Friday, October 31, 2008

Orange County teachers reject CTA's anti-8 stance

The Orange County Register reports that some Orange County teachers are pushing against the CTA's No on 8 stance:

O.C. teachers push for Prop. 8, reject state union's stand
Grassroots group slams the state teachers union for fighting the measure, saying it should focus on less divisive, education-oriented issues.

The Orange County Register

Teachers across Orange County have launched a grassroots effort to show support for Proposition 8 and their anger over the state teachers union's decision to spend
$1.25 million to fight an initiative that would define marriage as being only between a man and woman.

"I'm tired of having them suggest all teachers support it," said Jeff McPherson, 43, a sixth-grade teacher at Parkview Elementary School in Garden Grove. "I know not all teachers support it."

"They've always endorsed candidates and issues, but we have so many problems in education and all that money should be funneled toward protecting class sizes and teachers' jobs," said Chris McLaren, 57, a kindergarten teacher at Chaparral Elementary School in Ladera Ranch. "Many teachers at my school are looking at getting pink-slipped for the fourth year in a row."
Click here to read the entire story, leave comments, etc. It's really important that we comment on the (all too rare) positive stories!!! It gives the editorial staff a clue as to the reality that there is a lot of support out there for Prop. 8, despite the very vocal No faction.

Click. Comment. Enjoy - and, by the way, Happy Halloween, all!

For more information go to

Prop. 8 Rally in the 909!

My friend Liz passed along this info for a rally in Chino Hills tomorrow.

In case you can't read the flyer details:


WHEN: Saturday, Nov. 1
TIME: 12 - 2 p.m.
WHERE: Intersection of Peyton Drive and Grand Avenue, Chino Hills
WHO: ANYONE who would like to take a stand for traditional marriage and show support for the "Yes on 8"campaign

Bring signs if you have 'em, and year blue and yellow if you can! Go team!

For more information go to

NAACP President: conflict of interest?

Hat tip: Marvin Perkins, "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing":

The Black community is overwhelmingly in support of YES ON 8. The NAACP President came out against it. Like the CA Teachers Union speaking against without consulting the teachers, Alice Huffman, NAACP President did the same thing, and we just found out why.

Alice Huffman, President of NAACP owns a company by the name of A C Public Affairs Inc. This company was paid over $198,000. by the No on 8 campaign. This might explain the disconnect between the African American community who supports 8 and the NAACP's coming out against it. We found this information on the CA Secretary of State's Web site:



Alice Huffman's Company - A C Public Affairs Inc.

How can you stand up against this?

  • Send this info to everyone you know in CA
  • Call all local media in your areas, TV, newspaper and radio and ask them are they aware of this
  • Call in to talk radio shows to share this news
  • Flood the local NAACP chapter presidents in your city with calls and ask if they have received funds from the $198,000. that was paid to Janice Huffman's company by the No campaign (responses should be reported to the local media) CA NAACP phone numbers:
  • Have any member of the NAACP call their chapter to express outrage over this payoff and demand their membership dues be returned
  • Pass out the attached fliers to African American, Latino and other congregations this Sunday, in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean etc.
  • Call Rev. Amos Brown President of the SF Branch, who is extremely upset over the money, especially since the local chapters are suffering. Ask him did he receive any part of the $198,033: (415) 922-0650

Also, as previously blogged, Marvin Perkins was interviewed - and heavily edited - on CNN. Here's what CNN chose to leave out:

Part 1

Part 2

For more information go to

Teaching 5-year-olds about transgender

My old boss Laer posted this on his awesome blog, Cheat-Seeking Missiles:

As Laer pointed out:

There is no reason to bring this sort of LGBT sexuality into the kindergarten classroom; it just shows the extremism of LGBT activists, and their unwillingness to conform with long-established societal norms - not about their sexuality, but about the inappropriateness of forcing sex onto children, whether physically, socially or emotionally.

The people who want kindergarteners to deal with “LGBT” are the same people who are behind the fight to defeat Prop 8. Which side do you want to be on?

I agree. At that age, it's indoctrination - not education!

For more information go to

This is why.

Today's guest post comes from my ever-insightful cousin Christopher, who posted this on Facebook. It's one of the best letters I've read on the subejct - I re-post with his permission:

I'm voting YES on Proposition 8.

I feel very strongly about this issue, and I'm afraid my position has offended or alienated some of my friends and loved ones, even some that I hold very dear. In many of the things I've read opposing Proposition 8, I've read over and over that anyone who is in favor of this amendment must be motivated by either hate, ignorance, or both. For these reasons, I feel strongly that I need to explain why I believe what I do, and why I'm voting the way I am.

First of all, I hope that anyone who knows me well knows that hate is not a motivation for anything that I do or believe. I don't hate anyone for their lifestyle choices, sexual preference, political views, or any other possible reason - no matter how much I may disagree with them.

