CA's SB 54 seeks to undermine Prop. 8 win

As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.

We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”

Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage -- and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.

It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver. That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.

Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.

Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.
SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.

But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly!

Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.

In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.

Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)
Assemblymember.feuer@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 285-5490

Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)
Trish.zanella@asm.ca.gov
(714) 668-2100

Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D - Calabasas, Oxnard)
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
818) 596-4141

Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)
Assemblymember.evans@assembly.ca.gov
707) 546-4500

Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
(916) 324-4676

Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)
Assemblymember.knight@asm.ca.gov
(661) 267-7636

Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)
Assemblymember.krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
(818) 558-3043

Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)
Assemblymember.lieu@assembly.ca.gov
(310) 615-3515

Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)
Assemblymember.monning@assembly.ca.gov
(831) 425-1503

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)
Assemblymember.nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
(530) 223-6300

Info courtesy ProtectMarriage.com

Mass. sues federal gov't over marriage definition

I knew that the marriage debate would hit a federal level soon enough, but this isn't how I expected it to come up. According to the Associated Press, it appears that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has sued the federal government today, arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the state's ability to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit.

More from the AP story:

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa — have legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in Maine said Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures to put the state's new law on the November ballot for a possible override.

The Massachusetts lawsuit challenges the section of the federal law that creates a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.

As the article notes, Pres. Obama has said he plans to repeal DOMA. Going through the legal system is a different way to approach the issue - one that, as precedent holds, seems to be comfortable and familiar for the same-sex marriage camp. Not one state that's approved same-sex marriage has done so by the voice of the people; rather, it's been legislated from the bench or voted on by lawmakers (in spite of their constituents' views in some cases).

So, this case should be interesting to watch. What's the precedent for states suing the federal gov't? As far as I remember from college, it seems like in most state-federal cases, the court rulings tend to favor a stronger national government and diminish states' abilities to make decisions for themselves.

Personally, I love the federalism concept as established by the Founders, with states making the decisions their constituents need while the national government sticks with issues states can't, such as national defense. Alas, that view seems to be more and more the minority view. What do you think?

Great News!

From the LA Times -

Prop. 8 upheld by California Supreme Court

By Maura Dolan
10:08 AM PDT, May 26, 2009

Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the state high court ruled today that the November initiative was not an illegal constitutional revision, as gay rights lawyers contended, nor unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right, as Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown argued.

Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the court's sole Democrat, wanted Proposition 8 struck down as an illegal constitutional revision.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who voted with the majority last year to give gays marriage rights, joined George and the court's four other justices in voting to uphold Proposition 8.

The case for overturning the initiative was widely viewed as a long shot. Gay rights lawyers had no solid legal precedent on their side, and some of the court's earlier holdings on constitutional revisions mildly undercut their arguments.

But gay marriage advocates captured a wide array of support in the case, with civil rights groups, legal scholars and even some churches urging the court to overturn the measure. Supporters of the measure included many churches and religious organizations.

The legal fight over same-sex marriage in California began in San Francisco in 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom spurned state law, and the city began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Long lines of couples showed up to marry and celebrated within view of the court with rice and champagne.

Those marriages sparked a national debate about gay rights and made the marriage question a political issue in an election year. Dozens of states later adopted constitutional amendments to bar same-sex marriage.

Those gay couples who wed in San Francisco later had their marriages rescinded by the California Supreme Court, which ruled that a city could not single-handedly flout state law. But the court said supporters of marriage rights could challenge the ban in the lower courts.

The legal fight moved to San Francisco Superior Court, where a judge struck down the marriage ban as unconstitutional. A Court of Appeal in San Francisco later overturned that decision on a 2-1 vote. The state high court eventually took up the case, which culminated in a May 15 ruling last year declaring gays could marry each other.

Before last fall, California was one of only two states -- the other was Massachusetts -- to permit same-sex marriage.

Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine have since legalized it, and lawmakers in New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire are considering bills of their own.

California's historic 2008 ruling, written by George, repeatedly invoked the words "respect and dignity" and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.

As soon as the ruling was final, thousands of gay couples showed up at city halls around the state to marry, and many flew in from elsewhere for California weddings. While the wedding business was brisk, opponents mounted a heated campaign with the help of churches and conservatives to overturn the court's action.

Even with the court upholding Proposition 8, a key portion of the court's May 15, 2008, decision remains intact. Sexual orientation will continue to receive the strongest constitutional protection possible when California courts consider cases of alleged discrimination. The California Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation to have elevated sexual orientation to the status of race and gender in weighing discrimination claims.

maura.dolan@latimes.com

I am so happy that our hard work was not in vain! The fight is far from over, but I'll savor this sweet victory for now. I would hope that it will set a precedent that will help our next battles and the battles going on in different states. ~Hizzeather

Sorry for the silence

Hi, readers dear -

Just a quick note to say that I'm sorry things have been quiet around here lately. There are more and more marriage battles to be fought, but a girl's gotta pay the bills, so the main battle I'm focusing on right now is keeping my job in a shrinking economy.

Thankfully there are many talented bloggers listed in our blogroll who are carrying the marriage torch splendidly - and several of them are also listed on Facebook, which is a great way to keep up with the latest breaking news. I strongly encourage you to add them to your RSS readers if you haven't already.

As for the future of PreservingMarriage - I'll do what I can, but it's going to be sporadic at best for the time being. Know that my heart and my prayers are in the fight, though, even if my time can't be devoted to it like it was before. Thanks for fighting alongside us, and let's keep forging ahead!

Voice of the Nation to discuss Iowa and Vermont at 2 p.m. today

Hey there, marriage fans!

It's been a disappointing week in the fight for traditional marriage as Iowa and Vermont both adopted gender-neutered marriage verbiage. The change in Vermont was the first of its kind, settling the debate through the legislature - and by ONE VOTE at that (see Beetle Blogger's great post recapping that unfortunate outcome).

I'll be getting into the power of one in a later post, but for now, be sure to tune into "Voice of the Nation" today at 2 p.m. Pacific via Blog Talk Radio.

Today's "Voice Of The Nation" will be discussing the recent same-sex marriage changes that have happened in Iowa and Vermont this week as the number of states allowing same-sex marriages actually doubled in a matter of days! Four states now allow same-sex marriages, is the tide of public support turning against family? or is the system being usurped? What’s the next step?

Guest Craig Bensen will be joining us to talk about what happened in Vermont as the votes actually went down this week. We lost the veto on Tuesday by one vote. It was a close fight!. Hear the inside scoop from the grass roots of Vermont this Thursday!

Craig Bensen is the President of Take It To The People, a Vermont Citizen Coalition for Traditional Marriage. His group has been working on this issue in Vermont since 1997. Dr. Bensen is a local church pastor, businessman and political activist.

Open Chat and Call lines: We’ll be taking your questions via online chat during the show and if you want to ask your own questions, feel free to call in! 347- 215-6801.

The show's been bumped up to a full hour now; archives are available through http://blogtalkfamilyvalues.wordpress.com/.

Iowa next for same-sex marriage?

Looks like the Hawkeye State is next in line to tackle the same-sex marriage question tomorrow. If the ruling favors gay marriage, then Iowa would join Massachussetts and Connecticut as states where same-sex couples can wed.The Des Moines Register reports:

An Iowa Supreme Court ruling that could change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is likely to be issued Friday morning.

The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling.

The case could have consequences outside the state’s borders. Iowa could become the first Midwestern state, and the fourth in the nation, to allow same-sex marriage if the court sides with the gay couples.

A ruling that favors the county would reinforce Iowa’s decade-old marriage law, which social conservatives say is critical to preserving traditional families. Legal experts say such a decision would echo across the country and strengthen the gay rights movement.

But the justices could also throw the issue to the Legisature, which is already embroiled in high-profile fiscal issues as the clock ticks toward adjournment. Or the high court could decide that the Polk County lawsuit should proceed to trial. The decision could include further delays, or produce a results that neither side will be completely happy with.

Openly gay state Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, said he doubts lawmakers would take action on gay marriage “in the final, waning days of the session, because there’s so many other issues involving the budget and taxes.”

“But that would be a decision for the leaders to make,” he said.

If you want more details, I recommend a thorough read of the Register's piece - it gives a great scope and context to how the same-sex marriage debate has been handled in Iowa. They're a little off in how they report California's history with the issue - I wouldn't say that California allowed it until voters banned gay marriage so much as that Californians reinstated the law they passed that was overturned by a 4-3 court decision - but, hey, that's just me.

Voice of the Nation on now!

Hi, all -

Sorry for the delayed post - I meant to get this up earlier. Voice of the Nation's time changed to noon today this week - which is, um, like, NOW. If you want to tune in, click here. To call in, the number is 347- 215-6801.

Today's Voice of the Nation will discuss same-sex marriage initiatives that are taking root across the country, most notably in Vermont as the state Senate and House are voting on same-sex marriage legislation this week. Will the Governor Veto the legislation? Does he have the votes to hold?

Also, William Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, will be a guest on the show this week to talk about the dangers of legalizing same sex marriage.

William C. Duncan is director of the Marriage Law Foundation. He formerly served as acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and as executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he also served as a visiting professor. He has published numerous articles on constitutional and family law issues in a variety of legal journals.

VT senators approve gay marriage 26-4

Update on the Vermont same-sex marriage vote from Beetle Blogger: state senators approved S. 115, which replaces civil unions and traditional marriage with gender-neutral marriages across the board, by a 26-4 vote this afternoon.

What's next: the bill goes now to a House committee for approval before heading to the full House for a vote later this week. Although Gov. Jim Douglas has said he's against same-sex marriage, he hasn't indicated whether he'll sign or veto the bill, according to 365gay.com.

What this means: If Vermont lawmakers approve same-sex marriage, the state will be the first in the country to legalize gay nuptials through legislative means and not through litigation in court.

As a rule of thumb, I always worry when legislators take power into their own hands that is not granted to them in the state or nation's founding documents. I can appreciate the state-to-state distinctions of federalism, but if in California the pro-gay marriage contingent argued (unsuccessfully, but still) that reverting from same-sex marriage to traditional marriage was such a radical, drastic change that it should have been handled with a referendum, not an amendment.

