CA Supreme Court Grants Our Requests

On Wednesday, November 19, the California Supreme Court granted all of the requests submitted by ProtectMarriage.com regarding the three lawsuits filed against Prop 8. We are very pleased by this action. Specifically, the Court

• Refused to block the full implementation of Prop 8 pending the outcome of the litigation
• Accepted jurisdiction over the case, which will facilitate a speedier resolution
• Granted ProtectMarriage's request to have standing as the defender of the interests of the voters that passed Prop 8. Otherwise the defense would have been solely up to Attorney General Jerry Brown who opposed Prop 8 and tried his best to undermine its passage.
• Refused the request of Campaign for California Families and the Liberty Council to represent the voters in the case. Campaign for California Families opposed the qualification of Prop 8 and never cooperated with the campaign to pass it. To help undermine our efforts, Jerry Brown supported the participation of this outside group.

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

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

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

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

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

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

(415) 651-4171

http://CatholicsForProtectMarriage.com

Letter from ProtectMarriage.com Chairman Ron Prentice

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Ron Prentice

Chairman, Yes on Proposition 8

Above the Hate

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

Click here.

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

From OneNewsNow.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From OneNewsNow.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this article here.

Legal battle over Calif. marriage amendment opens new chapter

From OneNewsNow.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop. 8 opponent: We want full civil marriage rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savage: And me too.

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

Read the rest of this article here.

Healing the gay/black divide

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

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

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

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

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

Find this article here.

WALL: A mandate for traditional, not gay, marriage

Black voters sent a 'mixed' message

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this article here.

Why same-sex 'marriage' matters

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

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

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

Government intrusion on religion is what's at stake.

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

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

Read the rest of the article here.

Censoring political cartoons?

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

Check them out.

STOP abortion from becoming a universal human right

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION!

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



http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.95/default.asp

Dr. Phil and Prop 8

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

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

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

Dr. Phil and Prop 8

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

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

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

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

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

http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2008/11/she-wants-to-know-who-her-donor-father.html

Take special note of the comments.

Substance sickens pro-lifers

From OneNewsNow.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual activists accused of 'domestic terrorism'

From OneNewsNow.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calif. homosexuals try to 'gut democratic process'

An article from OneNewsNow.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Also Write to California Supreme Court Justices!

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

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

Please email equalaccess@jud.ca.gov and address each Supreme Court Justice by name in your email to ensure they each receive a copy.

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

In God we trust.

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

A Public Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger

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

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

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

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Your Name Here

Research to counter document sent to school administrators

From a reader:

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

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

Maggie Gallagher on Fox News on Prop 8 Intimidation

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

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

Palm Springs woman presses charges

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

Here is the article:
http://www.necn.com/Boston/Nation/Prop-8-supporter-to-press-charges-after-alleged-assault-/1226488669.html

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

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

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

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

Please see details at this link: http://protest8sandiego.wordpress.com/

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

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

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

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

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

There are penalties for blocking or damaging churches.

"FACE" stands for "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances" Act. There are both state and federal versions of this law, and they provide draconian penalties for interfering with access to abortion clinics. But, as a sop to conservatives, they also provide the same penalties for obstructing access to or damaging churches. There are both criminal and civil penalties, meaning that you don't have to rely on the DA to file charges; if you can catch the person or persons responsible, you can sue them and get statutory damages and attorney fees.

Envelopes with white powder were sent to the Knights of Columbus and the Mormon Church.

This is a terrorist act, no matter what the powder turns out to be: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081114/news_1n14region.html

Letters containing white powder were sent yesterday to Mormon temples in Utah and California.

The Los Angeles temple, site of a recent gay rights protest, closed yesterday after receiving the envelope.

In Salt Lake City, powder spilled from an envelope onto a clerk's hand at the downtown temple. The room was decontaminated. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the building was closed for more than an hour. Protests have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged its members to fight for the recently passed amendment banning gay marriage in California.
Both incidents are under investigation.

Also yesterday, a California activist filed a complaint with the state agency that regulates campaign activity, accusing the Mormon church of not reporting the value of the work it did to support Proposition 8.

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,705263061,00.html?printView=true

Preliminary tests have found that a white powdery substance found in an envelope mailed to LDS Church headquarters is not hazardous, the FBI said.

"There is no known toxins or biological agents," FBI Special Agent Juan Becerra told the Deseret News.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency issued a statement Friday urging respect and civility in public discourse. Gay rights groups are also condemning the threats.

Lab tests were conducted overnight to determine whether the powder that slipped out of an envelope opened in the annex of the Salt Lake Temple was ricin, anthrax, smallpox or any other deadly toxin. They came back negative, but further tests were being conducted on Friday by state health officials, Becerra said.

The FBI on Friday also said it has labeled their probe into the suspicious substances as a domestic terrorist investigation.

"Obviously it instills fear in the public eye and causes people not to feel safe," Becerra said. "It is illegal to mail something out and to threaten the use of a biological weapon or even pretend it's a biological weapon."

