all the proceeds from the three day fund raiser are given to this organization, the Arc of North County. I realize that Albertsons and their competition hire mentally challenged adults and I have shopped at Albertsons in part because of this policy.

The Knights of Columbus had obtained permission from store management to conduct the fund raiser in front of the store on El Camino. Friday's fund raiser went well but on Saturday several customers confronted the Knights and complained to Alan, the store manager, about the Knights presence in front of the store. These people were upset because the Knights of Columbus had supported Yes on Prop 8. The fund raiser being conducted had nothing to do with politics. However, the store manager decided that he didn't want to have complaints and told the Knights that being in front of his store was a privilege and they were to leave immediately.

This was not a political rally. The Knights were not making a political statement and they were not harassing any Albertson customers. Your store manager made the situation political by evicting the fund raisers and interjecting politics. This is a country where people have freedom of speech and I respect that, however, can you explain how supporting Prop 8 has anything to do with raising funds for the adults in our community who are mentally challenged? The Knights inability to fund raise at this location for the next two days will seriously impact the amount of funds given to these people.

I feel that Alan made a poor decision and does not support your corporate policy concerning mentally challenged adults. I would like a response to my complaint other than this was a privilege and he was denying this privilege because four customers complained.

This incident has motivated me to inform my fellow church members, my neighbors who shop at Albertsons, and the Mormon churches in the area so they can decide if they will continue to support your store at La Costa and El Camino after this politicized decision. I would hope that the your company hired store manager who could think logically and respond to complaints from customers with facts. The Knights were not acting politically and denying the fund raiser only hurts adults in our community who need help.
Barbara N. (wife of a Knight)
Carlsbad CA

I wrote to the manager about this incident, saying, among other things:

I do hope Albertson s won t be drawn into taking sides in something like this. If you have a handful of customers who don t like the Knights, tell them their organizations are welcome to conduct their fundraising projects as well.

Please reconsider and allow the Knights to collect funds in the Tootsie Roll drive again.

I got a reply that suggested there were two "groups" involved and that both "groups" were asked to leave. I replied to the manager, saying that I was not aware that there was a second group involved. I asked them what was the second group. I have not yet heard back.

Marriage Moves Voters

By William C. Duncan
Published at NationalReview.com.

Extending constitutional protection to traditional marriage is hardly a narrow partisan affair.

Beyond their practical effects, the very fact that 30 states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage in just over a decade is remarkable.

This week, Arizona, California, and Florida joined the 27 states with existing marriage amendments. The most interesting campaign was in California where voter approval of Proposition 8 reversed a May decision of the California Supreme Court. That decision had purported to discover a previously unknown mandate to redefine marriage as the union of any two people in that state’s constitution.

The Florida amendment had faced a difficult hurdle because it needed the support of 60 percent of voters for approval. Despite a much lower-profile campaign than California’s Prop 8, Florida’s Amendment 2 managed to garner 62 percent of the popular vote.

Voters in Arizona had narrowly defeated a proposed marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment had included a prohibition on marriage-equivalent statuses and the campaign against it seemed to have convinced voters that existing benefits for cohabiting couples were at risk. This time, the amendment (Proposition 102) merely defined marriage and was soundly approved.

Two practical benefits of the amendments are obvious. First, they will prevent (or, as in California, reverse) judicial decisions redefining marriage. Second, they make absolutely clear that the enacting state will not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

This second effect is becoming increasingly important. The recent repeal of Massachusetts’ residence requirement for same-sex marriage and the impending issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Connecticut mean that couples from other states can go to either of these to marry before returning home to seek recognition.

Typically, a state will recognize a marriage valid in another state even if it could not have been contracted in the recognizing state. There is an important historical exception, however, for marriages that violate that state’s laws — against incest and polygamy, for example. The marriage amendments certainly preclude any question as to what a state’s public policy on same-sex marriages is.

Read the rest of this article here.

Movie Clip by Catholics in Support of Mormons

Are straight girls' libidos shaped by gay men?

This was written by a friend of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, David Benkof.

--Next month, Playgirl--the skin mag aimed at women--will release the last issue of its 35-year run. The magazine's popularity with gay men points to a little-discussed phenomenon: that at least some of the women's sexual liberation over the last two generations that has aimed to show female desire as a mirror image of that of men has actually been fueled by gay men's arousal and aesthetic.

This unfortunate dynamic stifles women's natural inclinations and superimposes an artificial male-male sexual model on heterosexual relations. Women--and men--deserve better.When Playgirl first began publishing in 1973, it aimed to serve a parallel function to the similarly named (but separately owned and published) Playboy, which had been providing erotic pictures and stories as well as serious interviews and fiction to men since 1953. Early issues featured articles and short stories by noted authors including Maya Angelou and Margaret Atwood. But the most distinctive feature of the magazine was the pictorials, featuring good-looking men in various states of undress.

Playgirl's appeal to gay men has fluctuated over the years, but men have been estimated at between 30 and 75 percent of the magazine's readers. In the early years, the magazine insisted its audience was overwhelmingly female, but in the last 10 years Playgirl's leadership has acknowledged that gay men make up approximately half its readership.

Former Playgirl editor in chief Judy Cole once suggested that Playgirl appeals to gay men precisely because it is supposed to be for women--the same reasons that lead "drag queens to haunt exclusive women's designer boutiques, rather than stores that carry merchandise specifically for them. Ignoring the gay audience may turn out to be the most savvy marketing strategy of all."

Yes, some women enjoy pictures of naked men. But the magazine made it as far as it did only because gay men, too, enjoy pictures of naked men.

Playgirl is not an isolated phenomenon. The male dance revue Chippendales also got its aesthetic from a gay man. Recently, original Chippendales choreographer Nick DeNoia was revealed in the 2008 book "Master of Ceremonies: A True Story of Love, Murder, Roller Skates and Chippendales" to be a closeted homosexual. DeNoia was most responsible for selecting the first dancers and setting the tone of the show.

Read the rest of the article here.

Encouragement from a reader

Jennifer - I just read your article in the National Review and I want to applaud you for a great article. I live in Wisconsin and it is sad to read all the bad that is happening in response to the victory for the sanctity of marriage. Do you have direct contact with the church's that were involved with passing Prop 8? After reading about the targetting of the churches by the pro homosexual groups, I wanted to say thank you and commend the church's and people involved in getting Prop 8 passed. Pass the word on to stay strong and thank you.

52 to 48

Over at the Corner, someone posted this series of love letters, presumably between the 52% of the country that voted for Obama and the 48% that voted for McCain. Mark Hemmingway concludes with this commentary:

Judging by the torrent of email, my post below seems to have struck a nerve. By linking to such a shiny happy display, I wasn't suggesting anyone immediately make peace with an Obama administration. ...
Fair enough. But I do think that after eight years of "He's not my President" bumper stickers and trying to put Karl Rove under citizens' arrest for his role in unconstitutional mattress tag removal, it's probably necessary that we be the adults here. And that includes acknowledging when overtures are made to make things less rancorous.