(Honestly, I never bought that logic, because then wouldn't the courts have been overstepping their bounds by shooting down Prop. 22? Anyways...)

The people of Vermont should have in what their legislators do. After all, it's the people's vote that put them in this position of power in the first place. Are you a Vermonter? Do you agree or disagree with what your representatives are doing?

Make your voice heard, Vermont!

You can track down your local representatives via The State of Vermont Legislature online. Go here to look up your local representative or state senator.

If you want to hear what's going on, tune into the proceedings online via Vermont Public Radio.

Vermont marriage vote to come TODAY

Hi, folks!

Today the Vermont State Legislature will vote on S. 115: An Act Relating to Civil Marriage, a measure that would change Vermont's same-sex unions from civil unions to marriage while making all marriages in the state gender neutral. The bill will be voted upon sometime after 3 P.M.

Unlike most states that have put the issue of gay marriage to a public vote, Vermont lawmakers are circumventing the vox populi and defining marriage themselves without the input of their constituents.

However, Senator Kevin Mullin will likely offer an amendment to the bill that would require a public referendum. If you're a Vermonter, your Senator(s) need to know that you support the referendum and that you expect them to support it.

Please CALL your Senator(s) about this (emails are not as effective). Briefly and politely ask them to support this amendment -- whether they are for or against Same-Sex Marriage. It's only fair that the issue be put before the voters. After all, they do "trust their constituents" to do the right thing, right...?

Senators who could use a little extra "encouragement" to support this include:

Mazza from Chittenden/Grand Isle: (802) 863-1067

Choate and Kitchel from Caledonia: (802) 748-2629 (Choate) & (802) 684-3482 (Kitchel)

Scott from Washington: (802) 223-5135

The contact info for all 30 Senators is included below. A call to the Statehouse at 1-800-322-5616 allows you to leave a message for them during business hours.

Senator(s) Contact: Remember to Call—It’s more effective

The Vermont Legislature
Legislative Directory
Senators by County
2009 - 2010 Legislative Session

ADDISON DISTRICT (2)
(D) Ayer, Claire D. (802) 545-2142
(D) Giard, Harold (802) 758-2577

BENNINGTON DISTRICT (2)
(D) Hartwell, Robert M (802) 362-5757
(D) Sears, Richard W (802) 442-9139

CALEDONIA DISTRICT (2)
(D) Choate, Matthew A. (802) 748-2629 & (603) 650-4268
(D) Kitchel, M. Jane (802) 684-3482

CHITTENDEN DISTRICT (6)
(X) Ashe, Timothy, (802) 318-0903
(D) Flanagan, Ed, (802) 862-3203
(D) Lyons, Virginia "Ginny" V., (802) 863-6129
(D) Miller, Hinda,(802) 862-7008 & (802) 660-4880
(D) Racine, Douglas A.,(802) 434-2013 & (802) 863-1141
(R) Snelling, Diane, (802) 482-4382

ESSEX-ORLEANS DISTRICT (2)
(R) Illuzzi, Vincent, (802) 334-2807
(D) Starr, Robert A., (802) 988-2877 & (802) 988-2281

FRANKLIN DISTRICT (2)
(R) Brock, Randy, (802) 868-2300
(D) Kittell, Sara Branon, (802) 827-3274

GRAND ISLE DISTRICT (1)
(D) Mazza, Richard T.,(802) 863-1067 & (802) 862-4065

LAMOILLE DISTRICT (1)
(D) Bartlett, Susan J.,(802) 888-5591

ORANGE DISTRICT (1)
(D) MacDonald, Mark A., (802) 433-5867

RUTLAND DISTRICT (3)
(D) Carris, Bill, (802) 438-5391 & (802) 773-9111
(R) Maynard, Hull P., (802) 773-3000 & (802) 773-3000
(R) Mullin, Kevin J., (802) 775-7631

WASHINGTON DISTRICT (3)
(D) Cummings, (802) 223-6043
(R) Doyle, William T., (802) 223-2851
(R) Scott, Philip B., (802) 223-5135

WINDHAM DISTRICT (2)
(D) Shumlin, (802) 387-4447
(D) White, Jeanette K., (802) 387-4379

WINDSOR DISTRICT (3)
(D) Campbell, (802) 295-6238
(D) McCormack, Richard J., (802) 234-5497
(D) Nitka, Alice W., (802) 228-8432

Redefine marriage? Merriam Webster's already has

Surprising news from Beetle Blogger: In Merriam Webster's dictionary, the definition of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions.

As associate editor Kory Stamper responded to WorldNetDaily:

"We often hear from people who believe that we are promoting – or perhaps failing to promote – a particular social or political agenda when we make choices about what words to include in the dictionary and how those words should be defined," Stamper wrote in response.

"We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers."

What we have on our hands, as I've said before, is an Orwellian dilemma: if you can't change the words, just change what the words mean.

Then the societal changes happen without most people even being aware.




It's a hijacking of the lexicon - which is pretty absurd, considering that same-sex marriage is legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut, not to mention the numerous states that have codified marriage as between a man and a woman.

The switch is so disingenuous - it ignores the majority opinions of the people. Social commentaries belong on the opinion page - not in the dictionary.

But, then again, these are the people who consider "jiggy" and "bling" part of our proper lexicon. I don't know that I really trust their grasp of the English language.

Countdown: two hours to "Voice of the Nation" debut

Hi, friends!

Just a reminder that UFI and DNA's new blog talk show, "Voice of the Nation," debuts at 2 p.m. today. To tune in, visit http://www.blogtalkradio.com/MarriageandFamily.

For more info about the show and its fabulous hosts, Drew and Angela, visit the show's site (http://blogtalkfamilyvalues.wordpress.com/) or Facebook page.

Marriage talk show to hit the Web waves Thursday at 2 p.m.

Attention all marriage fans!

Are you interested in engaging your pro-family senses in brand new, audible fashion?

If you support traditional marriage and like talk radio, then you'll LOVE "Voice of the Nation," a new family values blog talk radio show that debuts THURSDAY at 2 p.m. Pacific / 5 p.m. Eastern.

Hosted by United Families International (UFI) Media Director Drew Conrad and my extraordinary blogging buddy Beetle Blogger (a.k.a. Angela, director of DNA), the hour-long weekly show will focus on promoting marriage, life, family and freedom.

Thursday's show will discuss same-sex marriage initiatives that are taking root across the country as well as summarize the recent happenings regarding the assault on the family at the UN.

UFI International Policy Director, Laura Knaperek, who was one of several UFI representatives at the UN during CSW, will be a guest on the show. Prior to joining UFI, Mrs. Knaperek served in the Arizona State Legislature for ten years. During her tenure as a State Representative, she established herself as an advocate for children, families and the disabled.

To listen to the show, CLICK HERE. More info is available on their homepage as well. If you like what you hear, be sure to become a fan on Facebook.

I'll be adding their badge to our blog (once I figure out those thingamajiggers... Hizzeather always did that high-tech stuff for me, lol. For a digital media professional, I'm not nearly as tech-savvy as I ought to be.).

(And I think that takes the cake for my most link-laden post EVER. *whew!*)

U.S. to sign U.N. gay rights bill

Sources have said off the record that the U.S. is due to add its weight to a United Nations declaration that calls for the international decriminalization of homosexuality, according to the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

I find it interesting that Pres. Bush had the option of supporting this declaration in December, but his delegation refrained on the grounts that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review, including parts that could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. Obama's camp had no response as to whether the Bush team's concerns had been addressed.

Now, let me be clear - I don't think that homosexuality should be a legal crime. I disagree with gay marriage, but what people do behind closed doors is their business - they have their agency, and they'll be held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, I understand that it's punishable by law in some parts of the world, and I agree that that is wrong, as murder is in all its forms.

At the same time, though, I take issue with a superceding international government meddling with other nations' affairs. The U.N. includes more than 50 Islamic nations, some of whom said said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican. Those nations should have the right to vote their conscience.

I swear, I'm growing more and more libertarian by the day! I like former agriculture secretary (and LDS leader) Ezra Taft Benson's view on the proper role of government: we can only invest the government with rights that we ourselves hold on an individual level. I don't have the right to compel my neighbor to be pro-gay or anti-gay, regardless of my views (and I only use the gay rights issue as an example - it's a universal principle). We have the basic rights with life and liberty that prevent that neighbor from encroaching on another's life and liberty - but too many of the things we hear called "rights" are not, in fact, the inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator.

(And I'm not anti-gay, in case that wasn't clear.)

Anyways.

The U.S. official who spoke anonymously in the article said, "In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom."

That attitude is what worries me the most in this whole thing. I don't disagree with the "free from criminalization" aspect, but since when is sexual orientation integrally part of human freedom? Oh, how I worry for my country and my world. We are so wrapped up in the sensual and the now that we have no regard for restraint and consequences. Unbridled sexual liberation dulls and weakens us, because it gives a physical realm to the concept of reckless indulgence, not to mention messing with some serious emotional and spiritual powers. That is just not a path you want to tread, but sadly, it's soooo the norm in our society today.

Well, not for everybody at least. There are still some of us who will stand up for virtue to the end - I may be only one, but I am one. And I know I'm not alone.

VT pushes for gay marriage despite drop in civil unions

As an addendum to yesterday's post about the Vermont legislature's consideration of a gender-neutered marriage bill, I found an interesting gem in this more in-depth AP story on MSNBC.com.

As you might recall, Vermont was the first state in the union to legalize civil unions back in 2000:

Supporters cast the debate as a civil rights issue, saying a civil unions law enacted by the state in 2000 has fallen short of the equality it promised same-sex couples. Its appeal has declined, too: In 2001, the state granted 1,876 civil unions, compared with only 262 last year.

To me, this makes no sense. Even though fewer and fewer gay couples are solemnizing their relationships before the state, the legislature is pushing to decimate traditional marriage.

The number of civil unions performed last year are only 14 percent of what they were in the first year - and, furthermore, those couples represent a mere 0.04 percent of the state's population.

It's tyranny of the minority, pure and simple.

Even if you're not a Vermonter, you can throw your support behind traditional marriage there by joining the Facebook group. Every battlefield counts in this effort to sustain the millenia-old model of the family as the foundation of our society.