Second, I don't believe that I'm ignorant about the issue or what it entails. I've spent long hours deliberating on it and what it would mean if this proposition does or does not pass. I've explored the materials and sites both for and against the proposition. I have friends on both sides of the fence for various reasons, and I respect all of their opinions. After all my time and thought into the issue, to call me ignorant for choosing to vote YES is simply dismissive - it doesn't allow me the privilege to be both intelligent and of a different opinion than your own.

So why am I voting YES on Proposition 8? It's simply because I don't believe that the state of California should recognize same-sex unions as equal to traditional marriage between a man and woman. Let me first be clear - it is very important to me that everyone is allowed all of the same civil rights that I enjoy - regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference. A committed gay couple should be allowed all the same civil rights, liberties and privileges as a married heterosexual couple - and they currently are under California State Law (California Family Code 297.5). Proposition 8 will not change that. All that Proposition 8 is concerned with is what the State defines as "marriage" - whether it is between a man and a woman, or whether it's between any two people, regardless of gender.

To understand why I feel so strongly about this, you need to understand what I believe marriage fundamentally is, and therefore why I believe we cannot change it's definition. I believe that marriage is much more than just a manifestation of love between two people - but that at its most fundamental level, marriage is a commitment between two people to start a family together. While not all marriages result in children, all of the benefits granted by governments to married couples are designed to protect and preserve the institution of the family, and protect the rights of children. In 2006, a commission of the State National Assembly of France, a nation that allows civil unions but not same-sex marriages, cited this same reasoning, stating, "Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love within a couple. It is a framework with rights and obligations conceived in order to welcome the child and provide for his harmonious development". (Read the full transcript here:

I believe that the best way for a child to be raised is in a home with a loving mother and father - this provides the child with the best opportunity to lead a productive and healthy life psychologically, physiologically, and sociologically. The French commission also expressed this, saying "inasmuch as there is absolutely no reason to doubt the educative and emotional qualities of homosexual parents, we do not yet know all the effects on the construction of the adopted child's psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle, as is done in other domains?" I understand that there are countless failed heterosexual marriages that lead to less-than-ideal circumstances for children to be raised in, and I'll admit that I'd rather see a child raised by a loving gay couple than an abusive father or absent mother. But the fact remains that the ideal circumstance, as far as we can tell, is that of a loving mother and father in the home. For that reason, I believe it is our place as a society to uphold the ideal, and then as individuals try to live up to it as best we can.

I'm also worried about the effect that not passing Proposition 8 will have on religious liberties in general. If same-sex marriage is considered equal with traditional marriage, then it will have to be treated as equal in every State-sponsored sense - which will have significant effects on religious and educational institutions. Already, religious individuals and institutions are being told they must honor homosexual activities that are contrary to their religion on issues ranging from religious adoption services having to place children with same-sex couples to religious educational institutions being required to house same-sex couples in their dorms (read the NPR article here: Legalizing same-sex marriage is a significant step toward limiting the first-amendment rights of those who, for religious reasons, do not agree with homosexuality.

With all of that said, I am religious and I have a deep faith in a living God. I am very aware that many would call my faith simply ignorance, and I'm sorry if you think so. I believe in the God of the Old and the New Testament, and I believe that he is very much alive and speaking to man today. I believe that God has clearly stated what he defines as marriage, as well as outlined what his plan is for human sexuality (i.e. only between a man and a woman). Therefore, I cannot in good faith say that I believe in the Bible and follow its teachings, and at the same time support same-sex marriage. I've also been told that my denying marriage to same-sex couples is "un-Christian" and intolerant - that Christ himself would want everyone to be able to live in the way that they deem appropriate. In my reading of the New Testament, I cannot find any support for this view from the Savior's life. Jesus loved and served everyone that he met, and preached that we should all do the same. However, not once did he ever excuse anyone in their sins or disobedience - rather he would preach to those he loved and cared about, earnestly hoping that they would change and follow Him. He was the perfect example of loving the sinner and hating the sin. I can only hope to do the same.

I don't know everything. In fact, in the big scheme of things I know very little. But if there really is a God, and He really has made His will known, then I believe our best bet would be to follow His counsel. I really do believe that God has spoken and that by following what He has outlined, we will be better off both as a society and as individuals. Even if you don't agree, I hope that you can understand why I feel the way I do, and why I will be voting YES on Proposition 8.

(Please also read:

For more information go to

Fundamental right to marry?