The LDS temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles received envelopes on Thursday containing a white powdery substance. So did the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization based in New Haven, Conn. Both organizations were heavy backers of Proposition 8, the measure in California that narrowly passed Nov. 4, banning same-sex marriage.

The FBI said it is a "strong possibility" that all three letters are linked, but federal investigators reiterated they have no information to point a finger of blame at the proposition and its opponents.

"The evidence does not lead to that right now and it would be irresponsible to say anything otherwise," Becerra said.

He would not say if federal agents had identified any suspects. No one has claimed responsibility for the mailings.

In a statement, the First Presidency of the LDS Church said that since the Nov. 4 election, places of worship have been targeted with protests and vandalism.

"People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation," the statement said. "The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America."
The LDS Church said it was keenly aware of the "differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive manner," but the First Presidency expressed disappointment in what it has seen since Prop. 8 passed.

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other," the statement said.

In its own statement, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center decried the threats.

"While the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center organized a peaceful demonstration against the involvement of the leadership of the Mormon Church in the deceitful Yes on Prop. 8 campaign, we decry the use or threat of violence," said Darrel Cummings, the center's chief of staff.
"Just as the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community seeks the right to be treated equally under the law, all Americans should have the right to live lives free from fear and violence."

The gay rights group Equality Utah also issued a statement Friday condemning violence, vandalism or intimidation.

"During such an emotional time, where wounds run deep, we must remind ourselves of the greater good," executive director Mike Thompson said. "We must make efforts to forgive where forgiveness is needed and fix what needs to be fixed. We must find ways to work together — families in our community are depending on us. As the LDS Church stated, we can build a better society. Equality Utah is committed to doing just that."

Thompson reiterated his call for the LDS Church to work with them on gay rights legislation including medical rights, housing and employment rights and domestic partnerships that past church statements said LDS leaders did not oppose.

"Equality Utah remains confident that the LDS Church will be true to its past public statements that it is not anti-gay," Thompson said.

LDS temples in California, Salt Lake City and New York have been the subject of mass demonstrations over the faith's heavy involvement in the campaign to pass Proposition 8. More demonstrations are planned this weekend over marriage and gay rights — including a pair of demonstrations in Salt Lake City.

"This is not how Americans behave."

Maggie Gallagher, the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, comments on the recent Palms Springs protest:
http://www.criticalmention.com/components/url_gen/play_flash.php?clip_info=708048533060%5e708049292060%5e708050405060&autoplay=1


The Sacramento Bee (which opposed Prop 8) is now saying that the protesters have gone too far: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1393123.html

Play tells British schoolkids 'it's OK to be gay'

A play commissioned by the homosexual lobby group Stonewall and aimed at 11- to 14-year-olds has been staged at more than 75 schools in Britain, upsetting some parents who believe their children are too young to be confronted with messages about homosexuality. The "hip-hop musical" Fit is based on two assumptions: that there is "homophobic bullying" in playgrounds and that there are budding homosexuals among the schoolchildren who need to hear the message that they should be proud of their sexuality. Teachers are encouraged to discuss the issues it raises in personal, social and health and health education lessons.

One mother who objects says, "When I was 11, I didn't even know what 'gay' was. It has come to something when our schools are worried about first year pupils making up their minds about their sexuality. What happened to the three Rs?" The father of a 12-year-old boy said he doesn't want his son seeing the play: "I could be wrong but I don't think it's normal to think about being gay at that age."

An east London council issued a press release praising the "pioneering anti-homophobia play", which tells the story of two boys who are the subject of gossip about their sexuality on a school bus trip, and also features two girls kissing. Showings are followed by a talk with the audience led by the author, plays a teacher in the performance. In 1988 the government banned schools from promoting homosexuality or distributing any material that depicted it as normal. The ban was repealed in England five years ago. ~ Telegraph (UK), Nov 10

*See MercatorNet article: "Coming out" puts adolescents at risk

'A Democrat who rejects gay marriage'

Social conservatives took heart in the 2008 elections with bans on same-sex marriage approved in three states.

Baptist Press, which looks at national news through the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest protestant denomination, has a detailed analysis today on where the battle over same-sex marriage will be centered now -- state legislatures.

Assistant editor Michael Foust, focuses on New York where three newly-elected Democrats say they may not even allow any gay marriage discussion to reach the state senate floor.

Foust's Election Digest cites comments from one of them, Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx, who is also a Pentecostal minister, in the Washington Examiner.


... Where is it written that if you do not support gay marriage you are not a good Democrat? I have always been a Democrat. I remain a Democrat, and I will continue to be a Democrat. A Democrat who rejects gay marriage and abortion based upon my beliefs.


It appears that the battle over same-sex marriage will be trench warfare for the foreseeable future. And you won't be able to tell who is on what side by the party "uniform."