Obviously, that doesn't mean you surrender your principles. The moment Obama takes office and he tries to do anything such as implement his welfare-as-tax-cuts scheme, destroy the private health insurance market, pass card check legislation, confiscate your 401k etc., I fully expect to unleash hell.

None of these things have happened yet, however. And there's no reason to adopt the left's Alinsky tactics. We can be better than that.

When I first saw the headlines 52% to 48%, all i could think of was the vote spread in CA's prop 8. It is necessary that we be the adults here, too.

No on 8's white bias

This LA Times article by a black lesbian makes the points our campaign has known for some time. Blacks support traditional marriage. We knew going into the campaign that they would be sympathetic to our side.

White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights. There is a real misunderstanding by the white gay community about the term. Proponents of gay marriage fling it around as if it is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase for issues of fairness.

But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community. ...
Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.

Maybe next time around -- because we all know this isn't over -- the gay community can demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change that America demonstrated when it went to the polls on Nov. 4. Black gays are depending on their white counterparts to finally "get it."

The LA Times reports a similar story here.

Obama Administration Expected to Expand US Relationship with UN and UN Treaties

With a new presidency on the horizon, what will happen to US treaties in the UN to protect life oversees? Read Austin Ruse's article on US relations with the UN treaties, and what he thinks will happen next.

Austin Ruse is founder of C-FAM (watch dog on the UN for Life issues)

More on the Anti-Mormon marchers

The gay lobby continued its display of anti-religious bigotry yesterday. This article does not say how long the protest lasted. It started around 2 PM. When called my LDS friends in LA last night around 8:30, it was still going on.
Here is the rub: the protesters claim that the LDS church improperly used its tax exempt status to promote Prop 8. However, when the AP reporter actually checked to see how much the Church spent, here is what was found:

The march initially focused on the Mormon temple because gay rights advocates claim the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spent millions to air deceptive advertisements in support of Proposition 8, and the church should lose its tax-exempt status.

Campaign finance records show the Utah-based church made an in-kind donation of $2,078.97 to ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups that supported Proposition 8. Church spokeswoman Kim Farah in Salt Lake City said the donation covered travel of church leaders who went to California to meet with the coalition.

(Has anyone seen a byline on this AP story? We really should congratulate the reporter for doing his/her homework and fact-checking, rather than coasting with the Herd of Independent Minds.

So what are the protesters protesting? The fact that thousands of individual Mormons made personal contributions to promote their views in the public square. This should send a chill up the spine of anyone who has the slightest reservation about the gay lobby. If you don't support them, no matter how scrupulously you abide by the rules of civility and laws of politics, they will go after you.
The Leftist gay lobby are a bunch of sore losers. It is not as if the Religious Right is sweeping the country, imposing itself on everyone. The only conservative victories at all on Tuesday were the marriage victories, which took place in three different time zones.
We won. You lost. Get over it.

Indian tribe bans abortion

An Indian tribal council in North Dakota has approved a resolution that would ban abortions on the tribe's land. The resolution, adopted by four of eight members of the council, states that, "under no circumstances will abortions be performed and allowed within any private or public facility within the boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation and other lands under the jurisdiction of the tribe." It says that the "Governing Body faithfully believes that life is sacred and begins at the moment of conception" and that "pro-life is a universal issue of common sense, moral righteousness for the common good of life." It also states that the majority the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians are Christians.

The resolution makes sense not only from a moral point of view but from the
perspective of the tribe's survival. However, its validity has been questioned by one of the tribe, and an official of the local Indian Health Service, which runs the only hospital and clinic in the area, has said the facilities are not subject to tribal resolutions. However, no abortions had been performed there in recent years, he added. ~ Daily Women's Health Policy Report, Oct 29

Election Night Craziness

From a friend:

We went down to Election Central in San Diego on Tuesday night and things got a little "lively", especially with regard to Props 4 and 8.

My son and his friend got in the thick of things. They stood proudly and loudly supported life and traditional marriage. At one point, it got a little too intense for this mother's heart, so I went over to my son and said, 'Hey, let's go. Let's find where dad is.' He replied, 'Hey, it's ok mom. Remember, I play football.' Crusaders!

Later, Bishop Cordileone and Fr. Saroki came into the hall and I felt peace and protection. Thank you to our Bishop and the priests who courageously led us during this campaign!

Around 10 p.m., a large number of teens and young adults came in holding signs that read, 'Keep our teens safe. No on Prop 4'. Keep teens safe? How so? I asked an older woman who appeared to be "in charge" of the group of teens, how does this keep teens safe. She replied, 'I don't have kids. I really don't know and I don't care'.

God help us.

Winning Proposition: Marriage success.

By Jennifer Roback Morse

Find this article at NationalReview.com.

I can hardly believe the campaign for Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, is over and that we won. I will miss the cheerful yellow signs with their happy blue family people on them. Now that it is over, it is worthwhile to reflect on the significance of what the Protect Marriage coalition achieved. The people of California did not do anything rash or drastic here. They simply voted to enshrine the definition of natural marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution.

What does this victory mean?

The people of California want to wrest control of the legal definition of marriage from the judiciary.

The people of California are deeply troubled by the idea of small children being taught about homosexuality in the schools without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

The people of California do not want dissenters from the gay-marriage ideology to be treated as if they were racists.

The people of California want religious groups to be free to operate within their own value systems. People don’t want to unleash discrimination suits and other forms of legal harassment against religious bodies which hold that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It doesn’t mean:

Over five million Californians are bigots.

Gay couples will have their homes raided, (contra the outrageous anti-Mormon advertisement.)

Gay couples will lose their domestic partnership benefits.

Gays are second-class citizens.

Why does the victory of Proposition 8 matter?

A coalition of ordinary people pushed back against the gay lobby and its allies. Those allies include all the major newspapers, Hollywood, the judiciary, the governor, the attorney general, and academia. These allies did not hesitate to abuse their power. For instance, Attorney General Jerry Brown rewrote the title of the proposition in a way that cost us 5 to 10 percentage points in the polls.

But Proposition 8 proponents got more than it bargained for: ordinary citizens are sick of being pushed around. They aren’t going to take it any more.

The coalition of religious groups who worked for Prop 8 will not dissolve the day after tomorrow. Passing Proposition 8 required an unprecedented level of interfaith cooperation. Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews all worked together. I could feel mistrust melting away as we worked together to protect natural marriage. The solidarity we created will continue long after this particular election.

Interracial solidarity was strong on the marriage issue. Blacks and Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. Los Angeles County voted for Prop 8. That wasn’t Hollywood and Beverly Hills talking: it was the urban minority communities. They don’t seem to feel the need to be politically correct. Pro-marriage advocates of all races met and worked together, and will continue to do so.

The public is much more aware of the promotion of homosexuality in the schools. People will be monitoring the content of school curriculum in a way they had not done before. And since they now have the experience of being successful cooperating with others and promoting their views in the public square, they are much less likely to back down. If the gay lobby could have contained itself and lain low for a little longer, they might have been able to slip a lot of things past the public. Those days are over.