Vermont to consider same-sex marriage this week

It looks like the "Green Mountain State" of Vermont will be the next in the union to consider legalizing same-sex marriage.

According to the Associated Press, legislators began a week of hearings today to discuss S. 115: An Act Relating to Civil Marriage, which would neuter marriage while moving the state's civil unions to same-sex marriage:

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Vermont lawmakers are starting a week of hearings on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

In 2000, Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to adopt civil unions. House and Senate leaders want to pass the gay marriage bill this legislative session, which ends in May.

Supporters say gay marriage would give couples additional rights related to insurance, health care and Social Security benefits.

Hundreds of gay marriage opponents are lobbying at the Vermont Statehouse. They say the bill would undermine the institution of marriage and harm children.

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on the bill. More hearings are scheduled for later in the week.

If passed, same-sex couples could wed beginning Sept. 1, 2009. All legal references to marital or familial relationships in Vermont would be gender neutral as the legal definition moves from one man and one woman to any two people, stripping away all references to "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," etc.

On the upside, the bill codifies clergy's right to refuse to solemnize the marriage, "if to do so would violate the clergyperson’s right to religious liberty protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Chapter I, Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont." Hence why the bill can also be called "An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Promote Equality in Civil Marriage." I guess that's a good thing... but it's still a definite step in the wrong direction.

If you're a Vermonter who opposes this, make your voice heard! Don't let your representatives make this important decision for you.

1. Call, e-mail, or write the legislators at the Vermont State House and tell them "No" to gay marriage. And contact Governor Jim Douglas and encourage him to not sign a gay marriage bill if it passes and comes to his desk.

• The State of Vermont Legislature: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/. Go here to look up your local representative or state senator.


• Gov. Jim Douglas (R-VT): http://governor.vermont.gov/


• Judiciary Schedule: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/schedule/frame.cfm?CommitteeMeetingID=907

2. Support pro-family organizations such as Vermont Renewal/Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, Let Vermont Vote and Take It to the People in their efforts to stop this legislation.

There's also a Facebook group for the cause - visit Defend the Natural Family: Stop Gay Marriage in Vermont! for more info.

Great video on fortifying the family

This video is by one of my favorite YouTubers, davidkat99 (of Latter-day Conservative). We are in a world that's lost its innocence and sense of reverence - but we can be in the world without letting it soil us. It's a blessing to rally together with others and stand strong to preserve and protect the family, the fundamental unit of our society.

BREAKING: Obama admin. sets pro-gay marriage and abortion agenda at UN TODAY

My blogging buddy Liberty Belle alerted me to the latest attack on conservative values from the Obama administration: the U.S. delegation to the UN is about to approve language in a UN document that goes against national law and against President Obama’s publicly proclaimed stance on gay marriage.

This is one to make a noise on!

Call/email/write your congressman: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

And your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Ask them to oppose the CSW Resolution on HIV/AIDS. Ask them if this wording by the U.S. delegation is approved by the United States and why they are trying to sneak it past us in bypassing our system of laws. This wording proposed by our delegation to the U.N. goes against our own country’s laws!

Make sure this doesn’t get past us!

Although U.N. resolutions are non-binding, having this on the books will come back to bite us. It charts the course for hundreds of nations and pushes us further down the slippery slope into moral decay on a global scale.

See this from United Families International who is actually AT the United Nations today fighting to stop this change:

The United States representative to the U.N. is making a move that goes against national law and President Obama’s position on gay marriage. Please call your Congressman or U.S. Senator and protest the U.S. delegation’s position.

U.N. Delegations are planning on adopting the CSW Resolution on HIV/AIDS. This document references “The International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS” as adopted by the Second International Consultation on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, and as amended and endorsed at the Third International supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNAIDS.

The HIV/AIDS and Human Rights International Guidelines have the following language included as referenced below:

30. (f) “Laws should also be enacted to ensure women’s reproductive and sexual rights, including the right of independent access to reproductive and STD health information and services and means of contraception, including safe and legal abortion and the freedom to choose among these, the right to determine number and spacing of children . . .”

30. (h) “Anti-discrimination and protective laws should be enacted to reduce human rights violations against men having sex with men . . . ”

30. (h) “. . . These measures should include providing penalties for vilification of people who engage in same-sex relationships, giving legal recognition to same sex marriages . . .”

Developing….

Link to document:

http://data.unaids.org/publications/irc-pub02/jc520-humanrights_en.pdf

**********************************************
If you want something copy-and-pasteable:

Dear Sen. Boxer -

I'm writing to ask you to please oppose the CSW Resolution on HIV/AIDS that the U.S. delegation to the U.N. plans to adopt.

Is this wording by the U.S. delegation approved by the United States? If so, then why is it bypassing our system of laws? This wording proposed by our delegation to the U.N. goes against our own country’s laws, and its mission to endorse/promote abortions and gay marriage on a global scale go against my beliefs and those of many within the great state of California.

Furthermore, I think such a resolution goes beyond the scope of the power the U.N. should have. We should not have a global government that tells nations across the world what to do - and I certainly do not believe this bill is in harmony with America's current statutes.

Thank you for your time - I hope you are well.

**signature

(And yes, sending this to Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer did seem a little superfluous, seeing as they'll likely ignore it, but whatev. At least I raised my voice to my three politicians in Washington - and in less than three minutes, too. You can do it as well!)

Live Tweets of the CA Prop. 8 marriage hearings

Good news! The Yes on 8 folks are live-Tweeting the marriage hearings: http://twitter.com/protectmarriage

The official DNA Twitter team is Tweeting as well: http://twitter.com/DNA_Army

Twitter is such a great way to keep in the loop. Stay tuned for more...

Tune into the Prop. 8 court hearings!

Today is the day - as we speak, the California Supreme Court is hearing arguments on three lawsuits opposing Prop. 8.

Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, will first argue against Prop 8. Minter is a transsexual who changed to self-identifying as a man over a decade ago.

Ken Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General, will then argue in favor of Prop 8."We will not mince words," Starr wrote in his court papers. "The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution."

If you can and want to tune in, you can watch the oral arguments online (for free) at http://www.calchannel.com/.

Sadly, I'm tied to my desk and work stuff today - I'll check my DNA colleagues' blogs throughout the day and update as I can. If you want to keep in the loop, check out the Twitter hashtags #prop8 and #tcot or #dna and #tcot for more info (searching these two together sifts through the unrelated stuff) or keep an eye on the blogs in our blogroll - particularly BeetleBlogger, PearlDiver, Stand, The Pomegranate Apple, the Opine Editorials, the Journalista Chronicle and the DNA homepage.

(Big thanks to Zoey at Stand for Marriage for the heads-up!)

(RUMOR): 200,000 gay protestors plan to disrupt LDS General Conference

UPDATE: I've just been alerted that the email below is a rumor, according to KSL - but, in good social media practices, I'm leaving the post up. Hopefully this'll help dispel the rumor. Here's the KSL report, FYI:

An inflammatory e-mail is circulating around the country, saying Salt Lake City police officers are preparing for up to 200,000 protesters during the LDS General Conference in April, and it's causing concern in both the Latter-day Saint and gay communities.

The e-mail begins with reference to a good friend whose dad, who supposedly works for the Salt Lake City Police Department, says police are putting in extra hours doing riot training.

"The training they are possibly referring to is this routine training that we do every year on crowd control techniques and protest," said Detective Dennis McGowan, spokesman for the Salt Lake City Police Department.

McGowan added, "You know, thanks for the opportunity, though, to get this out to everyone that, as far as our concern at this point in time, these are rumors and everyone can stand down."

Last November, some 2,000 protesters marched around Temple Square in reaction to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' support of California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Those who marched then had protest permits from Salt Lake City. At this point, only a Latter-day Saint group has asked for a permit. Its members want to sing hymns outside the Conference Center to combat a shouting Christian group.

Equality Utah public policy manager Will Carlson says his organization heard the buzz about this e-mail a month ago. Members are concerned that it's fear-mongering.

"The gay and transgender community hasn't been talking about doing protests. The only talk about the first weekend in April was doing a service project for at-risk communities," Carlson said. "This is not the right approach, and we wouldn't support, we don't support it. We know this is not true, but even if it were, we wouldn't support it."

Dozens of Salt Lake City police officers are on duty every conference weekend for traffic and crowd control because more than 100,000 Latter-day Saints attend meetings over the two days. Officers anticipate some protests because there have been for years.

**********************************************

Every six months - the first weekends of April and October - Latter-day Saints the world over gather together via television, Internet and satellite communications to hear from our top leaders (or "General Authorities"), who speak from the Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City, across from Temple Square.

General Conference, as these meetings are called, is a big deal. LDS people travel from all over to attend the conference in person - the Conference Center is so huge, you can fit a 747 inside of it! Conference is a spiritual highlight for us, getting to hear from the men and women we sustain as God's mouthpieces, delivering messages that really hit home and encourage us all to live a little better. Or a lot better. General Conference is a very special, sacred time for Latter-day Saints.

So, with that context - I just got this email forward from a friend that I wanted to pass along:

Subject: 200,000 Gay Protestors to Disrupt General Conference

I was speaking with a good friend today who's dad works for the Salt Lake City Police Department. My friend asked him how things were going for him at work and he said that he'd been putting in extra hours doing riot control training. He asked what on earth were they doing that for, and he told him that the entire police force was going through an additional 10 hours of mandatory riot control training because the city is bracing for an influx of 10,000 to 200,000 Gay protesters that want to disrupt this coming General Conference.

I asked how does your dad know how many people will be showing up. He said that the protest permits had already been applied for and that the police, in doing a little intelligence gathering off of the groups websites, found out that they are "strenuously striving" to get as many people there as possible. The 200,000 number is the goal that they want to have on Conference weekend.