Do you think people who voted "straight ticket" for Democrats or Republicans knew what might happen? Or have party labels become like religious denominational brands -- diluted by people who don't know or don't care about the "platform," the doctrines, of the faith?

Do you have any beliefs that don't line up what people assume your "identity" is as a Democrat, Republican, Baptist, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, etc.?

Methodist group ordains lesbian for inclusivity's sake

A religious watchdog organization says the recent unauthorized ordination ceremony for a lesbian and another woman who champions homosexual rights is evidence of the theological tailspin plaguing the historic United Methodist Church in Maryland.

Last month, a so-called "extraordinary ordination" was held at Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church in Baltimore. Organizers said the ceremony was sponsored by the Church Within A Church Movement, a Methodist group which bills itself as being the "inclusive church" and plants churches with the objective of providing ministry opportunities for "sexual minorities." Annie Britton and Jenna Zirbel were "ordained" on Sunday, October 19. Britton is legally married to her partner in Massachusetts, and Zirbel says she had been denied ordination previously because of her stated support of "gay and lesbian people in the church."

United Methodist Church (UMC) officials noted the ceremony was unauthorized. Mark Tooley with The Institute on Religion & Democracy believes organizers have a clear agenda.

"The Church Within A Church Movement is hoping that they are doing what the church as a whole will be doing in the near future," he contends. "I am more hopeful that the church, having said no, will continue to say no to the acceptance of openly homosexual clergy."

Tooley believes the denomination will eventually have to deal with the issue at its General Conference.

A retired Methodist bishop who participated in the ordination ceremony says those who stand against ordination of homosexuals are misreading scripture. "For too long, " said Bishop Susan Morrison, "selective reading of the Bible has meant that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and their supporters have been excluded and punished for their honesty when they reject the 'don't ask, don't tell' practices of the church."

Radical homosexuals plan day of 'intolerance'

Activist homosexual leaders are planning a day of protest this Saturday over losing the traditional marriage battles in three states.

The homosexual movement for special rights has become louder, and in some cases violent, in the aftermath of losses at the ballot box in Florida, Arizona, and California.

Florida Family Association notes the increased intensity in rhetoric from the self-proclaimed "champions of tolerance" and diversity. The National Day of Protest's logo is a clenched fighting fist and features phrases such as "Fight the H8" (Fight the Hate) and "Ready to Rumble." Florida Family Association notes the irony in that the homosexual movement that formerly preached diversity and tolerance has now become increasingly disorderly and aggressive, even intolerant, of supporters of traditional marriage by vandalizing property and staging protests at and inside churches. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says the demonstrations ought to be taken seriously, especially this Saturday.

"There have been threats of church burnings. There have been threats of violence, even murder against Christians," he explains. "There has been vandalism already of a number of churches."

According to an alert issued by the Florida Family Association, the "radical gay leaders" have two goals in mind through the upcoming protest: one being to normalize homosexuality in all areas of American society, and the second being to "silence everyone who disagrees with them." The notice adds that the homosexual activists are refusing to accept the final vote as an expression of the will of America's people.

"It really amounts to homo-fascism, and so what we're seeing [is] they don't want to let the democratic process play out," Barber adds. "These people are anti-democracy, clearly."

Florida Family Association also believes the radical homosexual agenda is "unapologetically 'me' centered" and does not feature discussions about what is best for families, children, or the common good of society. Barber points out the Bible's contrasting view. "Scripture says specifically, of people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle, ...that they are given over to a reprobate mind," he concludes. (See Romans 1:27-29)

Elderly Prop. 8 supporter roughed up, filing charges

An elderly California woman will file charges against homosexuals who attacked her during a protest against the passage of Proposition 8.

Last Friday evening, homosexual activists and their supporters gathered at the Palm Springs City Hall, protesting voter approved Prop. 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Phyllis Burgess went to the rally, and carried a Styrofoam cross through the crowd.

As ABC affiliate KESQ-TV carried that rally live, homosexuals surrounded the 69-year-old woman, began pushing her, reportedly spit on her, and grabbed the cross from her arms and threw it on the ground. (See video report)

Burgess remained calm throughout the melee. "I was really so overflowing with peacefulness in my heart that I just couldn't see this," she says. "It wasn't in my mind, it really wasn't."

Initially, Burgess said she did not want to file charges, but changed her mind after authorities encouraged her to do so (see related video). She says she went to the rally "just to get my remarks across at my city hall, where I have lived for 30 years." She adds: "If it takes endangerment, should that stop me? I'm a senior -- we respect elder abuse in this city."

Police are reviewing video in hopes of identifying suspects. Charges would be assault and vandalism, both misdemeanors.

The 'true face' of opponentsRandy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families says the attack on Burgess is one of many incidents in California directed at supporters of traditional marriage. He notes that, among the rage and shouting displayed at the rally, protestors also used the "n-word" against black people.