The public was disgusted by the grotesque bullying tactics of the No on 8 coalition. Although the anti-Mormon ad was produced by an “independent” group, no one from the official campaign condemned the ad. The media gave very little attention to the vandalism against Yes, but publicized the few isolated incidents of vandalism against No. But this media spin can’t work when the incidents are happening in your own neighborhood, under your own noses, to people you know. The No campaign should have distanced itself from people who were keying cars, egging houses and spray painting graffiti on churches. But it didn’t.

In short, the success of Proposition 8 is the success of a broad-based coalition of citizen activists who cared passionately about the meaning and future of marriage. The Protect Marriage campaign had literally a hundred thousand volunteers and over 70,000 donors. What Proposition 13 meant to the cause of citizen-generated tax reduction measures, Proposition 8 may mean to the cause of defending and defining marriage.

The judges who created same-sex marriage awakened a sleeping giant. And we won’t be going back to sleep any time soon.

— Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute.

What I Saw at the Election

My family and I went down to Election Central on election night. we have some stories of our own to tell, which we will do later. but for now, I wanted to share a story from a friend of mine, who was also there:

(We) went down to Election Central on Tuesday night and things got a little "lively", especially with regard to Props 4 and 8. (My son and his friend) got in the thick of things. They stood proudly and loudly supported life and traditional marriage. At one point, it got a little too intense for this mother's heart, so I went over to my son and said, 'Hey, let's go. Let's find where dad is.' My son replied, 'Hey, it's ok mom. Remember, I play football.'

Later, (San Diego Auxiliary) Bishop Cordileone and (Diocesan Vocations Director) Fr. Saroki came into the hall and I felt peace and protection. Thank you to our Bishop and the priests who courageously led us during this campaign!

Around 10 p.m., a large number of teens and young adults came in holding signs that read, 'Keep our teens safe. No on Prop 4'. Keep teens safe? How so? I asked an older woman who appeared to be "in charge" of the group of teens, how does this keep teens safe. She replied, 'I don't have kids. I really don't know and I don't care'

Is Compromise Possible?

I got this message from someone whom I gather is a gay rights supporter:

I guess we’ll see where things go from here but I don’t get the feeling Prop 8 is last word. Just as your sleeping giant has been awakened, I sense a hard push-back coming from the other side.

I’ve always thought there was a fairly easy compromise to be made on this issue. A compromise that would address concerns like the ones you brought up regarding education and lawsuits. But the truth seems to be that neither side is interested in any half measures. It’s all or nothing. So we now have thousands of newly married gays and a new amendment that….rips up their marriage licenses? Reminds me of something I saw on YouTube.

Me: There was a compromise. It was called domestic partnerships. Many fair-minded Californians thought that the very generous DP legislation over the last 8 years was the basis for a stable compromise: hospital visitation, insurance, survivorship benefits, adoption, the whole enchilda. But what we saw as a compromise, the gay lobby saw as a stepping stone toward their final goal of gay marriage. The compromise was not disrupted by putting Prop 8 on the ballot. Those law suits that resulted in judicially imposed ssm this spring broke up the compromise.
So now I ask you: why should anyone compromise with the gay lobby? Why should any sensible person give an inch? Particularly when they have so little respect for the democratic process that they are out protesting in front of the Mormon Temple in LA. They are treating their opponents with contempt. Why should we pretend that compromise is possible?

A Winning Proposition

That's the name for my national review column. A lot of the previous posts are responses to this column.
It is important that we claim victory, and define the victory. As the gay lobby becomes more and more shrill and unhinged, we are entitled to say that we won this election fair and square. While they are whining about Mormon money, we could be pointing out that they got a lot of their money from a handful of rich individuals, and organizations that raided their customers (PG&E) and their members (CTA.)
And the "Mormon money" came from the combined small contributions of many thousands of individuals, who were spending their own money on a cause that matters to them.
That is what democracy is all about.
When the process is democratic, we win. When the process is elitist, the gay lobby wins.
Who is being unfair?

Calling the California Constitution....

Hello Dr. Morse,

The victory of Prop. 8 means all that you wrote, but I take a sad lesson from it, too: The only way to pass an ordinance unpopular with the judiciary is to make it an amendment to the constitution. In the future, the state constitution may be the size of a phone book and practically impossible to absorb.

People are Not Happy with the Gay Lobby

Jennifer,

It ain't over. They're going to have the constitutional amendment declared
unconstitutional. The arguments are 1) this amendment is significant enough
a change to the constitution that it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature,
or a full constitutional convention, not a mere simple majority
(notwithstanding that a mere four votes were enough to change the meaning of
the constitution in the other direction), and 2) it violates the equal
protection clause in the same state consitution.

Me: Our attorneys are optimistic about this point.

They'll also try the 9th Circus on Federal constitutional grounds. And
Moonbeam is also advancing the argument that, despite the plain language of
the amendment, it has no effect on the people already "married" under it,
because it doesn't explicitly state that it is retroactive. It doesn't
matter that the words plainly imply retroactivity, it doesn't use the word
"retroactive".

Me: I'm not too worried about the retroactive point. A large (but unknown) percentage of th 18,000 same sex couples who got CA marrige licenses were from out of state, and of no legal significance to us. (They might be a nuisance in their home states, which was their point, but that is, strictly speaking, someone else's problem.)
And past experience indicates that the divorce rate of gay couples is quite high. Most them won't be married after 5 years in any case.
Keep your eye on the big picture here.

There is no point at which these people will stop. They will use any
mendacious argument, any dishonorable tactic, any illegitimate exercise of
raw judicial power. And they will do so until they get their way.

Me: That does appear to be the case, doesn't it? It is an interesting question as to why that should be. I hope to write about that someday. when my in-box empties! (Just kidding. Keep writing! We love hearing from you!)

Why the Drop?

Dr. Jennifer: Well done. I have two questions: Why has the approval rate fallen from 61% a few years ago to 52.5% now? Also, can we really ammend the state constitution with a simple majority? I'll take the answer on your blog. We Republicans worked for it up here in Oakhurst (south gate to Yosemite) and yes, we had quite a few damaged Yes on 8 signs, too. Best Regards.

Me: Two reasons for the drop:
1. The rewording of the proposition by the Attorney General probably cost us 5 – 10 percentage points.
2. The general decline in support for traditional marriage.
Thanks for your support. Keep the faith.
Dr J

My In-box is Full!!

My In-box is full, and most of it is good. There are a few unhinged souls, but mostly it is good. However, I'm not going to be able to answer everyone personally. Many people are asking good questions, and often the same question. so I'm going to try and answer them publically on this blog.
Please forgive me if I don't write back personally. Keep checking back here to see if I have answered your question.
And by the way, if your message is profanity-laden, I reserve the right to edit it!