But what really worries the police are that the gay protest groups have aligned themselves with a couple of anarchist groups who make it their goal in life to cause as much trouble as possible. These are the groups that show up at protests and you have anarchists running through the streets throwing bricks, Molotov Cocktails, and what not, breaking windows, burning cars and businesses, and attacking innocent citizens and by standers. Their only goal is to provoke a reaction from the police and the citizenry. Can you imagine this going on while Church members are standing in line waiting to enter the Conference Center? His dad further said that the Salt Lake Police in discussing what happened in California with the police there were
informed of some of the inflammatory tactics that the gay protesters used down there including ripping up Book of Mormons, having people parade around wearing only temple garments or wearing them in comb with typical homosexual drag queen clothing. WOW WHAT A SIGHT.

Anyway, the police are planning on canceling all leave to have every officer on hand for the conference, and depending on how many people start showing up and call in the Utah National Guard. Unless something unforeseen happens this is shaping up to be a major event for the police, the Church, and all major news broadcasters.

So, I'm hoping this doesn't happen, of course - but if you're heading to Conference, brace yourself.

There are protestors at every General Conference (including anti-abortion people, which I've always found funny, considering the Church's strong anti-abortion stance), so that's nothing new - but this will be over the top if it happens.

Agree or disagree, I sure wish people could have respect for one another. I think people can voice outrage and opposition without insult. I had an interesting conversation the other night via Facebook with a high-school friend who's adamantly atheist and anti-Prop. 8. She'd just seen the South Park episode that pokes fun at the Joseph Smith story, the founding of my faith that I hold sacred, and she was asking me for my thoughts the show - which were difficult to translate into words. Basically I disagreed with the form but not content - people are entitled to their opinions, but it bothers me when a difference in opinion devolves to mockery and disrespect. Obviously the episode twisted truth into something scoffable, and veiling opposition with humor seems so disingenuous to me. It's so uncalled for and unnecessary.

I might not agree with gay marriage, but you would never in a million years find me making fun of it - mostly because I respect the individuals, even if I disagree with their actions. In the midst of the Prop. 8 battle in the fall, LDS leaders urged respect and tolerance from us toward the anti-Prop. 8 people, reminding us that there are good people on that side of the fence. Too bad the door doesn't swing both ways.

Less Shouting, More Talking

Great Article in Newsweek
Less Shouting, More Talking
Yes, I voted for Prop 8. Yes, I oppose gay marriage. But that doesn't make me a religious fundamentalist.

By Richard Mouw | NEWSWEEK

Published Jan 31, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Feb 9, 2009

On the morning of Nov. 4, I saw an angry confrontation between two groups at an intersection in my California town. Both sides were carrying signs: one set supporting Proposition 8—the ban on same-sex marriage—and the other opposing it. The two groups were angrily shouting and gesturing at each other as I passed by. That's when the tears welled up.

I voted for the ban. As an evangelical, I subscribe to the "traditional" definition of a marriage, and I do not want to see the definition changed.

Does that mean I want to impose my personal convictions on the broader population? No. I celebrate the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, with many different worldviews and lifestyles. I support the democratic process and believe that civil society is at its best when people with different perspectives engage in a mutually respectful dialogue. And that's why the tears welled up on Election Day morning. The angry sign wavers on opposite corners symbolized the way this whole disagreement over same-sex marriage has gone. Angry shouts. Shaking fists. It makes me sad.

This is something that happens on occasion in an intimate relationship. People who care deeply about each other start arguing about some touchy issue. As temperatures rise, so does the rhetoric. Mean-spirited things get said. The situation seems hopeless.

That is why I want to issue this plea to my fellow citizens on both sides of this divide over sexuality: Can we talk?

I ask this as someone who has been one of the angry ones—angry about things that have been said about people like me. I've been on talk shows where people phone in to call me a fascist or equate me with those who burned accused witches at the stake. One remark that hit especially close to home was made by the editor of this magazine. He wrote that anyone—anyone!—who tries to make a scriptural case against same-sex marriage is guilty of "the worst kind of fundamentalism."

That hurt. I have spent several decades of my life trying to spell out an evangelical alternative to "the worst kind of fundamentalism." My friends and I have argued that the Bible supports racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking and care for the environment—views that often draw the ire of the worst kind of fundamentalists. But none of that seems to matter to folks who don't like our views about same-sex relations. Because we also believe that the Bible frowns on sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman, we are being relegated to the margins of the civil dialogue.

I refuse to go to the margins. As my fellow citizens in a pluralistic society, gays and lesbians have a right to ask me what my sincerely held convictions mean for how they pursue their way of lives.

While my views about sexuality are shaped by my religious convictions, I know that I cannot simply quote the Bible in arguing for public policy. Not every sin ought to be made illegal. But in this case, the issues go deep. For many of us, "normalizing" same-sex marriage comes down to deep concerns about the raising of our children and grandchildren. What will they be taught about sexual and family values in our schools? How will they be affected by the ways the entertainment media portray people with our kinds of views? And will we even be allowed to counter these influences in our homes and churches without being accused of "hate speech"?

And, fair or unfair, "slippery slope" concerns loom large. Are there limits to what we can be asked to tolerate when it concerns matters that violate our convictions? If we were to accept mutual consent and deeply felt convictions as a sufficient basis for allowing the legalization of same-sex relationships, what would keep us from extending marriage to a three-partner arrangement?

But I also want to hear from folks who worry about my views. What is it about people like me that frightens you so much? What would you need to hear from us that would reduce your anxiety? What is your vision of a flourishing pluralistic society? Where do people like me fit into that kind of society?

Maybe I am unrealistic in thinking we can have this national conversation. But the alternatives are frightening. Posing this question has worked at other times when people seemed hopelessly at odds. So let's try asking it now as a nation, and in a gentle tone: Can we talk?

Mouw is the president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.

"I thought you guys had already voted on that thing"

On Sunday I updated my facebook status to say "Heather is praying for Prop 8." My friend commented, "I thought you guys had already voted on that thing." Yeah, Richard, I thought I did too!

So why am I worried about Prop 8? I couldn't put it better than Blogger970 said in their Opinion Essay: I Thought Prop 8 Passed. Why do I Still Need to Worry About It? -
"Because the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!"

Please read their Opinion Essay, and please don't give up and think that this matter was resolved. If you can, PLEASE get to the San Fransisco Courthouse on Thursday and let your voice be HEARD! I know the other side is getting organized...they have meeting places and are all going to wear white. DO NOT WEAR WHITE!

From the DNA Website -

Californians on March 5th---If you can go to the courthouse in San Francisco here are some tips:
1. All messages on homemade signs should affirm traditional marriage, and avoid offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles.
2. Arrive at the courthouse by 8am
3. Avoid violence and provocation. Our purpose is affirming traditional marriage.

The other side is slightly louder than us, hijacking the Oscars and the mainstream media. We need to be even louder to compensate. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

CA legislature urges the overturn of Prop. 8

Just days before the important Prop. 8 hearings at the California Supreme Court, California lawmakers overstepped their bounds within the principle of separation of powers and passed resolutions to overturn Prop. 8.

The amazing BeetleBlogger reports:

This update just came screaming down the wires from Karen England at the Capitol….

California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

Moments ago the Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court’s hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature’s passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.

Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. “How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to “retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters” who passed
Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an “illegal ex parte communication with the court.” Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people’s right to pass Proposition 8.

Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

http://www.capitolresource.org

*****

Christa here again. Seriously, this is getting so frustrating! What do you do when the constitutional, proper channels for decision making in this nation fail? I feel nigh unto my wit's end, thinking that all the hours and hours of time - not to mention the thousands of dollars of hard-earned money - that went to pass Prop. 8 will go down the drains with the court's ruling. The people have voted twice, and yet representatives spoke up against their constituents' votes, and the activist judges are unlikely to uphold the vote.

All we can do is to pray. Pray hard, and remind God that there are still those who will fight for what's right, regardless of what circumstances we face. There really is no other choice. Even if our victories get taken from us, the choices we make and the stances we take never can. In the end, that's going to have to matter more than the final outcome.

Prayer Day for Prop 8

Just got this email from the ProtectMarriage.com folks, probably just like many of you.

* * *

Dear Friend,

Proposition 8 was put before the people of California, and by a wide margin of 600,000 votes became a part of the California Constitution (Article 1, Section 7.5). Next Thursday, March 5, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to determine whether the sovereign will of the people should be upheld, and whether marriage between only a man and a woman will stand.

This is the most important legal issue impacting families in a generation. The outcome of this case is “do or die” for traditional marriage. If the California Supreme Court were to overrule the vote of the people (for the second time) it would not be long before homosexual marriage is the law of the land across this country.

ProtectMarriage.com, the committee responsible for enacting Prop 8, urges you and all our supporters to take action. We are declaring this Sunday, March 1, to be a Day of Prayer for Marriage.

Proposition 8 was supported by over 7 million voters, and we call on those who support traditional marriage to pray for it to be upheld. Please ask the Lord for wisdom for the Justices of the California Supreme Court. Pray, also, for those who oppose this amendment to our Constitution, that they would understand our motivation is to affirm traditional marriage, not to offend any person or group.

Activists who oppose Prop 8 are organizing a candlelight vigil in several cities for March 4, followed by a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court building in San Francisco on March 5. Organizers against Prop 8 are calling for a march of 100,000 people to the Court building (click here to view their events list). It has come to our attention that many Prop 8 supporters are also making plans to appear at the steps of the Supreme Court building on the morning of March 5. We welcome your participation, but request that all messages on homemade signs affirm traditional marriage, avoiding offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles. If you are in close proximity to San Francisco, plan to arrive by 8 a.m. at the court, located at 350 McAllister. We do not wish to provoke or permit any kind of confrontation with our opponents. Please avoid any such activity carefully. Our only purpose is to remind the media, Californians and Americans everywhere that support for traditional marriage is the majority position in the state. Twice now voters have supported traditional marriage and rejected gay marriage. We won the Prop 8 election. The constitution has been amended. The will of the people should now prevail.

ProtectMarriage.com is the only group that will appear before the Supreme Court to uphold the vote of the people enacting Prop 8 and affirm traditional marriage as the law of the land. The upcoming Day of Prayer will provide a vehicle for all our supporters to express their own support for traditional marriage and to call on God, the author of marriage, to bless the arguments our attorneys will present to the Court and to grant the justices wisdom as they consider the arguments.