Thomasson equates their behavior with a toddler's temper tantrum, saying that homosexuals are demonstrating their deep intolerance for not only people who believe real marriage exists between a man and a woman, but also for people of faith and color. "

America needs to see the true face of the homosexual activists who are intolerant against people of faith and anyone who believes in real marriage between a man and a woman," he contends.

According to Thomasson, the peaceful marches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are drastically different than the recent violent displays, mainly because King was seeking natural civil rights and homosexuals are demanding public endorsement of their "unnatural sexual behavior."

Petition to Protect Prop 8 Outcome

YES on 8 supporters PROTECT YOUR VOTE!

If you are appauled by the recent appeals and attacks on the churches then please sign this online petition: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/protectyourvote

and write a letter to the Secretary of State Debra Bowen secretary.bowen@sos.ca.gov and Governor Arnold Schwarzenager http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Info at: http://hubpages.com/hub/Yes-on-prop-8-petition

Even if you are not from California, please sign. This is no longer about gay rights in California, it's about democracy in the US.

Protect what we worked so hard for and what is rightfully ours; PROTECT YOU VOTE.

More importantly pass the word. Every signature and letter helps. No on prop 8 supporters aren't waiting to make a move and neither should we.

When considering Proposition 8, remember Rose Bird

Find this article at Flashreport.

On May 15 of this year, four Supreme Court Justices - Chief Justice Ron George and Associate Justices Joyce Kennard, Carlos Moreno, and Kathryn Werdegar- put on their "judicial activist" hats and tossed out Proposition 22, which had been passed by California voters by a healthy majority, placing into California law that marriage shall only be between a man and a woman.

The decision by these four individuals set into motion the Proposition 8 campaign with the simple premise... "Fine, if the Justices are going to say that Proposition 22 violates the State Constitution, we will make an amendment to the State Constitution, making it clear what the will of the people is in this matter."

After what was the most expensive ballot measure campaign on a social issue in the history of this country, the people of California, by majority vote, passed Proposition 8, amending the Constitution itself, to protect the institution of marriage.

Within hours of the proponents of Proposition 8 declaring victory, advocates for homosexual marriage have gone back to the Supreme Court to try and get Proposition 8 struck down, no doubt hoping that the same four Justices will again, and in a much more egregious way than before (if that is possible), strike down a second vote of the people.

You have to take it with a healthy dose of cynicism that 44 Democrat legislators have sent a letter to the California State Supreme Court, in support of the motion to overturn Proposition 8.

Huh?

I accept that it is a role of the courts to review laws passed to determine if they are constitutional or not, though I disagree with the Court's May decision on Proposition 22. But what kind of hubris would a Supreme Court Justice have to show to justify overthrowing a Constitutional Amendment (Proposition 8) as... unconstitutional?

Oh wait, advocates of overturning Proposition 8 are saying that because of the violation of the rights of gay people is so extreme, a constitutional "revision" (requiring a two-thirds vote) not an amendment (majority vote) is required.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a Constitutional revision is for some wholesale changes in the state Constitution. The reason that an amendment process exists is so that the people can make relatively minor changes in the Constitution without calling a Constitutional Convention.

Here is the ENTIRE text of Proposition 8:

SECTION 1. Title: This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act.

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

If this short amendment is not an amendment, then what is? It's ironic that so many Democratic legislators oppose the democratic process.

That said, it really is all on the California Supreme Court members now. The previous ruling by George, Kennard, Moreno, and Werdegar throwing out Proposition 22 was egregious and wrong, and by passing Proposition 8, in some way the uber-activist court majority that canned Proposition 22 was given a pretty hard slap on the wrist.

If the Court overturns 8, I think you will be able to count the days before a very organized and well funded recall of the Justices voting to do that will begin. Given the passion on this issue, and the financial resources available, a recall of these Justices would be on the ballot lickety-split, and then the Justices who didn't believe in the primacy of the voters can understand what it feels like to feel their wrath.

I have spoken to many friends of mine who opposed Proposition 8 (yes, I have many of those) and most of them have told me that turning to the courts to try and overturn this measure is along the lines of being "sore losers" - that the people have spoken. As one of them said to me, "If opponents of Proposition 8 felt it was unconstitutional, why didn't they go to the Court to have it taken off the ballot before the vote?"

Good question.

Anyway, Justices, it's all on you. This is an easy call. If you insist on flagrantly abusing the authority given to you by the people, then be prepared for a battle. No government official is immune from the voters' will, whether they be in the executive, legislative or, yes, even in the judicial branch.

Remember Rose Bird?

Prop. 8 Lessons

[Publisher's Note: After the defeats suffered by the Republican Party in the General Election, we have reached out to some California leaders to ask them to reflect on this question, "What must the GOP do to once again be the majority party?" We are pleased to bring you this column from FR friend and esteemed political consultant Frank Schubert, who contributes weekly to this website. Most recently, Frank along with his business partner, Jeff Flint, managed the successful Yes on 8 campaign.]