No on 8 Can't Take No for an Answer

The No on 8 movement can not take No for an answer. They are protesting in front of the Mormon Temple in LA. See it here. This display of religious bigotry is beyond the pale. These people lost the argument in the public square, fair and square. Yet they show their contempt for the voters and their neighbors by protesting an entirely peaceful and lawful religious minority that is exercising its rights to politcal participation.
These same activists are filing frivolous lawsuits to try to have Proposition 8 overturned. The City Attorneys of LA and San Francisco are parties to the lawsuits. By what authority to these people commit their entire cities to their personal political agendas? LA County voted Yes on Prop 8. Blacks and Latinos voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8. I don't see the gay rights activists marching in black and Latino neighborhoods.
Anti-Mormon bigotry and anti-Christian biogtry is the one form of politically correct bigotry. The gay lobby can safely retaliate against Mormons, in a way that would be unthinkable for them to retaliate against blacks, Latinos or working class whites, all of whom voted solidly for Proposition 8.

Can the courts oveturn CA vote to protect marriage?

The latest on Prop 8

The Bad Guys are At it Already

The ACLU and Equity California have filed a law suit trying to overturn Proposition 8, which was just passed by the California voters. Less than 24 hours after the vote, they are already trying to undo the will of the voters. Here is a statement from Andy Pugno, the legal counsel for Protect Marriage.

____________________________________________________ Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8
November 5, 2008.

The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.

This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.

The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.

The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.

It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “ . . . only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.

We will keep our readers posted as this story develops.

Arkansas ban on unmarried foster parents

The Arkansas voters banned unmarried couples from becoming foster parents. Although it was aimed at same sex couples, my opinion is that the impact on opposite sex unmarried couples is more significant. We already know that children do better with married couples than with cohabiting couples. The state should absolutely take this fact into account in choosing foster parents. "Opponents argued it would make it harder for the state to find the foster parents it needs to take care of children." I don't consider that a very strong argument. The states should recruit more married couples and make foster care an appealing proposition for them, rather than lowering their standards.
As a personal note, I have seen some unmarried cohabiting opposite sex couples do adoptions and foster care. It doesn't work very well. The problem is attachment. Many, many adopted and foster children have difficulty attaching to loving adults. Their ability to attach has been compromised by the trauma they've already been through. They need the most stable possible people to connect with. The unmarried couple implicitly says, "I do not entrust myself to my partner. My partner does not entrust himself to you. But we want you, the wounded child, to entrust yourself to me and to him." States should not be using cohabiting couples.

How did your country do to protect marriage?

Check out how your county did to protect marriage here!

Thank you California for protecting Marriage between One Man and One Woman!

A Note From Ruth Academic Boardmember Bill Duncan

With more than 95 percent of precincts reporting, Prop 8 is leading 52-48. I see that the LA Times headlines is "Gay Marriage Ban Approved by Voters."

Thus, I think we can confidently assume that Prop 8 has been approved. With Arizon and Florida approving, we are at 30 states with marriage amendments.

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___
You may already have seen these but just in case, I’m passing along the results as of 11:00 p.m. on November 4. These reflect more than 90% of precincts reporting in these states and have been pretty consistent for some time so I think they are a reliable indicator that both state amendments have been successful. The news media are reporting both amendments as wins!

Arizona (Prop 102): YES 56% to 44%

Florida (Amdt 2): YES 62% to 38%

Proposition 8 is ahead (53-47) in California with about 25% of precincts reporting. There’s reason to be optimistic but it looks to be close.



Best,



Bill Duncan

Today is International Mormon Appreciation Day.

Today is the day that the Ruth Youth honor our brothers and sisters in the LDS Church. They have been great supporters of natural marriage and we applaud their efforts. Here is our proclamation. Forward it far and wide!

In response to the truly despicable, bigoted advertisement, Home Invasion, produced to defeat California's Proposition 8, the members of the Ruth Youth proclaim November 5, 2008 to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.

Whereas: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are exercising their legal first amendment free speech rights by participating in the political process, rights that are dear to all Americans of all religions.

Whereas, the advertisement was generated by an "independent" group calling itself Courage Campaign Issues Committee.

Whereas: the ad has been condemned by representatives of Catholic and Protestant Churches,

Whereas: the Protect Marriage, Yes on Proposition 8 campaign has called upon the No on 8 campaign to repudiate the ad.

Whereas: the No on Proposition 8 has been completely silent in the face of this outrageous display of anti-religious bigotry.

Whereas: the No on 8 Campaign has shown very clearly that they want the exclusive right to define what counts as discrimination and hate.

Whereas: the campaign to protect natural marriage by passing California’s Proposition 8 has been called the largest grassroots political campaign in history.

Whereas: attacks on the religious freedom of one group threaten the religious freedom of all religions.

Whereas: the Ruth Youth is an international, interfaith coalition of youthful souls of all ages who support natural marriage, in law, culture, media and academia.

Whereas: we are grateful to the members of the LDS Church for their participation in the campaign to protect marriage from being radically redefined by unelected judges.

Whereas: We are proud to have been part of said campaign, and we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the members of the LDS Church.

Therefore, be it proclaimed:

We, the members of the Ruth Youth, hereby declare and proclaim November 5, 2008, to be International Mormon Appreciation Day. We hereby express our gratitude toward and solidarity with our LDS brothers and sisters.

No matter how the election for Proposition 8 turns out, we are grateful to the courageous, dedicated, and always cheerful members of the LDS Church.

Ruth Youth can be found on FACEBOOK or at www.ruthinstitute.org.

Vicious anti-Mormon ad

The vicious anti-Mormon ad has been removed from the location to which we linked yesterday. But it is still up on the internet here.

Last night, Jamie and I were at a phone bank, making Get Out the Vote calls for Prop 8. We made a point of hugging every Mormon there.

Ruth Youth Proclaim International Mormon Appreciation Day!

In response to the truly despicable, bigoted advertisement, Home Invasion, produced to defeat California’s Proposition 8, the members of Ruth Youth proclaim November 5, 2008 to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.

Whereas: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are exercising their legal first amendment free speech rights by participating in the political process, rights that are dear to all Americans of all religions.

Whereas, the advertisement was generated by an “independent” group calling itself Courage Campaign Issues Committee.

Whereas: the ad has been condemned by representatives of Catholic and Protestant Churches.

Whereas: the Protect Marriage, Yes on Proposition 8 campaign has called upon the No on 8 campaign to repudiate the ad.

Whereas: the No on Proposition 8 has been completely silent in the face of this outrageous display of anti-religious bigotry.

Whereas: the No on 8 Campaign has shown very clearly that they want the exclusive right to define what counts as discrimination and hate.

Whereas: the campaign to protect natural marriage by passing California’s Proposition 8 has been called the largest grassroots political campaign in history.

Whereas: attacks on the religious freedom of one group threaten the religious freedom of all religions.

Whereas: Ruth Youth is an international, interfaith coalition of youthful souls of all ages who support natural marriage, in law, culture, media and academia.

Whereas: we are grateful to the members of the LDS Church for their participation in the campaign to protect marriage from being radically redefined by unelected judges.

Whereas: We are proud to have been part of said campaign, and we are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the members of the LDS Church.

Therefore, be it proclaimed:

We, the members of Ruth Youth, hereby declare and proclaim November 5, 2008, to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.