Thank you for your support of Proposition 8. Please participate in the Day of Prayer this coming Sunday and, if you are in proximity to San Francisco, come to the steps of the Supreme Court building at 8 a.m. on March 5 to show your support for Prop 8.

To make a financial contribution to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, click here.

Thank you so much for your attention and support.

Very truly yours,

ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8

The dangers of complacency

Here's a quick quote of the day for you to mentally chew on:

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

- Albert Einstein

I always knew I liked him, but wow - so insightful beyond his scientific brilliance!

Tea Party Movement: Mad as... you know where...

If I were to look up a clip to describe how I'm feeling about the many ways in which legislators and politicians are trampling all over the Constitution and the voice of the people these days (i.e. the Assembly and Senate resolutions to overturn Prop. 8 and, well, basically everything Pres. Obama is proposing, it seems), I'd have to go no farther than this clip from Network: (pardon the G-D that he drops):

If you feel mad as - well, you know where - and just can't take it anymore, then
STAND UP AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD THIS FRIDAY!!!

I'm sure by now that many of you have heard about the "Chicago Tea Party" movement, but for those of you who haven't, here's the scoop:

CNBC's Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" Thursday, drawing cheers from the trade floor in Chicago (see clip below). As a result, Santelli sparked the rallying cry to revolt against the Obama Administration's mortgage bailout plan.



As a result, dozens and dozens of grassroots protests have been planned across the nation for Friday, Feb. 27. Web sites have popped up all over the place with information (here's the "official" site with lots of location links), many referencing the Boston Tea Party of old, a tipping-point event that moved toward the American Revolution.



In putting this together, I'm amazed by how many tea parties are springing up across the nation! Google "Chicago tea party," and you'll see what I'm talking about. Driving forces behind this include #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and the blogger extraordinaire, Michelle Malkin (click here for her excellent article on the movement).

Here's a short list of the events I know of in California. Many of the events are being organized via Facebook. If you know more (especially the Bay Area - surprise, surprise, nothing's come up in my searches), please let me know in the comments, and I'll add them in to the list!

SAN DIEGO: Just north of the Star of India on San Diego Bay - starts at 9 a.m. (I'll be at this one, if you want to say hi!)

LOS ANGELES: Santa Monica Pier - starts at 9 a.m. (Santelli's also planning one for July 4)

SACRAMENTO: California State Capitol, North Steps, L Street Sacramento - starts at noon

FRESNO: "Virtual" tea party March 2-9

***********************************
I know this isn't a California one, but we've got a fair number of Utah readers, so, FYI, there's a protest in SALT LAKE CITY slated for Friday at 10-11 a.m. at the Utah State Capitol.

Glenn Beck on what he forecasts ahead

Hi, friends -

There is so much to say on the topic of gay marriage right now, between Hawaii becoming the fifth state to legalize same-sex unions and with all the Prop. 8 bashing at last night's Oscars (but, seeing as it's Sean Penn, were we surprised? Not at all. Bring on the "shame.") - but for tonight, I'd like to share this clip by Glenn Beck. He strikes a chord that's played heavily on my mind lately: preparedness.



It is so important to be self-sufficient and to prepare for what's ahead. Latter-day Saint leaders have emphasized this for years and years, but I worry that those of other faiths (or of no faith, for that matter) haven't heard this message as clearly. Please, friends, do what you can now to stock your pantries and to get out of debt. Things will continue to get grimmer economically, and it's vital to be ready for the worst-case scenario. Think of New Orleans after Katrina, or of Manhattan immediately after the towers fell at 9/11.

And remember, Noah didn't wait for the raindrops to fall before he built the ark. The sun was shining, and people called him crazy, but when the deluge hit, He was blessed greatly for following God's counsel and not man's. Let's learn the same lesson.

BIG NEWS: CA lawmakers consider resolutions to oppose Prop. 8

Big news, folks!

Tomorrow morning (Tuesday, February 17th) at 10:30 a.m., The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Proposition 8, followed at 12:30 p.m. by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.

By issuing the resolution, the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an “improper revision” to the state constitution.

THIS IS WRONG!!! The people of California have spoken - the lawmakers who the people voted into office (lest they forget who they're representing) have a responsibility to protect the people's voice, not to disregard it!

Several of my DNA colleagues and others who want to preserve traditional marriage will be there to represent the votes of the nearly seven million California citizens, whom these legislators fail to represent. If you can make it, attend the hearing. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family.

The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 a.m. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30 p.m. We encourage you to make the trip.

Here's the skinny:

WHO: Defenders of traditional marriage

WHAT: Prop. 8 rally and attending the hearings

WHERE: The California State Capitol - 1400 Tenth St., Sacramento

WHEN: 10:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 17

WHY: Because California lawmakers need to remember who it is they're representing - the people of California who passed Prop. 8. The voters have spoken - the lawmakers need to listen!

Event info is up on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/event.php?eid=67214066808

If you can make it to Sacramento, GO. If you can't but you still want to support the cause, contact your local lawmakers. Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to VOTE NO on HR5 and SR7.

Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Mike Feuer - Chair (Dem-42)
(916) 319-2042
Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

Van Tran - Vice Chair (Rep-68)
(916) 319-2068
Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov

Julia Brownley (Dem-41)
(916) 319-2041
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov

Noreen Evans (Dem-7)
(916) 319-2007
Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov

Dave Jones (Dem-9)
(916) 319-2009
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov

Steve Knight (Rep-36)
(916) 319-2036
Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov

Paul Krekorian (Dem-43)
(916) 319-2043
Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov

Ted W. Lieu (Dem-53)

(916) 319-2053
Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov

William W. Monning (Dem-27)
(916) 319-2027
Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov

Jim Nielsen (Rep-2)
(916) 319-2002
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7

Ellen Corbett: Phone: (916) 651-4010; Fax: (916) 327-2433

Dean Florez: Phone: (916) 651-4016; Fax: (916) 327-5989

Tom Harman: Phone: (916) 651-4035; Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno: Phone: (916) 651-4003

Mimi Walters: Phone: (916) 651-4033; Fax: (916) 445-9754

Thanks, BeetleBlogger, for the info!

CA Supreme Court to hear marriage case March 5

Hey, marriage fans!

Sorry for the dearth of posts lately, but I fell victim to that nasty bronchitis going around and was out of commission for a few weeks. I'm just finally feeling back to my cheery, bloggerific self - and feeling very ready to catch up on so much that's happened! Lots of news to report - watch for a flurry of posts in the next week.

In the meantime, I wanted to alert you all to mark March 5 on your calendars - it's the date the California Supreme Court will be hearing the oral arguments on the legality of Prop. 8.

A little more info from the L.A. Times:

The hearing is one of the most anticipated in the court's history. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 will make their case about whether the measure should be invalidated. Pro-gay marriage groups filed a lawsuit after the November election, saying the gay marriage ban violated the state Constitution.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown at first said he would defend Proposition 8, but then he changed his mind and argued that it was unconstitutional. Backers of the measure have filed briefs supporting the ban. According to the court, justices will consider three issues:

-- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (Christa's note: I believe Jerry Brown already said no on this point)

-- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

-- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

What are your thoughts on the three points of discussion?

I'm very, very interested to see how the third point is addressed. Under the "no ex post facto" concept of the Rule of Law, the legality of an action has to be based on the way the laws were on the books at the time the action happened. In this case, that would mean that gay marriage was legal at that point... but, then again, how legal was it for the court to overturn Prop. 22?

Anyways, back to the trenches for me - watch for some more info coming soon, though, and be sure to check out the brilliant blogs of my DNA colleagues!

Great Video with Elder Maxwell

Mormons - Same-Sex Marriage, Family, Abortion and the Secular Church

American News Project's "investigation" not truly investigative journalism

My investigative journalism professor, Joel Campbell (aka the Mormon Media Observer), wrote this piece for MormonTimes.com that I thought you'd all enjoy:

Investigation, secrecy, documents, Oh My!

The American News Project is promoting a news video "investigation" of the LDS Church's support of Proposition 8. While this film could be called an advocacy documentary or simply propaganda, please don't call it quality journalism or even "news."

It's produced by Steve Greenstreet, who identifies himself as a former Mormon missionary who produced the documentary "The Divided State" about Michael Moore's and Sean Hannity's visits to Utah Valley State College.

Set to the drone of sinister music you might expect in a spy thriller, Greenstreet lays out his case about "two contradictory stories" that have emerged after the Proposition 8 battle. In essence, Greenstreet implies there is a cover-up by the LDS Church.

Having revealed "undisclosed" audio tapes and transcripts, he points out the LDS Church helped provide Web sites, phone banks and a satellite broadcast that were never accounted for in campaign contributions. Of course, the writer emphasizes twice that the California Fair Political Practices Commission is also "investigating." Greenstreet doesn't explain how he obtained the undisclosed documents. Such transparency is a hallmark of good reporting. He also does not say where the California inquiry has gone.

This kind of framing, coupled with a steady stream of anti-Mormon signs and footage of protests at LDS temples, is propaganda rather than balanced news reporting. So, first is this latest work news or investigative journalism? No, there is not much new in this report. Investigative journalism, by definition, means reporters bring something new to light. Most of the report is simply a rehash of things previously reported in the press.

A quick Internet search yields stories with the same information weeks before this report.

However, what Greenstreet does is skillfully juxtapose sinister music, the propaganda of Mormon critics and stereotypes about Mormons. By definition, "propaganda is a one-sided, biased presentation of an issue, trading on emotional appeals and a widerange of rhetorical devices in order to override critical assessment." Producers certainly allowed no room in this report for a dialog about how and when religion can participate in the public arena and even a discussion from both sides about the vagary of rules that govern such things. Instead, viewers are offered implied indictment instead of public-service enlightenment.

The report does not meet the standard promoted on ANP's Web as "dedicated to defending and promoting the public interest through high-quality, investigative video journalism."

One only needs to look at the first two canons of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics to find Greenstreet's shortcomings. The code says: "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

The way this news report is produced is a deliberate distortion, first in making the audience believe the reports has uncovered new information and second it's format filled with photographs of anti-LDS signs, protests and innuendo. The only two sources interviewed for the report questioned the LDS Church's motives. The report is alsodismissive of the LDS claims about their position based on spirituality.