I'm a lifelong Republican and I want to root for the home team. Problem is, I look out on the field of battle and I can't tell which team is wearing the white uniform.

What do Republicans stand for anymore? The GOP leadership in Congress has virtually destroyed the Republican "brand" and turned it into something of value only to white, well-off conservatives. They havevastly expanded federal government spending and influence. They've turned earmarks into an art form. They've walked down Main Street throwing cash into the air - in the form of economic stimulus plans -hoping that people can be bought off with a check from the government. And they've spent untold billions bailing out mortgage companies who made disastrous business decisions that resulted in unimaginable wealth for corporate executives.

Meanwhile the Democratic standard bearer (now the President-elect) runs on a platform of middle class tax cuts.

Is it hard to see why Republicans have failed to connect with the electorate?

But despite the decade-long mismanagement of the Republican brand, the GOP still has an opportunity to reconnect with voters, if they are willing to devote the financial resources, manpower and energy necessary to do so. And assuming they have the commitment to develop a winning game plan, they will also need the discipline to implement the plan over a period of years.

So, what's the game plan?

First and foremost, Republicans have to stand for things that matter at an emotional, gut level to average Californians and their families. We have to appeal to their hearts as much as their minds.

It's time to go back to the drawing boards and start talking to voters. The California Republican Party should launch an intensive voter research program beginning with focus groups across the state. A large part of this focus group research should be aimed at ethnic voters so that the GOP can develop policies that appeal to this critical constituency.

It was my great honor to manage, along with my business partner Jeff Flint, the successful Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California. This was not a partisan campaign - in fact we went out of our way to make sure it was not a partisan effort. Still, 84% of John McCain voters supported Proposition 8. More importantly, we got nearly one-third of Barack Obama voters on our side, including large numbers of minority voters the GOP hasn't courted in years.

We learned a lot in the Prop. 8 campaign that can help Republicans reconnect with California families, especially in ethnic communities, because we spent considerable time and money talking with ethnic voters. We reached out to them in their churches and neighborhoods. We talked with them on the doorsteps and in their homes. And we took the time to communicate with them in their own languages. Our campaign produced campaign materials in fifteen different languages.

According to exit polls, Prop. 8 was supported by 70% of African American voters, 53% of Hispanic voters and nearly half of Asian voters. If it weren't for the support we got among ethnic voters, we might very well have lost Proposition 8.

What we learned from these ethnic voters when we talked with them is that family, especially children, is the center of their universe. They are people of faith with conservative family values. They believe in God. They crave economic opportunity. They care deeply about how their children are educated. They are involved in their communities, and they want government policies that address the things they care about.

These are people who are largely ignored and taken for granted by the Democratic Party, who can be wooed by the GOP. There are also vast numbers of unregistered voters among these ethnic constituencies.

The focus groups I recommend should aim like a laser beam on identifying policies that appeal to ethnic voters. They might include obvious GOP themes like providing economic opportunity by making it easier to start a small business. But it may be less obvious, like tax policies that make it easier for families to afford day care, policies that encourage elder care, after school programs, or detailed reform of the school curriculum.

I'm not suggesting that Republicans become like Democrats and start proposing new government programs to appeal to certain constituencies. Rather, I am suggesting that the GOP align the party's core values with the values of these ethnic voters in ways that will connect with them in real and emotional ways. An example: ethnic parents want their schools to emphasize real educational excellence and achievement, they don't want kindergartners asked to literally sign cards pledging themselves to be allies of gay rights when they are not even old enough to write their name in cursive. Think I am making this up? It was part of "Coming Out Week" in the Hayward Unified School District and who knows how many other districts in California.

Once the issues have been identified and a game plan crafted, then the truly hard work begins. It is not easy to reach ethnic voters. It requires an extensive, concerted and continuous outreach program. It will cost real money to do this. Leaders in these communities have to be identified and recruited. Volunteers and staff must be deployed to community events, neighborhoods, churches and gathering places. Materials must be developed in native languages and distributed.

It won't be easy and it won't happen overnight. But it can and should be done. It's time for a new game plan that helps California voters know for which team to root.

California Musical Theatre director steps down

Sacramento Business Journal - by Mark Anderson Staff writer
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/10/daily40.html

Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, is resigning his post and leaving the organization.

A boycott of the theater was called Tuesday by some in the national arts community when news broke that Eckern contributed $1,000 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, which supported the ban on gay marriage.

The measure passed last week.

Scott Eckern said in a prepared release that he chose to express his view through the democratic process, and he was deeply sorry for any harm or injury he caused by doing so.

“I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community,” he said. “I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most.”

The board of directors of the California Musical Theatre on Tuesday morning set an emergency meeting for Tuesday afternoon and then later canceled it. The theater company and its board of directors were trying to find a way to react to a boycott called against its theater operations by gay and lesbian artists.

Eckern, a 25-year veteran of the theater company, took over as artistic director in 2002 following the retirement of Leland Ball. Eckern was also the company’s chief operating officer.