We hereby express our gratitude toward and solidarity with our LDS brothers and sisters. No matter how the election for Proposition 8 turns out, we are grateful to the courageous, dedicated, and always cheerful members of the LDS Church.

Our friend Leland strikes again

The man with the refurbished Prop 8 sign (shown in the "Going Green" post below) has protested one of his favorite websites, BoardGameGeek, for blocking ads from ProtectMarriage.com after some regulars complained.

He writes:
"After seeing how afraid the enemies of traditional marriage and family are of open expression of opinion even in this one very small and cloistered neighborhood of the web, I just have to wonder what we can expect if Proposition 8 fails and they then feel like they have the mandate they need to completely reorder society in general according to their own self serving preferences. I hate to even think about it."

Here is what he posted on the website's thread:

"Now I’m the one who is shocked, Aldie. You’re actually kowtowing to the politically ‘correct’ thought police on this one, are you?

As far as I’m concerned Barry’s objection is made in the same spirit as the folks who’ve been going around stealing or destroying people’s Prop. 8 yard signs or besieging people’s homes when Prop. 8 signs are posted on their house out of reach (to keep it from being stolen or defaced) or vandalizing the homes and/or cars of people who dare to display Prop. 8 signs or stickers...

Barry, what I think of your attitude is best exhibited by what I did with the yard sign someone destroyed in my front yard.
PS: I'd be just as incensed if an anti-Prop. 8 advertisement led to this kind of censorship. This is the exact opposite of being “an open, welcoming community”. But for the record, an anti-Prop. 8 ad would have at most only caused some people to voice disagreement, not a request for censorship."

The Return of Open Attacks on Religious Minorities: Prop 8's Legacy

Maggie Gallagher's response to the vicious ad mentioned in the previous posting. Find it online here. Gallagher is the president of NOM--National Organization for Marriage.

Well this is certainly change.

The voices of tolerance in California are concluding their campaign against Prop 8 with this TV ad, which engages in a level of blatant religious hatred I've never seen in American politics. Ever.

I don't think its been seen in American politics since the late 19th Century attacks on Catholics, which may be why the Catholic Conference in California was so quick to denounce the ad.

It depicts two young Mormon missionaries (they are identified as LDS) invading a home and ransacking their belongings. It's ugly in the extreme.

Remember, a vote for Prop 8 in California leaves same-sex couples protected by full marriage-equivalent civil unions. None of that matters. If you think marriage means a husband and wife you are just like a racist and you can be treated any way they want.

Apparently people who think they are the civil rights movement of the century do not think they have to behave with even minimal decency towards those of us who disagree with them. These are not some outliers in the wacky blogosphere.

These are the leaders of the gay marriage movement in America who made and ran this ad.

A very revealing (and scary) moment.

Every decent voice needs to stand with the LDS folks against this kind of vicious attack on their faith community because as American citizens, they have exercised their civil rights to vote, organize, and donate.

Truly Awful Ad from the No on 8 Campaign

Vote now for Prop 8. Get all your friends and family to the polls today.

Gay marriage activists have sunk to new lows: they are running this ad, which makes a disgusting, vicious, attack on Californians who happen to be members of the LDS Church who have peacefully organized, voted, spoken and donated in order to protect marriage.

Right now they are going after Mormons, but don't think they won't come after you and your rights too. This vile ad expresses the contempt our opponents have for religious liberty and for the very idea of tolerating people who disagree with their views on marriage.

Every faith community in America--every decent voice in America--needs to stand up now and express our solidarity with the LDS Church against these outrageous attacks. Stand up and fight for marriage, for our rights, and for the very idea of tolerance and decency in American political life! (Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, just weighed in on National Review Online, click here).

If you don't live in California, call up a friend or relative who does. Tell them to get to the polls and vote Yes on 8. Write a letter to the editor to your local paper, and protest this ugly outburst of blatant religious bigotry on a small faith community in America. These powerful politicians need to know: This is an attack not on one small church but on all of us in America who believe in religious liberty and basic human decency.

(In Florida, vote Yes on 2, in Arizona, Yes on 102, and in Connecticut, Yes on Question 1).

Most important, let me repeat: get to the polls. Vote for Prop 8 like your life--or at least your religious liberty--depends on it.

God bless you,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

Teen Pregnancies Linked to Steamy TV

Well, Duh! Researchers at the prestigious Rand Corporation studied the TV viewing habits of teenagers over a three year period, and correlated it with the risk of teen pregnancy. Here is the result, from the abstract of the article in Pediatrics:

RESULTS. Exposure to sexual content on television predicted teen pregnancy, with adjustment for all covariates. (Me: in plain English, this means they took into account other known risk factors for teen pregnancy.) Teens who were exposed to high levels of television sexual content (90th percentile) were twice as likely to experience a pregnancy in the subsequent 3 years, compared with those with lower levels of exposure (10th percentile).

CONCLUSIONS. This is the first study to demonstrate a prospective link between exposure to sexual content on television and the experience of a pregnancy before the age of 20. Limiting adolescent exposure to the sexual content on television and balancing portrayals of sex in the media with information about possible negative consequences might reduce the risk of teen pregnancy. Parents may be able to mitigate the influence of this sexual content by viewing with their children and discussing these depictions of sex.

This article is significant because it indicates that the media is having a negative and independent influence on the behavior of teens. It actually points to a new direction, beyond all the arguments over the proper form of sex ed in the schools. The fact that the WAPO reporter on this story, Rob Stein, even uncovered the study and talked about it at all, is a good and wholesome thing. On the day before an election, I fear the story will not get the attention it deserves.
Not surprisingly, however, the Washington Post article on this story interviewed all the usual suspects on the teen pregnancy issue. They said all the usual things:

“We have a highly sexualized culture that glamorizes sex,” said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. “We really need to encourage schools to make abstinence-centered programs a priority.”

and then, right on cue:

“This finding underscores the importance of evidence-based sex education that helps young people delay sex and use prevention when they become sexually active,” said James Wagoner of Advocates for Youth. “The absolutely last thing we should do in response is bury our heads in the sand and promote failed abstinence-only programs.”

Naturally, the Alan Guttmacher Institute,the research arm of Planned Parenthood, gets the last word:

"It may be the kids who have an interest in sex watch shows with sexual content,” said Laura Lindberg of the Guttmacher Institute. “I'm concerned this makes it seem like if we just shut off the TV, we'd dramatically reduce the teen pregnancy rate.”

It would be a real service to the public for them to know that sex ed is only one of many indicators of teen pregnancy. Proponents of delayed sexual activity need to take a close look at influences besides the schools. And it would be a service if the media itself, in this case, the print media, would expand its horizons.

California supporters of same-sex 'marriage' losing money

From OneNewsNow.com.

Many teachers and utility consumers in California are angry over campaign contributions made by a teachers union and a utility provider in support of homosexual "marriage."

Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been keeping tabs on the California Teachers Association (CTA) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and working with American Family Association to expose the companies' support of same-sex marriage. Both companies made large financial contributions to fight Proposition 8, which would restore California's definition of traditional marriage and overturn the recent court ruling legalizing homosexual marriage in the Golden State.