The second SPJ canon is to "diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing." There was no evidence of diligence here. Why no LDS voices? There was nothing to indicate Greenstreet contacted the LDS Church, Mormons or others inside the Proposition 8 movement forcomment.

Greenstreet has had some history with this kind of reporting. He's even been lauded for advocacy. Instead of calling this kind of work investigative journalism, please label it advocacy and commentary. The SPJ Code says: "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

Greenstreet was contacted for response, but did not return a phone call. Space will be provided in a future column if he chooses to respond.

Obama's civil rights agenda makes Clinton look conservative

I came across this video that discusses Barack Obama's civil rights agenda more in depth and find it interesting how his fight for "civil rights" squashes others' rights:



Note that he commentators bring up some of the same cases we've discussed in light of Prop. 8. Obama's taking a far, far-left stance with dramatic changes regarding same-sex issues and abortion (the Freedom of Choice Act will wipe away all limits on abortions; Obama has already signed an executive order that now allows for taxpayer-funded abortions overseas).

Buckle up, friends - we are in for a ride!

Voting for Miss Idaho

Hi, friends! Sorry to do another Miss Idaho pitch - I promise this is the last one. :)

The polls are open 'til 5 a.m. EST Saturday morning to vote Miss Idaho into the top 15 of tomorrow's Miss America pageant!

Here's how:

1. Text the word "Idaho" to 97979 - you can do this up to four times per cell phone; and

2. Go to http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/miss-america/miss-america.html and vote - again, you can do this up to four times.

Please go cast your votes for Elise!!! Thanks again!!!

Tom Hanks apologizes for "un-American" Mormon comment

Tom Hanks has softened his stance on the "un-American"ness of Mormons' donations to pass Prop. 8.

Through a representative, Hanks told People.com:

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American." I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have. Sincerely, Tom Hanks.

Thanks, Tom. We still love you - after all, we agree that all have the right to vote their conscience, regardless of whether or not we agree with it.

Shameless promotion: vote for Miss Idaho!

Sorry to interrupt the regularly-scheduled important discussion of traditional marriage. I don't want to use this blog to promote personal causes... but will you indulge me this once?

My friend Christina's darling little sister Elise is representing the Gem State of Idaho in this year's pageant. Part of the pageant this year has been a reality show on TLC, "Countdown to the Crown" - and as part of its finale tonight, viewers can vote their favorites into the Top 15!!!

Just go to http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/miss-america/about-miss-america.html tonight (Friday night) and vote for Miss Idaho. There should also be some American Idol-style text messaging going on - the Web site will have more on that. Voting opens after 11 p.m. Eastern / 10 p.m. Central / 9 p.m. Mountain / 8 p.m. Pacific.

Then, if so inclined, you can watch Miss America live on TLC on Saturday evening and cheer her on. Also, please feel free to pass this info along to... well... everyone you know.

And if you want to learn more about the lovely Miss Idaho, check out the links below:

http://www.missidaho.org/mi-meet-miss-idaho.htm

http://elisedavis.blogspot.com/

To tie this back to to the blog, I do have to say that Elise is a fabulous role model. She's definitely someone who I feel really represents the best of what America has to offer. Is that so cheesy? It's true, though. Her competitors seem lovely as well, but knowing Elise and her family and her views, I really, really hope she takes home the crown.

*** And now we'll return to the regularly-scheduled marriage discussion. Thanks for indulging me. ***

Pres. Obama looks to repeal DOMA

With the change in the White House this week came a change to whitehouse.gov with updates of Pres. Obama's agenda.

Under the heading of "civil rights," Obama spells out what he wants to do for the LGBT community - including to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, oppose a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and expand adoption rights for gay couples.

I am definitely concerned* with what is ahead for the traditional family. Children need a father and a mother; same-sex unions inherently marginalize a mother or a father. That's a fact - not a judgment. Adoption is difficult enough for stable, solid heterosexual couples (as I've witnessed from the sidelines of watching friends struggle to adopt) - should we encourage and promote giving children to couples who will shortchange the child of a father or mother?

And then, to repeal DOMA and Constitutional oppose a ban on same-sex marriage threatens to undo all the work that has been done to support traditional marriage. This jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states, including Constitutional amendments in 30 states (and possibly soon to be 31 - Indiana's next) where voters have recently acted to give marriage the greatest protection possible at the state level. Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama's policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

So what can we do to support and protect the traditional family? Make your voices heard!

Follow this link to the DOMA Defense Fund and take action!

Send a letter to your representatives. Spread the word. Fight for the family - after all, if we don't, who will?

*Disclaimer: I firmly believe in agency. People have the right to live their life according to the dictates of his or her conscience and to be held accountable for the choices he or she makes. It's a natural law of choices and consequences, and I do not disrespect people because their lifestyle choices don't mesh with my personal beliefs. I haven't walked in their shoes; I cannot ever fully understand what leads them to make the choices they do. That's for God to know - not me. Likewise, it's for Him to judge - not me.

And so, likewise, I have no problem with laws that push for people to be treated equally. I disagree with discrimination and think people should be judged on the content of their character - not on skin color or sexual preference (although I most certainly do not see the two as the same sort of issue, since one is a noun and the other a verb - but that's a post for another day).

Does voting for same-sex marriage help or hurt politicians?

Does a politician's views on same-sex marriage affect your decision to re-elect him or her?

A new study by Freedom to Marry argues that same-sex marriage is a non-issue that doesn't hurt a politician's electability. The San Francisco Bay Times reports:

Voting for same-sex marriage or against an attempt to ban same-sex marriage is a safe move for politicians, a new study by the group Freedom to Marry has found. A review of such votes in 21 states by more than 1,100 legislators found that the legislators were consistently re-elected. The report revealed:

* Legislators who voted to end marriage discrimination in California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts had a 100 percent re-election rate in all 499 instances in three consecutive elections.

* Legislators who changed their position from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage had a 100 percent re-election rate in consecutive elections.

* Legislators who voted for marriage equality in their state’s lower house and then sought higher office all won.

* None of 664 legislators from 17 states lost re-election after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

“For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”

I think this is an interesting comment, considering that the point of elected officials is to select people to represent your views in the government.

As fellow DNA'er BeetleBlogger said, "This is not the opportunity to forgive and forget or turn the other cheek. It’s time to ask ourselves, 'What’s in the barrel?' and toss out those [bad apples] who pander to corruption and are rotten at the core."

She makes an excellent point - corruption doesn't seem to matter in today's political arena. What on earth has happened to reason, responsibility, common sense and virtue?

Californians have voted twice to uphold traditional marriage and define it as between one man and one woman. I would argue that the "right thing" is to respect the views of your constituency on all issues - especially when it comes to one so fundamentally linked to our society's fiber.

The family is the cornerstone of society - if we chip away at it enough, it will crumble, and we will fall.

DNA Task of the Day: Write the NY Times

Hello, my fellow traditional marriage supporters!

My colleagues in the Digital Network Army (DNA) and I want you to join in our letter-writing campaign today to the editor of the New York Times, following up to the article that ran today about the H8 maps.

NY Times instructions for submitting:

Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please.

Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com.

Go viral, my dear ones! Thanks for standing up for marriage and for the donors' right to privacy!

Marriage Ban Donors Feel Exposed by List

From the NY Times:

SAN FRANCISCO — In many ways it is a typical map, showing states, highways, cities and streets.

But also dotting the online display are thousands of red arrows, marking spots from Bryn Mawr, Pa., to Jamacha, Calif., identifying the addresses of donors who supported Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California.

It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly harassed since the election — with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes boycotts of their businesses.

“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”

So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information. In particular, the suit seeks to stop the final filing for the 2008 election, which is due Jan. 31. That filing includes donations made in the closing days of the campaign, when the proposition surged to victory.

James Bopp Jr., a lawyer from Indiana who filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Protect Marriage, said the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters violated their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.

“The cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people’s participation in the process,” said Mr. Bopp, who has argued several prominent cases challenging campaign-finance laws in California and other states. “The highest value in the First Amendment is speech, and some amorphous idea about transparency cannot be used to subvert those rights.”

The election law in question, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was approved by California voters as Proposition 9, and gay rights advocates say there is rich irony in supporters of Proposition 8 opposing the earlier ballot measure.

“They believe in the will of the people if it’s in tune with what they believe,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director with Lambda Legal, the gay rights legal organization, in Los Angeles.

Opponents of Proposition 8 are also suspicious of the intent of trying to prevent donors from being identified. “Do they want to hide something?” said Shannon P. Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.

Mr. Schubert insisted that there was “no smoking gun” and that the filing would show only “modest in-kind contributions” from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church members contributed millions to the “Yes on 8” campaign, and the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating accusations that the Mormon leadership neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions, including phone banks, a Web site and online commercials on the behalf of Proposition 8.

The lawsuit is just one part of the continuing legal wrangling over Proposition 8, whose constitutionality is being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. The court legalized same-sex marriage in May, a decision that was overturned by Proposition 8.

The court is expected to hear arguments on the proposition as soon as March, and will probably also decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed in the state.

Several prominent groups filed or signed on to briefs in recent days expressing opposition to Proposition 8, including civil rights and women’s rights organizations, labor and religious groups, and Google, which created the mapping technology.

In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”

In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been boycotted because of Proposition 8.

Mr. Bopp also said that the level set under California’s campaign law for public disclosure, anything above $100, was too low.

“There certainly would be an amount that would influence more than a few voters,” he said. “But it’s way above $100.”

Opponents of Proposition 8 have condemned any attacks on supporters, but noted that those claiming harassment are already protected by laws. “Violence and vandalism are illegal, and those laws should be enforced,” Ms. Pizer said. “And sadly people on both sides of this issue have experienced some of that.”

Anti-Prop. 8 folks map out donors' homes

Ah, the joys of modern technology and the public status of political donations.

Some anti-Prop. 8 folks with too much time on their hands have created http://www.eightmaps.com/, a "mash up" of Google maps and Prop. 8 donor lists that now maps out the home of each Prop. 8 donor, complete with the donor's name, donation amount, profession, employer and donation date.