Any political contribution of $1,000 or more requires the donor declare home city and occupation.The Web site antigayblacklist.com [note: a BLACKLIST!!! Who's using McCarthy tactics?] published a list based on data by electiontrack.com of anyone who contributed more than $1,000 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. That disclosure led to a surge of calls for a boycott on the theater company, which puts on Music Circus shows, presents the Broadway Series at the Community Center Theatre and is just launching the musical show "Forever Plaid" at the new K Street performing arts venue Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

“I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved,” he said in his statement. “I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family.”

He goes on to say this is “a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues, and I am deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization.”

The theater company's board of directors released a statement about Eckern's resignation: "California Musical Theatre is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated only to the mission of providing quality theatrical productions. At no time does it involve itself in political issues or ever impinge on the rights of its employees to engage in political activities of their choice. The views and opinions of its employees do not necessarily represent those of California Musical Theatre."

The board said it appreciated Eckern's years of service.

Contact the Governator

Governor Schwarzenegger has opposed Proposition 8, even though he vetoed a bill in 2005 pertaining to same sex marriages "out of respect for the will of the people". And also in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger stated his position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."

YET now Governor Schwarzenegger is encouraging the California Supreme Court to overturn proposition 8, just like they did with proposition 22.

Please call and fax a letter to the Governor reminding him that he was elected to represent the will of the people and the people have spoken TWICE, with proposition 22 and now proposition 8, in voting for marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Please do not be silent on this issue, as silence = acceptance.

Please hold your elected officials accountable. You can also email at the following link: http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Governor's Office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160

Prop 8 Protesters Smash Woman's Cross

http://www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=3115942&at1=News&h1=Prop%208%20Rally%20Turns%20Violent%20-%20Live%20Report&rnd=69340694

Craziness! But the worst part is the news anchor saying, "There is obviously a lot of hate on both sides." Uh, were you WATCHING this video?? The hate is only on one side.

Be warned: they're coming out on the 15th.

The LGBTQ Community is calling upon all its supporters to join them at their respective city halls across the country on November 15th at 10:30am PST /1:30pm EST. Their purpose is to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California and the similar poll results in Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas.

I hope you don't have any business at your city hall that day. If so, you may want to reschedule.

Victory over those who discriminated against Prop 8 Supporters

Thanks so much to all of you who were inspired to act on behalf of the Carlsbad, Ca. Knights of Columbus.

Sat. Nov 7th, the joint parish Knight’s Council - 9022, of St. Elizabeth Seton and St. Patrick’s, were in the middle of their annual Tootsie Roll Drive benefitting mentally challenged youth in the North County area, when they were kicked out of their La Costa Albertsons location by Store Director, Alan Meyers.

Alan told the Knights Sat. their involvement with Prop 8 supposedly bothered between two to four customers, so they needed to leave and not return Sun.

One of the Knights asked Alan, “What would happen when 2600 families stopped shopping at his store due to complaints re. the Knights eviction?”

Alan replied, “He’d have to cross that bridge when he came to it.”

There were no incidents at the many other local grocery stores the Knights patronized for their fundraising last weekend.

Thanks to all of you for your letters, phone calls, and prayers. To rectify this situation the very helpful P.R. Director, Stephanie Martin, at Corporate Albertsons, has agreed to the following four actions:

1) The Knights need to know they are welcomed to return to the La Costa Albertson’s store and any Albertsons store again in the future for their charitable causes. This is a relationship the Knights have enjoyed for the past 30+ years with Albertsons. Stephanie will put this in writing to the Knights Council 9022.

2) This afternoon, (Wed.) Stephanie will call the Knights who were involved with Saturday’s dismissal and apologize to them on behalf of Albertsons

3) Store manager, Alan Meyers, called to talk Barbara N. Tues. evening re. the incident. Stephanie also called the N.’s earlier Tues. evening.

4) Albertsons will make restitution to the Knights for the charitable funds lost this last weekend, so the funds can be passed on to ARC. We discussed the amount of $500. Barbara N. later visited with Stephanie & in their conversation Stephanie pledged $700. This check to ARC will be sent by Stephanie to Knights Council 9022 c/o Bruce N., so the Knights can include it with the rest of their collected funds for ARC. The letter mentioned in Item #1 will accompany this check.

Videos on Prop 8 Protests and Violence

Prop 8 Rally Turns Violent

Proposition 8 Protest Saddleback Church Lake Forest Nov 9th

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxagcNFyHyc&NR=1

Videos on Prop 8 Protests and Violence

Activist: 'Pastor to presidents' replaced by gay bishop

From OneNewsNow.com.

A conservative Christian activist says it's a sad omen for the Obama administration and the United States that Barack Obama has been seeking guidance from the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop. The Times of London reports that the president-elect sought out New Hampshire homosexual bishop Vicki Gene Robinson for advice three times during his presidential campaign. Robinson, whose ordination in the Episcopal Church has caused a deep rift within the Anglican Communion, was reportedly sought out by Obama to discuss what it feels like to be "first."