I received this letter that's addressed to the editors of the Orange County Register:

Dear Register Editors:

The Register wrongly recommends a No vote on Proposition 8 based on the notion that there is some fundamental right for gay marriage. Gays and lesbians are important members of our families, communities and society, and they are entitled to equal protection under the law. Our federal and state constitutions, and California statutes, provide that protection (including protection from discrimination), but they do not provide the right to marry. The framers and authors of our constitutions and laws never intended that result. The "right" for gay marriage has not existed in the history of civilization until a few judges in recent times took it upon themselves to create it. If we now adopt the idea that there is some fundamental right to marry whoever you want, then why shouldn't I be able to marry my sister, the guy next door even though he is already married, or the 12 year old down the street, or all of the above at the same time? Marriage under that kind of law is meaningless. For a very long time and for good reason, nearly all world religions and societies have affirmed that marriage between a man and woman, and strong traditional families created from such marriages, are essential to civilization. Let's re-affirm those time-tested truths by voting YES on PROPOSITION 8.

Laguna Niguel

For more information go to

Thursday, October 30, 2008

A Conversation on Facebook

This issue is tearing people apart. Here is a conversation I had just today. You be the judge of who is right and who is wrong for yourself, not for me or anyone else.

This vote is about telling California how you feel about the issue, not forcing anyone else to believe what you believe. I'm posting this hoping that it will help others realize that we need to stop fighting over this. When all is said & done, on November 5th we will go back to being family, friends, neighbors, etc... We are going to have to follow the law, no matter what it is. Let's not lose friends over this. Make sure that you fight for what you believe in, but not in a way that is hurtful to others. And those of you getting offended - STOP. We all have had different experiences, and therefore we all have different viewpoints. That's what makes this world such a beautiful place.

My friend Joe -

{Posts article on publishing the names of Mormon's who have contributed to YES on 8 and targeting them - read article HERE} Calling all Mormons! TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN TO DISCRIMINATE IS NOT IN THE BOOK OF LATTER DAY SAINTS!

Me -

Tolerance does not mean to condone one's actions. No one's rights are being taken away if Proposition 8 passes. On the other hand, if it doesn't pass, many rights will be taken away from God fearing people. For more information go to my blog The way that I am being treated as a Mormon is certainly an indication of how things are to be if Proposition 8 doesn't pass. How do you justify being intolerant while screaming that you demand tolerance? I am voting YES on Proposition 8, no matter how many names you sling my way. It's the right choice in my opinion, and I have the right to vote however I'd like.

Joe -

Prop 8 does take away my right to marry. I can't control who I'm attracted to. Being gay IS NOT A CHOICE. So why should a complete stranger be given the power to dictate if I can marry the person I fall in love with? A COMPLETE STRANGER HAS THE POWER TO DESTROY THE POSSIBILITIES OF ME STARTING A FAMILY! By posting the list of Prop 8 contributors is not intolerance at all. It's simply stating a fact. There is nothing about me spending my life with someone that needs to be "tolerated". You say it as if a homosexual needs to have the permission of a heterosexual to get married. WTF? And the way youre being treated for being a Mormon isn't shit compared to how I've been treated my entire life for being gay. We spent 4 years along side each other at PHS & you can vouch that I was called some horrible names. Please read Stephanie Brodyy's message on my way. There are only 14 words in Prop 8 & not a single word is about schools or churches.

Me -

You have the "right" to marry...The law just dictates to whom. I am subject to those same laws, so in fact, we have the same rights. Having the temptation of same-sex attraction may not have been your choice, but it was your choice to act upon it. I know that will be hurtful to you, but I'm sorry...that's what I believe.I would fight to the death for your freedom to act as you choose. But when it comes to the morality of my state, I will fight to the death to protect the traditional family. You have domestic partnerships, which under CA Family Code 297.5 grants you all the rights as spouses. So, we must ask, why do you need it to be called marriage? For social status? It is not marriage. To me and millions others, marriage is the sacred union between MAN & WOMAN. It is how God designed it to be the best for relationships and for children to grow and be nurtured. Society has all but obliterated that. Now it is "uncool" & "bigoted" to want to try & keep that definition sacred. The reason I put the word right in quotation marks is because I don't think it's a civil right to be able to marry. My friend Blaine put it this way - "I personally respect a persons right to believe how or what they may but they may not always do what they want. Which brings me to another point: What is a right? Our founding fathers had specific ideas in mind when they established the Bill of Rights. A right was something that you could do without fear of legal consequence. However, rights are not absolute. Our Bill of Rights were things that people could do but government or society was not required to provide you with the means to practice that right. For example, you have freedom of speech but society and the government are not required to provide you with a radio station to exercise that right. You have freedom to bear arms but fellow citizens are not required to buy you a gun. You have freedom of religion but the nation is not required to build you a church. That's why medical care is not a right. Others would have to pay for you to receive it. That's why it's not in our Constitution. The same thing could be said of the government buying you a house." I think there is a hidden agenda here. No, the words "children" & "schools" are not in the words that will be added to the constitution. But we are talking about CA law here. If the law defines marriage as a union between and 2 people, regardless of gender, then according to CA Education codes 51890 & 51933, homosexual marriage will be taught in school. It's interesting to me that all the organizations that are claiming that it won't change anything in schools (ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, Equality for All) have fought very hard in Mass. so that it was taught in schools. Do they think that children in Mass. should be taught different in CA? Or are they LYING?