While this is technically legal, it is a disgusting and disturbing invasion of privacy. Although it's a little encouraging to see how many little flags there are, honestly (and they didn't get everyone - my parents aren't on there, but they donated to the cause), it is beyond unsettling that these people are pushing so hard to personally attack the individuals who supported Prop. 8 - and, furthermore, to go after their livelihoods in today's economy, of all times.

What do you think of the maps? Does this cross the line from the public's right to information and cross into a breach of an individual's right to privacy? Can you imagine this happening on another political cause?

One of the cornerstones of voting in the United States is that you cast a private ballot, free from intimidation or threats. To me, this sort of behavior is downright un-American and wrong.

(PS: Any techie people know how to figure out the source of the Web site? No, I don't want to go mapping them out - but I do think it would be appropriate to start sending emails to Google, complaining of this effort that crosses some lines. I'm wondering if this is something they can take down - but I'm not sure if it technically goes beyond their user agreement. It's just a map with the info. The action for the No on 8'ers is to be inferred.)

Tom Hanks labels Mormon Prop. 8 supporters "un-American"

I've always been a Tom Hanks fan, but apparently those feelings don't go both ways - according to Hanks, I am "un-American" because of my support of Prop. 8.

Fox News reports:

Tom Hanks, Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California's Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

I'm surprised that Hanks is uninformed enough to think polygamists are an offshoot of the LDS Church that supported Prop. 8. The two have nothing to do with each other; all they share are common roots, but the mainstream LDS Church left polygamy behind well over 100 years ago.

Also, he refers to LDS people giving money to their church to make Prop. 8 happen. That simply is not the case! Donations were made to ProtectMarriage.com. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a part of a broad-based coalition of faiths, but it was not running the show.

I, for one, am a proud American, and I am grateful for the self-correcting Constitution to which Hanks refers. It's a process that lets the people - not the judges - decide what is best for them, and they will then be accountable for those decisions, good or bad.

Who says marriage is labor (union material)?

Apparently Big Labor, a coalition of more than 50 of California's labor unions, is pushing its weight to overturn Prop. 8.

The Contra Costa Times reports:

A coalition of more than 50 labor organizations representing more than two million Californians filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The labor groups' brief argues that "any change to the California Constitution that takes away fundamental rights or that divides citizens into suspect classes must be accomplished by a 'revision' of the Constitution, and not the simple 'amendment' employed in Proposition 8."

Can I interject for one moment? From what I've heard (i.e. what my highly-informed news junkie of a father told me), the majority of the brief Jerry Brown filed, while going against Prop. 8, actually counters the argument that Prop. 8 overstepped amendment territory. Brown had no qualms with the Yes on 8'ers methodology - his beef was with the gay-rights issue.

And another interjection: I hate using the term "gay rights." It implies that they're discriminated against as a minority and that we're trying to take rights away from them. Marrying whoever you want is not a right.

And, frankly, you can't classify anti-gay discrimination on the same page as anti-race discrimination, because race is apparent. It's usually fairly obvious if someone is black/Latino/Asian/Native American etc. Homosexuality has more to do with what you do than with who you are, internally and externally. I understand there are inclinations, but again, it's the actions that define the category - it's just not the same as being born into an ethnic group.

But I digress. Back to the news story.

"If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another," the brief states.

"We believe Prop. 8 is improper and it's immoral and it's also legally invalid," Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, told reporters Tuesday. "We have an interest not only in defending the rights of our members, but we have an interest in defending the constitution of California."

Agreed UHW-West President Sal Rosselli, "Us defending the right of gay people to marry, us defending this civil right is fundamentally important because ... there's a slippery slope and wealthy bigoted people could organize votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights."

Equality California executive director Geoff Kors said he believes "the leadership of labor in this brief is going to have a tremendous impact." Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal senior counsel and Marriage Project director, said the brief "is putting a special emphasis on how high the stakes are here for everybody in California."

The California Council of Churches and other faith organizations and leaders will file their own amicus brief Wednesday asking the court to invalidate Proposition 8. Others, including lawyers' groups and 44 state lawmakers, already have written similar pleas; conservative groups have urged the court to let Proposition 8 stand.

The California Supreme Court has set a fast-tracked briefing schedule, which should be completed this month, with oral arguments heard as soon as March.

Okay, for starters - talk about a conspiracy theory! "Wealthy bigoted people"? I would counter that the success of Prop. 8 is largely due to a grassroots campaign, where the legwork was done by people like yours truly who is definitely neither wealthy nor bigoted.

Furthermore, the California people backed up the veracity of feeling behind the campaign with their votes. That demographic would have taken in the rich, the poor and everything in between - and I'm pretty sure that includes the working-class labor types who these unions represent. I think that speaks loudly enough.

Why is it that unions feel compelled to speak out for or against issues that have nothing to do with the scope of their organizations? Not every teacher opposed Prop. 8 - yet their dues went to the California Teacher's Association's sizeable (and, frankly, deceptive) ad campaign.

With labor unions are jumping into the fray, I have to ask, how is marriage labor?

Oh, wait.

Marriage is hard work. And the whole family aspect definitely involves some labor - just not in the AFL-CIO sense of the term.

Honoring the DisHonor Roll Club

Fellow DNA'er GoodSense Politics posted a piece about Fred Karger, the McCarthyesque leader of Californians Against Hate who, ironically, is promoting hate with his "DisHonor Roll."

This list of Prop. 8 donors publishes not only the donors by name and amount but also includes any dirt that can be found on these groups and individuals.

I cringe to give the publicity-hungry Karger any undue time in the spotlight - the man has a long history of fighting pro-gay battles with the tenacity of a bulldog and the persistant noise of a chihuahua.

However, I want to give props to the people who followed their beliefs with their pocketbooks and made the donations that have, in turn, placed them in the target of gay-rights activists. These are good people! I'm amazed by how many people I know personally on that list and how much they gave. It makes me want to give them gigantic hugs for their amazingness in sacrificing so much for the cause... but, uh, that would be awkward for all involved, I'm sure. They're also truly humble individuals who wouldn't want to be called out for such good deeds but would prefer to give in the manner Christ proscribes of not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

So, instead, I encourage you to support the DisHonor Roll members with your patronage to their businesses as the gay-rights activists push to chip away at these individuals' livelihoods. Perhaps write a letter or email to their company if they're in a position where hate mail might lead to a forced resignation. I'd hate to see another martyr to the cause like Marjorie Christofferson, Richard Raddon or Scott Eckern. Enough is enough!

Gay marriage pushes ahead in New England

Alrighty, folks, we're back in business!

First point of order for the new year: a gay marriage bill moved into the Maine Legislature's agenda on Tuesday, with same-sex marriage activists looking to overturn the statute that already limits marriage to one man and one woman.

Meanwhile, civil unions are no longer enough in New Hampshire and Vermont, where activists are pushing to swap in the term "marriage."

The Associated Press reports:

AUGUSTA, Maine—The gay marriage issue moved onto the legislative agenda Tuesday as supporters of the idea said this is the time to recognize marriages between same-sex couples -- even if the debate comes amid major concerns in the State House over budget cutbacks and their impact.

Sen. Dennis Damon said he is introducing a bill to rewrite Maine's existing statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, instead defining it as a union between two people. In addition, it recognizes gay marriages from other states.
Damon, D-Trenton, answered critics who questioned the timing of the bill as lawmakers face a $838 million shortfall by saying it's "long overdue."

"Currently there is discrimination. Heterosexual couples who have decided to spend their lives together are treated differently than same-sex couples who have ... that same commitment to each other," Damon said. "I don't see the fairness of that. I don't see the need for that, and this bill will put an end to that."

Maine currently has a domestic partnership registry that's open to gay couples. But
that's not enough for gay marriage supporters. Damon says it's time to "fully end discrimination in Maine."

Gay marriage is being debated elsewhere in the region.

In New Hampshire, a bill's been submitted to replace the term "civil union" with "marriage" in the state's 1-year-old civil union law. Vermont, the first state to recognize same-sex couples with its civil unions law, is now likely to consider a gay marriage bill.

In Maine, Damon's gay marriage proposal faces a fight.

House Minority Leader John Tardy, R-Newport, is expected to propose bolstering the state's one man-one woman definition by putting it in the Constitution.

The Maine Family Policy Council also plans to oppose the gay marriage bill "with everything we've got," Executive Director Michael Heath said.

Heath said gay marriage supporters are making a mistake running their bill now, when so much else is at stake because of the recession and state budget problems.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland also will work aggressively against the bill, which goes to the heart of a fundamental issue for many, said Marc Mutty, diocesan public affairs director. Mutty believes the proposal will ultimately be sent to referendum.

Gov. John Baldacci issued a statement in which he acknowledged his past opposition to same-sex marriage, adding the debate "is extremely personal for many people, and it's an issue that I struggle with trying to find the best path forward.

"Right now, I'm focused on creating jobs and doing what I can to help our economy recover from an unprecedented recession. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided or turned against one another during this crisis," the governor said.

The gay marriage bill has won that support of leaders of more than a dozen faiths across the state, who formed the Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine.

Not to sound like a broken record, but what you term a homosexual union does, in fact, carry a lot of weight - and no, it is not discriminatory to differentiate, so long as the unions establish equal rights across the board for couples, gay or straight.

When you take an existing word and alter its definition, you create an Orwellian dilemma wherein a myriad of statutes, regulations and laws get changed without touching a single word. These alterations make no distinction between civil unions (which have all the same RIGHTS anyways) and traditional marriage, which, in turn, infringes upon religions' rights to adhere to Biblical beliefs that term homosexual behavior as sinful. (Note, it's the actions - not the people - that the Bible condemns. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory - it's an important distinction to make, lest these ideas get written off as religious bigotry. God is a God of love and mercy as well as perfect justice!)

I respect the right of my gay friends to live their lives free of others' imposed religious beliefs. As one of devout faith, I also expect that same right. There are so many cases I could point out where gay-rights activists have sued churches or religious individuals for "discrimination" when they're merely adhering to Biblical tenets in actions or sermons - and not in a hateful way, I might add.

Opening up the definition of marriage by not defining it as one man and one woman is practically codifying approval for a flurry of discrimination lawsuits against the defenders of traditional marriage, whether they be religions, foundations or individuals. I am so, so glad to live in a state that offers civil unions with all the same rights as marriage. However, pushing to change the name pushes for much more than equality.