Robinson notes in their three private conversations, Obama voiced his support for "equal civil rights" for homosexuals and described the election as a "religious experience." Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama's consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration.

"It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We're moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it's beyond post-Christian. Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience," he explains. "Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it."

LaBarbera suggests Robinson may possibly replace Jeremiah Wright as one of Obama's main spiritual advisers. Wright was Obama's Chicago pastor for 20 years before disassociating with the controversial preacher during the presidential campaign.

Networks promote Prop. 8 protesters

From OneNewsNow.com.

Network coverage of the victory of California's Proposition 8 has focused principally on the supposed denial of rights to homosexuals, rather than the public affirmation that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Last Tuesday, California voters upheld traditional marriage by approving Prop. 8, the ballot measure that overturned a state Supreme Court decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry. Though the victory of a socially conservative ballot initiative in a very liberal state, in a very liberal year, is a major story, the networks have preferred to focus on the homosexuals protesting the will of the people.

The networks covered Prop. 8 heavily between Nov. 5 and Nov. 9, the five days after Election Day. In a total of 13 network news stories, only four supporters of traditional marriage appeared on air, compared to 15 opponents. Only one story, a package aired on ABC's Nov. 9 Good Morning America, noted that Proposition 8 passed by a half-million votes. Six stories observed that 18,000 same-sex 'marriages' could be affected by the passage of the initiative.

Network coverage revolved around the battle cry of "equality" and the bruised feelings of Prop. 8 opponents. NBC aired footage of homosexual protestors shouting, "What do we want? Equality!" on the November 6 and November 9 Nightly News broadcasts. The November 9 Nightly News also featured an unidentified woman stating, "I had never felt such a sense of being less of a person."

ABC's November 9 Good Morning America featured rally organizer Ian Thompson calling Proposition 8 "discriminatory." Married lesbian Robin Tyler stated during CBS's November 7 Early Show, "We are a civil rights movement. We're entitled to full equality." Diane Olson, a "same-sex spouse," told CBS Evening News on November 5, "The fact that some people would like to undo our 'I do' makes me very sad."

No network stories discussed the moral and societal implications of changing the definition of marriage, nor did the networks allow any supporters to provide a detailed defense of Proposition 8.

In contrast, all three networks gave platforms to Prop. 8 opponents to assert that marriage is a "fundamental right." Star Trek's George Takei, who "married" his partner Brad Altman in September, told CBS's Maggie Rodriguez on the November 7 Early Show, "This is a fundamental right, all-inclusive, as the Supreme Court of California has ruled, and this is taking away that fundamental right." Ron Buckmire, a homosexual activist, told ABC's Bill Weir on the November 9 Good Morning America, "We had the fundamental right to marry in the state of California and by popular vote, the people of California decided to strip that right away from us, to carve out an exception that everyone in the state would have the right to marry except for same-sex couples." Later that night Lorri Jean from the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center appeared on NBC's Nightly News and said, "The majority should not be voting on fundamental rights." Not only did the reporters fail to challenge the assertion that marriage is a fundamental right, Rodriguez and Weir referred to the partners of Takei and Buckmire as their "husbands."

Homosexual 'marriage' -- New York on deck?

From OneNewsNow.com.

The leader of a conservative activist organization predicts the Empire State is on deck to become the next battleground state for homosexual "marriage." Frank Russo of the American Family Association of New York points out that the state's Senate is now dominated by Democrats, and there is a majority in the assembly with a Democrat governor ready to sign a bill in favor of homosexual marriage.

"So now, we're going to see come to a vote, pretty certainly, a bill establishing 'gay' marriage," he explains. "The only reason it has not come to a vote up till now was because the Republicans in the Senate would not allow it come up to a vote."

Russo was asked about the chances for the bill to pass. "It's 50-50 because there are a couple of Democrats who are conservative-minded," he contends. "In fact, it might even be five or six Democrats who might vote against it, and there are also five or six Republicans who might vote for it."

Democrats have taken control of the New York Senate for the first time in 43 years.

“Coming out” puts adolescents at risk

From Mercatornet.com:

Encouraging adolescents with same-sex attractions to identify as gay has no scientific or ethical justification.

How should schools treat students who self-identify as homosexual? Today entire school systems in a number of states and counties promote “acceptance”. The demand for acceptance is based on the premise that patterns of sexual attraction – to the other sex or to same sex are determined at birth and unchangeable; therefore, everyone – the affected students themselves, their parents, teachers, and classmates – should be educated and when necessary pressured into accepting same-sex attraction (SSA) as normal and as healthy as the love between a man and a woman in marriage.

There is, however, no evidence to support the claim that SSA is genetically determined and unchangeable. If it were, one would expect that identical twins would always have the same pattern of sexual attraction. A study led by J. Michael Bailey based on the twins registry in Australia found that among male identical twins, when one twin had SSA, in only 11 per cent of the cases so did the other. This research virtually precludes genetic determination.