"After Pacific Gas & Electric gave a quarter of a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, and after the California Teachers Association gave over a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8, they are now financially taking a hit," Dacus explains.

According to the attorney, more than 5,000 people -- many of them teachers who are disenchanted with CTA's political donation -- have cancelled service with PG&E and are now obtaining service from companies that generally charge less as well as support family values.

"Countless numbers of public school teachers [who are] outraged with their teachers union are contacting the Pacific Justice Institute and downloading information from ChooseCharity.org in order to switch from this union and have all of their union dues given to a charity that's in agreement with their faith instead of the union," Dacus adds.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, Dacus hopes the campaign against the two organizations will continue. More information about California utilities that support traditional marriage is available at NOtoPGE.com.

Another good video

http://www.marriagematterstokids.com/

Social justice requires voting pro-life

by Dr. J. David Franks
St. John’s Seminary, Boston

It is our moral obligation to vote. Yet there are no perfect candidates. So, how do we decide? We must be guided by the bedrock principles of social responsibility. In the language of Catholic social doctrine, we must always make a preferential option for the poor. (Remember the decisive criterion at the Last Judgment: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me” [Mt 25:40].)

The preferential option for the poor demands that in every vote we cast we always have as our formal object to advance the cause of bringing about the restoration in law of the right to life of the innocent, because the unborn child threatened by the regime of legal abortion is surely the “least of these.” If this is not always our motivating criterion, all our talk of “social justice” is airy nothing. Precisely to the extent that someone is weak and vulnerable, that person should be the focus of our moral responsibility. The more powerless the human life, the more we owe that person. This means that the unborn have the first claim on us, being the most powerless, most vulnerable, most innocent human life of all.

Very few have served the materially poor as completely as did Blessed (Mother) Teresa of Calcutta, and out of the clarity of her holiness, she dispelled the fog of the ideology of death: “I find the unborn child to be the poorest of the poor today—the most unloved—the most unwanted, the throwaway of the society.” If we are serious about solidarity, we must start with the weakest. (The disabled and the elderly face similar challenges to having their right to life respected in law; euthanasia is being fueled by a eugenic “quality of life” mindset.)

The preferential option for the poor makes clear that integral and solidary humanism begins with the “life issues.” These must take priority over all else in political life. If we are serious about making the preferential option for the poorest of the poor in our lives, we must be seriously, intelligently, politically (not just “personally”) pro-life. The preferential option for the poor begins with the unborn—else it’s being twisted into a socialist slogan.

We know without a doubt, as a matter of science, that the unborn child is human life. About a century and a half ago, embryology entered its modern phase precisely with the discovery that human life begins at conception: the union of a male gamete (sperm) and a female gamete (egg) produces a new, self-organizing individual of the human species, chromosomally identifiable as male or female. This is the scientific reality. The only question is, will we recognize the moral claim that powerless human life makes on us?

Solidarity with the poorest of the poor requires that we act prudently for the restoration in law of the right to life of the innocent. Generally, this means voting for the most pro-life of the major-party candidates. (A “protest” vote for a non-viable candidate is imprudent and thus lacking in the intelligence necessary for real solidarity.) No civilized society can long survive legalized private executions of the most powerless, a private war against the most innocent human lives. If our laws don’t recognize the right to life of the unborn, they fail in their first purpose: to be a bulwark against the depredations of the powerful.

Intrinsic to moral responsibility in a democracy is voting. That is, voting is a serious moral act. And one of the axioms of our freedom is that we have a moral obligation in each of our free acts not to act out of ignorance. To vote morally, we must intelligently distinguish between negotiable and non-negotiable issues. People of good will can disagree about how best to serve the common good when it comes to geopolitics, to tax and healthcare policy, etc. These are all debatable. But abortion is not. Yes, we must also work to reduce the actual incidence of abortion, especially by supporting pregnancy care centers. But changing the law is more fundamental: the law is a teacher; it is how we as a society communicate our sense of reality to the young. As long as abortion is “safe and legal,” it will never be “rare.”

So, to vote in a morally responsible fashion, it is crucial to know where the candidates stand on abortion. The best resource here is the National Right to Life Committee . The most significant vote is the one for the presidency of the United States. Mr. Obama is a pro-abortion extremist. As a state legislator, he even worked against a law that would have protected babies who had survived abortions, and he wants to eliminate federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers (so much for being “pro-choice”).

In the name of social justice, we must ask ourselves, as we stand in the voting booth, which of the two major-party candidates will defend the most powerless. Which of the candidates would nominate pro-life judges? (We have fought so long to move a Supreme Court that was 7-2 against life to one that is just one vote shy of reversing Roe. It is now that we are supposed to give up?) Who would keep in place the Mexico City policy, which removed America from the pro-abortion population-control imperialism of the Clinton years that sought to “reduce” the numbers of babies of people of color? (42 million abortions are performed worldwide each year; this scale of deliberate destruction of human life has never been approached in the history of the world. In America alone, around 1.3 million children are aborted each year.)

There has never been a more consequential election concerning the right to life in history. Indeed, Mr. Obama has promised to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would roll back all of the hard fought incremental pro-life legislation of the last decades—which has saved tens of thousands of lives. FOCA would require taxpayer funding of abortion, decriminalize partial-birth abortion, eliminate parental notification laws, etc. Enshrining as it would a “fundamental right” to abortion, making it sacrosanct and legally untouchable, FOCA would very likely bring about a day, in the not too distant future, when the Catholic Church would have to relinquish her involvement in health care because the price of such involvement would be to perform abortions.

No pro-lifer should ever apologize for defending the most powerless human life, for being “single issue,” for standing up to fight in this, the greatest human rights struggle in the history of the world. And no pro-lifer should apologize for appealing to the consciences of every person, calling all to meet the demands of true love: there is something far more important than where you or I stand on the environment, on geopolitics, on economics. Indeed there is something far more important than where you and I stand on these prudential matters all put together: what social “progress” is worth being bought at the cost of even one little child killed—and killed legally?

The weakest deserve our first consideration—not our second, or third, or… Solidarity with the most vulnerable is the first requirement of true love and social justice.

'President Obama' could overturn marriage amendments

From OneNewsNow.com.

California, Arizona, and Florida have constitutional amendments on the ballot to ban homosexual "marriage." Liberty Counsel examines the Florida amendment as well as the repercussions of the federal election.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the stakes are high in Florida because passage of a constitutional amendment requires 60 percent of the vote. "Right now the polls show about 57 percent in favor of the amendment. The good news is only 34 percent oppose the amendment," he explains. "There is an undecided factor in there. I believe that factor will swing for us when they go to the polls."

However, he also points out the national election could affect all states in terms of homosexual marriage. If elected president, Barack Obama has promised to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which currently means states cannot be forced to recognize homosexual marriages that are legal in other states.