If you don't define marriage as between one man and one woman, which it's been for all of human history, then where do you draw the line?

Hiatus ending soon, I promise!

Hello again, readers dear!

I hate to make promises that I don't keep, and so I'd like to say a big sorry for being so behind on the blog. Last week I thought I'd have a chance to get back to blogging, but a huge project at work has eaten up my week (including my weekend), and this week's still going to be busy busy. The blog's become mostly a one-woman show, and I'll do the best I can - after all, this is a battle with such far-reaching consequences, I don't want to seem flippant and brush it off - but bear with me, and thanks in advance for your patience. I love this blog, and, more importantly, I love championing a cause that is so vitally important in today's society and for our future.

So don't you worry - we'll be back to full swing soon.

In the meantime, MSNBC is doing a poll as to whether "In God We Trust" should remain on our currency. What do you think? Weigh in at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Happy New Year!

Hello, Preserving Marriage Readers!

My apologies for the holiday-induced hiatus. Just a quick note to say I've got a few posts up my sleeve, so watch for some news tonight and as the week progresses. Thanks for hanging in there with us - I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and New Year's!

USA Today: Prop. 8 foes use blacklisting tactics to make their point

Thanks, Ruby, for drawing this to my attention! It is so underhanded to attack people's livelihoods when they've merely exercised their right to free expression - a real RIGHT that's outlined in the First Amendment, as opposed to this so-called "right to marry."

School children are taught about how horrible and evil the McCarthy trials and blacklisting of the Hollywood Eight were - and, let's remember, it was those on the Left under persecution then. So somehow the tactic is perfectly acceptable now that it's people whose beliefs oppose your own? How does that make sense? How is that tolerant and open-minded?

Standing up for Prop. 8 - for traditional families and for religious freedoms - is not hateful. It's honorable, and it will continue to be my battle cry, even if everyone else defames it as wrong.

Anyways, enough of my soapbox. USA Today reports:

Prop 8 foes turn to 'blacklist' tactics
By William M. Welch, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — After losing on Election Day, some supporters of gay marriage are using economic boycotts and Internet lists to focus ire on the financial backers of Proposition 8.

Some on the receiving end say the tactic amounts to a blacklist, a term that conjures memories of Hollywood's refusal to hire screenwriters and others identified as communists in the late 1940s and 1950s.

"I just hate being pigeonholed as a hate monger or bigot," says Robert Hoehn, who contributed $25,000 to the campaign for Prop 8, which amended California's Constitution to exclude same-sex marriage. "I have friends in the gay community, and I don't think any of them would say that."

Hoehn has seen protesters outside his Carlsbad, Calif., car dealerships, his name and business have appeared on websites publicizing donors, and he has received "the most vitriolic kinds of e-mails, letters and phone calls."

His discomfort is exactly what some have in mind.

"I want to make it a little hot for these people," says Fred Karger, a retired Los Angeles political consultant who started the group and website called Californians Against Hate.

Small as well as large donors have felt heat:
• El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles since 1931, has seen fewer diners and been picketed over a $100 contribution by a manager and member of the owning family. Marjorie Christoffersen told The Los Angeles Times, "I've almost had a nervous breakdown."

• San Diego developer Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to put Prop 8 on the ballot, has seen a boycott against hotels he owns, including the Manchester Grand Hyatt on San Diego Bay. Manchester did not return calls seeking comment. Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, which supports Prop 8, said Manchester's hotel "has lost several national conventions and conferences."

• A-1 Self Storage, with 30 locations across California, has also been targeted by Karger's group. Owner Terry Caster and family members donated $693,000.

Caster did not return calls but has a recording on his phone defending the contribution and Prop 8. "The homosexual community is trying to change something that has been practiced since the start of our great country," he says, referring to marriage. "I simply exercise my right to support that which I believe in."

Brown says she has received calls from small business owners in Hollywood and West Hollywood who have lost customers because of their donations. She said she has seen printed lists that name Hollywood studio employees who gave to the cause, an action that "replicates that feel" of blacklists of movie-industry figures who many in Hollywood to this day believe were prevented from earning a living because of their politics.

Some say blacklist is the wrong analogy.

Larry Gross, professor and director of the school of communication at the University of Southern California, said publicizing donors is a legitimate tactic. He says it is similar to the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott of the 1960s in which blacks were protesting segregated seating.

"This is a matter of private citizens saying they don't want to patronize businesses that have worked against their interests," Gross said.

But Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, says it is wrong to compare supporters of traditional marriage to racists.

"I think the general public is recognizing intolerance" of the blacklist, he said.

One man and one wolfman?

I thought this piece by The Onion was worth a laugh:

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner.

"The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law.

But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination."

On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

Jerry Brown, judicial review and Prop. 8 problems

California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had hinted that he wanted to see Prop. 8 overturned, but today he made those sentiments crystal clear in a brief to the California Supreme Court.

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.

You can read The New York Times report here - other than that newsflash, it goes through the typical opponents and supporters rhetoric that's really nothing we haven't heard before.

What this issue boils down to - aside from the marriage debate in specifics - is the general differing of opinions in contemporary America as to the function of the courts and the role of the vox populi, the voice of the people as evidenced by a vote.

Judicial review - the process by which courts can weigh in on the constitutionality of a statute such as Prop. 8 - is not explicitly in the Constitution. Rather, it came into play in America in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

I'll reign in my history geekiness and spare you the gory details, but basically, judicial review sets up an interesting power struggle between the legislative and judiciary branches. The way the Constitution is framed, the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) is supposed to make laws. The executive branch (i.e. the attorney general, who is the chief law enforcement official) enforces the laws, and the judicial branch (i.e. the courts) are to take real-life scenarios and hold them up against the laws to see if that law has, in fact, been broken.

Basically, judicial review strengthens the courts beyond their enumerated scope by creating the ability to legislate from the bench. After the Marbury case, judicial review wasn't used again until the Dred Scott case, and that case began the precedent that continued in full force through the Civil Rights movement in making rulings based on morality - not on the law.

Now before anyone gets up in arms, let me say that I agree with the outcome of the Civil Rights movement. Segregation absolutely needed to end, and racism should be done with. There's no way that voters would have changed the racism ingrained in the system with a vote.

But, that being said, the means used to reach that end set a dangerous precedent that is at the center of today's problems. There are differing schools of thought on what role the courts should play in the political process.

On the one hand, the more conservative, strict interpretation shies away from judicial review on two main grounds. First, the power of constitutional review is not specifically delegated to the Supreme Court anywhere in the Constitution. Along with this, the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that any power that is not delegated by the constitution is reserved to the states, or people. Secondly, it is the states alone that have the power to create this set of laws for the federal government follow, logically it is the states alone that have the power to interpret the meaning of these laws. Allowing the federal government to conduct judicial review allows them to interpret their own restrictions as they see fit, with no consent to the originating power.

Early American leaders had reservations about the effect judicial review would have on the voice of the people sticking in legislation. For example, in alluding to the Dred Scott case, Abraham Lincoln said:

[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

Likewise, Thomas Jefferson had concerns about judicial review:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

On the other hand, you have the looser interpretation of the Constitution, which views the document more for the Founders' motives and ideals, and less for the actual system they put into place. This was certainly the M.O. of the Warren court and its Civil Rights rulings. From the perspective of Warren court member Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.,

Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline. The phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked. Its majestic generalities and ennobling pronouncements are both luminous and obscure. This ambiguity of course calls forth interpretation, the interaction of reader and text. The encounter with the Constitutional text has been, in many senses, my life's work.

Brennan's perspective is the one that is seen more and more in today's courts - especially as evidenced by the California Supreme Court's overturning of Prop. 22 in May, and the now-proposed overturning of Prop. 8 by our own attorney general.

Those who favor action by the vote of the people and those preferring decisions handed down from the courts come from such vastly different paradigms that the perspectives seem nearly impossible to bring together from a basic examination of theory - let alone when you throw in an issue as emotional and controversial as same-sex marriage.

To those who oppose same-sex marriage, the vote of the people was wrongly overturned by the courts in May and absolutely should not be trampled over again. The people voted - TWICE - so let their voice stand.

Those who favor same-sex marriage, however, see the court ruling in May as a triumph for their side, and the "unenlightened" voice of the people should not be allowed to stand.

In case it's not clear, I'm more of a strict Constitutionalist from the get-go, so without bringing in the marriage question, I firmly feel that the voice of the people is sacrosanct. It's the beauty of our democratic republic that the people can weigh in and make decisions for themselves, to their blessing or curse.

Factor in the value I place on the traditional family and the importance of defending religious freedoms, and, well - I think Jerry Brown should do his job of enforcing the laws the people and legislature pass instead of giving the courts the green light to trample over the voice of the people.

But, hey, that's just me.

A quick thought from the heart

I am not yet a mother. I will be, someday, but for now, I'm a career gal - a career gal who moonlights as a babysitter for a few friends with kidlets.

Last night I had the sweet opportunity to watch my friend Lauren's darling children - a tow-headed, adorable little boy of 22 months and a sweet baby girl of 8 months.

There is something so sweet about wrestling with a toddler or having a baby fall asleep in your arms. It's pretty amazing to realize that you've got the future in your arms.

And then it hit me.

This is why we're fighting this fight.

Too often I get more wrapped up in the socio-political implications of gay marriage and in the scriptural counsel on the matter. Which are important, no doubt - but at the end of the day, the true beneficiaries of our battles will be our children (or future children, in my case). I want them to be raised in a world where marriage matters, where traditional families are the norm and where religious freedoms, regardless of sect, are respected.

It may be an uphill battle - one that will not end until Jesus Christ himself returns to reign on this earth. But that's no matter. They that are with us be more than they that are against us, and thanks to prophecies new and old, we already know who wins.

Right will triumph. The question is, will you fight for God, or will you fight Him?

I am so grateful to be part of a network of fellow believers who are also standing for the right. Our children and grandchildren cannot fight this war yet - but we can do our best to hold off the worst for as long as we can.

It won't be easy, but oh, will it be worth it.