There is also no evidence to support the claim that SSA is unchangeable. There are numerous reports of people understanding the emotional conflicts that led them to SSA, successfully addressing these weaknesses and then experiencing a new pattern of sexual attraction. A large study of sexuality led by Edward Lauman found the percentage of people self-identifying as homosexual declining over time. Lisa Diamond found that patterns of sexual attraction are particularly unstable among women.

Those who support acceptance might argue that even if SSA is not genetically determined and changeable it would still be better for those experiencing these feelings to “come out” and be accepted as homosexual by the school community. This view ignores the very real risks that accompany coming out, particularly for males.

Vulnerable boys

Over 40 per cent of males who self-identify as homosexual (“gay”) before age 18 have been victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault. (Doll et al, 1992) An even higher percentage has suffered from untreated Gender Identity Disorder. (Zucker, Bradley, 1995) A study of the sexual behavior of 239 homosexually active males, 13 to 21, found that 42 per cent had a history of sexual abuse/assault. (Remafedi, 1994; Osmond, 1994) A study of 425 homosexual males, ages 17 to 22, found that 41.4 per cent reported an occasion of forced sex. (Halkitis, Wilton, Drescher, eds. 2005; Wainberg 2006) Forced sex rarely involves “safe” sex practices. (Kalichman, Rompa 1995)

Sexual child abuse and sexual assault have been linked to long-term psychological problems, including depression, sexual addiction, drug addiction, involvement in prostitution, and suicidal feelings. Some of these young men see their victimization as proof that they were “born” homosexual. Programs directed to acceptance rarely acknowledge or address these problems. When these serious emotional conflicts are not uncovered and treated, these males often act out in ways that are dangerous to themselves and to others. It is important to address this highly prevalent problem in young males with SSA.

At high risk of infection

Even if an adolescent male with SSA was not the victim of sexual abuse and did not experience untreated gender identity disorder GID, engaging in homosexual activity as an adolescent carries a high and truly unacceptable risk.

Read the rest of this article here.

Is this really any way to change peoples' minds?

I don't think so. Check out this article from Right Michigan.

Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation in the middle of Sunday worship

This is what we're up against.

On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers.
They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers.

This didn't take place in some dystopian, post modern work of fiction and it didn't take place in San Francisco or Berkley. This was the scene at a Bible believing church in Lansing, Michigan...

On Sunday, November 9, 2008 Michigan liberals sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated, disgusting and repulsive attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing's Mount Hope Church.

The lefties were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (and none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an "action." While many of the members claim to be anarchists (they drove on roads, ate non-garden grown foods, printed materials on products created by government protected free markets, wore clothing, talk incessantly about "organization," etc etc etc) their broader goal is stated plainly on one of their lefty blogs.

"I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment."

Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.

This is what Michigan liberals label a "radical right wing establishment," and over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday. Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the "go" from their ringleader and off they went.

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props? I'll let them tell you in their own words... from another of their liberal blogs:
"(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric...yeh."

The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction. The image of the pink-clad folks above is one of theirs, stating in a picture worth more than a thousand words the goals of the Michigan left.

The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did). And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow. According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties. We'll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.

Props were readily on display too, though some of the condoms may have been put to even more nefarious use.

An hour after police and security had collected and removed who they thought were the last of the liberals, a volunteer security person discovered two more, hiding, together, in a public restroom. While their compatriots engaged in openly violent protest in front of everyone these two snuck away to potentially stage their own protest of sorts, and only by the grace of God did one of the hundreds of kids at the church not happen upon that particular restroom in those moments. Precisely how long they'd been there and precisely what they'd been up to we don't know.

The church's response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding.

Yesterday morning defined the difference between a church of believers and Michigan liberals.

It also illustrated in shocking, painful detail precisely what we're up against.

CA Governor encourages Supreme Ct to overturn Prop 8

We all know that Governor Schwarzenegger has opposed Proposition 8, even though he vetoed a bill in 2005 pertaining to same sex marriages "out of respect for the will of the people". And also in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger stated his position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."


YET now Governor Schwarzenegger is encouraging the California Supreme Court to overturn proposition 8, just like they did with proposition 22.


Please call and fax a letter to the Governor reminding him that he was elected to represent the will of the people and the people have spoken TWICE, with proposition 22 and now proposition 8, in voting for marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Please do not be silent on this issue, as silence = acceptance

Please hold your elected officials accountable.

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

District Offices:

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: 559-445-5295
Fax: 559-445-5328


Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-897-0322
Fax: 213-897-0319


Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 951-680-6860
Fax: 951-680-6863


San Diego Office
1350 Front Street
Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-525-4641
Fax: 619-525-4640


San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803

Pro-Marriage Support List

Here is a list of people the gay community is black listing for donating to Prop. 8. Let's use their list to support these people!

http://antigayblacklist.com/