"Now if that happens, that will be like removing the dam and same-sex marriage will flood across the country, notwithstanding the fact that a state even has a constitutional amendment," he contends. "A state will be required to recognize either Massachusetts or California or some other state's same-sex marriage law. That means same-sex marriage will literally rush across the borders of all 50 states."

Staver urges people from every state to think carefully before they cast their votes on Tuesday.

More News on the Marriage Front in Florida

On the very eve of the election, a front group for the radical homosexual agenda called "Florida Red and Blue" has filed a frivolous lawsuit against leaders of the pro-marriage movement.
The attorney representing Florida Red and Blue is Benedict P.Kuehne, who was indicted in February for conspiracy, money laundering and obstruction of justice relating to money from the Medellin drug cartel in Colombia.

Liberty Counsel is representing the defendants and will be in court today in Miami seeking sanctions against Florida Red and Blue.

With polls showing support for the state marriage amendments gaining, this is a blatant attempt to taint voters against marriage in a last-minute "election surprise."

But the key will be voter turnout -- not just in Florida but also in California and Arizona!

+ + Alert your friends and vote!

This is just the latest in a long line of underhanded efforts to defeat marriage in these three key states.

Your vote for marriage on Tuesday will have national ramifications. If marriage loses it could mark the end of marriage as we know it.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel

Another video

Watch it here.

Tuesday is our moment to vote YES on Prop 8. A Yes vote will restore traditional marriage in our state.

For your steadfast support of traditional marriage, the No on 8 campaign has called you "intolerant" and "offensive." But a recent string of attacks on Yes on 8 supporters shows that opponents of traditional marriage are anything but tolerant and respectful of others.

On Tuesday, you can send them a message by volunteering for our historic, 100,000-strong get-out-the-vote effort -- and most importantly, voting YES on 8.

School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

Alright. Let's admit it. Things are definitely getting out of control here.

From Fox News:

A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.

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

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

The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.
Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights.

Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken.

"We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not," said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.

Val Joyner, a school district spokeswoman, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that when deciding what to teach on this subject matter, educators "gather materials from community agencies and other education groups" and that "the materials have grade level indicators which help determine what is age-appropriate."

The district said the pledge cards were intended for middle school and high school students.
Asked last week if the district planned to take action against Miller, Joyner said she would have to look into the incident. On Thursday she told FOXNews.com that she did not have an answer for the question and that she would no longer be doing any media interviews.

Joyner said in an e-mail that Miller, the teacher, "planned to teach students how to become an ally and conflict-mediation through various activities." She added that the district doesn't advocate for a specific cause and/or lifestyle, and it has "no curriculum for gay, lesbian and transgender lifestyles."

The district employs a "Professional Learning Specialist: Equity," who is in charge of gathering material and helping teachers decide what should be taught on the subject matter.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, the group representing Voelker, said parents at the Faith Ringgold School weren't notified of what was going to take place in the classroom.
He said that teaching students as young as pre-school about gay, lesbian and transgender issues is common in California, but that there are "all kinds of material the average parent could find highly objectionable or potentially harmful" to their children.

When asked if the school district did anything wrong, he said, "possibly," but he declined to go into detail or say whether Voelker would sue the district.

Dacus would not comment specifically on whether children who signed the pledge could be held responsible if the school determined that they were not honoring it. He said they are minors and there are certain degrees of limited liability, but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame.

"[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said.

Meanwhile, opponents of gay marriage are up in arms over the incident, which occurred as California voters prepare to vote Tuesday on Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage.

"How do you teach a 5-year-old to sign a pledge card for lesbian, gay and transgender issues without explaining what transgender and bisexual is?" asked Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California.

Some Handy Arguments you Can Use

Written by Matthew B. Mack, Counselor at Law

It’s No Surprise that Some of Us Prefer Cats and Some Dogs . . . While Tolerating Both

While some of us prefer cats and some dogs, most of us agree they are both domesticated animals that are to be tolerated and protected in our society. However, we all understand that dogs and cats are different, and it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that a cat is the same as a dog or that dogs have actually always been cats . . .

Similarly, while both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are to be tolerated and protected in our society, it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, or that same-sex relations have actually always been “marriages”.

While I happen to prefer dogs, it neither makes me prejudice toward or intolerant of cats, nor does it require that I must now pretend that dogs and cats are exactly the same. In our home we have room for both dogs and cats. People can and should support Proposition 8’s clarification of the definition of marriage and still love, respect and tolerate everyone!


1 Potato, 2 Potato, 3 Potato, 4 . . . Neither People nor Potatoes Are all the Same

Previously, human history has defined “marriage” as a protected civil–societal-spiritual relationship between a man and a woman.
Today, gays and lesbians assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their sexual preference for homosexuality is a matter of genetic predisposition void of free choice, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include any 2 same-gender people.

Tomorrow, bisexuals will assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their simultaneous sexual preference for heterosexuality and homosexuality is a matter of genetic predisposition void of free choice, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include 3 people, 2 of the same gender and 1 of the opposite gender.
Later, people will assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their genetic predisposition for group relationships, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, is simply validating what society has already accepted, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include polygamy, polyandry, etc.

Ultimately, the term “marriage” will be “some relationship between some people”. Definitions, particularly legal definitions, are used to help society clearly understand and communicate what something is and what it’s not. Ultimately, allowing “marriage” to become anything results in it being nothing . . . and how does that help anyone?

As a society we currently acknowledge and protect the preferences defined by the terms “heterosexuality”, “homosexuality” and “bisexuality”, and everyone knows each term involves unique relationships. How does society benefit from suddenly ignoring those unique differences by using the same legal term, “marriage”, to define all human sexual relationships? We acknowledge and protect various defined races, ethnicities, etc., without ignoring their unique differences, why must it be different when we look to sexuality?

We are not a “one size fits all” society, and the courts should not be allowed to so broadly define “marriage”, that it means nothing and protects no one. I’m voting Yes on Proposition 8 to protect and preserve each of our rights to be uniquely different, and I am against government trying to make us all the same!!

Will the Passage or Defeat of Prop 8 Really Change what California's Schools Teach?

I simply want both sides to tell the truth. Opponents of Proposition argue that while “HIV/AIDS Prevention Education" is mandatory in California schools [Education Code Section 51931(d)], “Sex Education is not. Opponents of Proposition 8 admit that "Sex Education" includes teaching "healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family" [Education Code section 51933(a)], but argue that because “Sex Education” is not mandatory it will not affect students or families.

The truth is that 96 % of California schools teach Sex Education, and 93% of the 96% teach both “HIV/AIDS Prevention Education" [mandatory] and "Sex Education"[not mandatory] in the same class thereby depriving parents of advance Notice and the right to Opt-Out because the class contains mandatory education! [see report entitled “Sex Education in California Public Schools” dated August 2003 which was published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California - [link]

The result is that under California’s current law which legalizes both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, schools will in fact teach over 90% of the time “the knowledge and skills necessary” to encourage and protect same-sex "gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family" [Education Code section 51930]. The effective teaching of skills in schools often involves role play in the class, and therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that students will role play asking another class member to participate in social interaction (dating, dancing, holding hands, kissing, sexual consent, etc.), which would mandate that boys and girls practice asking for such social interaction with those of the same-sex.

If Proposition 8 passes, schools will neither support nor oppose same-sex marriage, such concerns would be left to the parents, just where they belong . . . . Now that would certainly change what California's schools teach!

Prop. 8 outcome key for America's future

From OneNewsNow.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Going green? A destroyed Prop. 8 sign gets re-used.

8 Is Not Hate: The meaning of a proposition

Prop. 8 is about courts being out of control.

Check out Dr. J's article at NationalReview online or below.


In Fresno, a Catholic priest who recently came out to his parishioners asked them to imagine they have just discovered they are gay: “How would you feel when you saw a car with a ‘Yes on 8’ bumper sticker?” In San Diego, a group opposing Proposition 8 calls itself “Californians Against Hate.” In San Jose, two women parked in front of a house that had a large “Yes on 8” banner. They spray painted their own car to turn it into a billboard saying “Bigots Live Here.”

Given all these episodes, I would like for the gays and lesbians of California to know what I mean by the “Yes on Proposition 8” sign in my yard. I want you to know what I am saying, and what I’m not saying, by driving around with a “Yes on Prop 8” sticker. Some opponents of Proposition 8 seem to view it as a referendum on whether we like gay people. I do not share this view. From my perspective, it would be tragic for the gays and lesbians of California to believe that every house with a Yes on 8 sign in the yard is inhabited by someone who hates them.

I’m voting “yes” on 8, not because of my views of gays and lesbians, but because of my views about marriage. I view marriage as a gender-based institution that attaches mothers and fathers to each other and to their children. Those of us who support Proposition 8 believe that children deserve at least the chance to have a relationship with a mom and a dad. That isn’t hateful toward anyone.

We have watched as the small children of Massachusetts were taught about homosexuality in their public schools. We believe parents should decide when and what to teach their children about homosexuality, in accordance with their values, and their perception of their child’s maturity. We have trouble believing that the well-being of gays and lesbians really depends on children reading King & King in kindergarten.

We believe the California supreme court greatly overstepped its bounds. Their decision did more than legalize same-sex marriage. The Court declared that requiring spouses to be of the opposite sex counts as discrimination. Religious groups that act on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman are henceforth engaged in unlawful discrimination.

The Court also changed the jurisprudence of sexual-orientation discrimination cases, giving same-sex couples the highest possible level of protection. This means that in contests between religious liberty and sexual-orientation discrimination, religious liberty would almost always lose. The Court’s ruling gave gays and lesbians new grounds on which to sue religious people, and a higher probability of winning than before. Fair-minded Californians of all political persuasions don’t want every church-related activity threatened with legal harassment. Every marriage-preparation class, every pre-school, every adoption agency, every high school, every teen youth group is potentially covered by the Court’s ruling. Voting Yes on Proposition 8 is one of the few ways ordinary citizens can protest. They are not saying they hate gay people: They are saying the Court is out of control.

Millions of people are going to vote Yes on Prop 8. People of every religion and no religion are going to vote Yes on Prop 8. People with gay loved ones are going to vote Yes on Prop 8. It would be tragic, and completely unwarranted, for gay men and lesbians to conclude that all these people hate them.

"The Call" in San Diego a Success

From Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse:

The Call, the Pentecostal gathering at San Diego's QualComm football stadium this past Saturday was incredible. My family and I went to the Mass at the Mission San Diego prior to The Call. For those who are unfamiliar with California history or Catholic lore, the Mission San Diego was the first of the Missions founded in California by Father Junipero Serra back in 1769. Padre Serra is consider the “Father of California.” You might say he is “The Original San Diego Padre.” We felt his presence there at the Mission as our Auxiliary Bishop, Salvatore Cordileone, said Mass for us on the Feast of All Saints. The bishop had invited Pastors Jim Garlow and Chris Clark, to do the readings. Thus, the Evangelical and the Baptist churches were represented at the Catholic event.

We then had a procession from the Mission San Diego, over to QualComm stadium, for The Call. The Call was a major Pentecostal prayer rally, hosted by Lou Engel. Approximately 30,000 people attended the event, which ran from 10 AM to 10 PM.

Around 3 PM, the pastor introduced Bishop Cordileone to the mostly Evangelical crowds. He said that when we've been at battle for hours it was always a relief to see fresh troops. Bishop Cordileone was introduced as “the leader of fresh troops.” Bishop Cordileone then told the crowd that at that very moment there were 1.8 million Catholics (that would be all of the Knights of Columbus) all over the world praying with them for the fight on 8. He then lead the crowd in a beautiful prayer to stop abortion, end pornography, return morals and values to our nation, and for the unity of all Christians in this spiritual war.

People from around the country should know that the struggle for marriage in CA has enlisted the support of all the major religious groups, as this particular rally demonstrates. Over the months of my involvement, I have worked with members of the Mormon church and the Orthodox Jewish community. This past week, I was on a Spanish language radio station. Win, lose or draw on Tuesday, I consider it an honor and a privilege to be part of this great ecumenical effort to preserve natural marriage. I will treasure the friendships I have made over the course of this campaign.

The final Prop 8 video from John Paul the Great Catholic University.

America is at a crucial juncture.

Prop 8 really comes down to what is right and wrong concerning marriage. Tuesday, it will be written into law: we will either be a state that supports free religion or free sexuality. One of them will be judged as less important.

Watch this video, pass it on to your friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY9YAeksPSY

This is not an issue that anyone can remain silent on.

YES ON 8 CHALLENGES SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JACK O’CONNELL TO LIVE DEBATE

Yes on 8 Says Debate Will Make It Clear: If we do not Pass Proposition 8, Gay Marriage Will Be Taught in California Public Schools, and that is Already Happening

SACRAMENTO – The Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign today challenged Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and the No on 8 campaign to a live, televised debate this weekend so voters can learn the truth about the issue of gay marriage being taught in California public schools. The Yes on 8 Campaign, in a letter from Campaign Manager Frank Schubert to No on 8 Campaign Manager Steve Smith, said the more substantive forum will settle the issue once and for all and prove that gay marriage will be taught in public schools if Proposition 8 fails.

“The No on Proposition 8 campaign has been airing television and radio ads featuring Jack O’Connell accusing us of running a ‘shameful’ campaign,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8. “There is nothing shameful about telling the truth. This is the most critical issue of the campaign. Voters deserve an opportunity to hear for themselves what will happen, and indeed what is already happening, if we do not restore traditional marriage in California on Election Day. Given his strong statements, I’m sure O’Connell will have no problem accepting.”

The debate challenge comes as it becomes increasingly clear that indoctrination of young school children about gay marriage is already happening. The so-called “public relations nightmare” of a San Francisco first grade class being taken on an official school field trip to a lesbian wedding was followed last week by a Hayward elementary school having a “National Coming Out Day” for kindergarteners, instruction in which parents were told they could not opt-out according to recent news accounts.

From ProtectMarriage.com.

YES ON 8 VIDEO

Check out another fabulous video!