Joe -

Ok so just so the Mormon Faith isn't tested I will fake an attraction to a woman, lie to her about the love, start a family that I wouldn't want, live a miserable life & break her heart when she realizes I don't love her. ALL IN THE NAME OF KEEPING MARRIAGE SACRED. Honestly Heather...think about what you are suggesting. I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO WOMEN. So becuase of an uncontrolable emotion I'm supposed to suffer a life of solidarity just because your faith says so? You're following your faith blindly & taking down anyone that tests, challenges or thinks otherwise. And no matter the cost. I've lost friends because I'm gay. I've been ridiculed because I'm gay. I have family members who don't talk to me because I'm gay. Not because I ACTED upon my attactions but for the simple fact of who I am attracted to. Not only are you forcing your faith onto people that aren't Mormon but you're blantantly disregarding THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE.

Me -

In case you can't tell, I've researched this THOROUGHLY. You just see it as an opportunity to have a wedding just like anyone else. I wish that was all this was about, because frankly, I wish you could. I would be there to support you even. But this is about SO MUCH MORE! There are many ways that both sides could be happy. We don't have to change the legal definition of marriage to have equality.Now, I know that I probably won't change your mind, and I'm damn sure that you won't change mine, so let's just agree to disagree, like I thought we had before. Instead I find you passive aggressively calling me out on Facebook. I'm sorry that Mormon's have hurt your feelings. That is NOT our intent. It is an unfortunate consequence of 4 activist SF judges denying the will of the people and forcing us to have to take a stand.I love you, and I'm sorry that I see things much differently than you. I will abide by the will of the people as it is decided on November 4th. I am voting YES on Prop 8.

Joe -

Heather I haven't addressed any of my postings to you. I've simply posted things that reflect my life. It is my page afterall. If you're part of a "religion" that funds political legislation then that's on you. And that point alone should be questioned more. Why are you so poised to protect the sanctity of marriage but you throw THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE right out the window? I would never think about forcing any of my beliefs or views on any of my friends let alone a complete stranger. So why isn't the same expected from you? Oh that's right because you're religion says so. Anytime anyone's religion is tested (ESPECIALLY THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS) the opposition is seen as secular & divisive. Your vote for Prop 8 isn't a vote to protect marriage. It doesn't need any protection. Marry the man you love. It's not like my marriage will affect yours in any way. And if it does. Then you have some serious praying to do. A vote for 8 is simply a vote to promote discrimination.

Me -

So when you write "Calling all Mormons" you're not talking to me? How many Mormon friends do you have on Facebook? (You don't need to even answer's rhetorical.) I also saw that you pointed out to Stephanie that I am Mormon. This all leads me to discern that you were addressing me.What part of Proposition 8 forces my beliefs on you? The California people should be able to decide how we want marriage defined, not the courts.I notice that you didn't address any of my just simply start ranting discrimination again. I have clearly pointed out that this has nothing to do with discrimination. We both have all the same rights. NOTHING will be taken away.I don't agree with your lifestyle. That doesn't make me a bad person. You are not a bad person either. WE NEED TO STOP ATTACKING EACH OTHER OVER THIS!!!!!!!!!!!You are passionate, and I am too. We understand each other's views. We still disagree. Let's call it a day on this one.

Joe -

Deal! Good night!

I'm glad that ended well, and I hope and pray that we can still be friends. We have been pretty good at staying friends for this long so far, so I think we have a chance. Just remember to treat each other with respect and how you would like to be treated. We're going to have to work together one way or the other after this is all done. Don't do anything you would regret. Thanks.

Guest Post - Carol

Dear Family and Friends,

I feel compelled to write because, regardless of what political party affiliation you support, our decision about Prop 8 regarding the definition of marriage will affect all residents of California, and eventually our country as a whole. In the long run, what we decide here will have a greater effect than who we vote for president.

If the following subjects are of any importance to you, please read on:

Our Constitutional Form of Government/Freedom from TyrannyParental Rights

All First Amendment Rights

A Bright Future for Our Children and Grandchildren

For those of you not aware of Prop 8 (although I can’t imagine any who aren’t, as heated as this is), it is a measure on the ballot for an amendment to the California Constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Before any of you start making a death wish on me for supporting this, let me tell you this has nothing to do with being a homophobe--I have friends who are dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Nor is this about gay rights--gay couples already have the same benefits as married couples in California (you can go online and read the California Family Code sec. 297.5. So if it is not about that, then what is it really about?

Do any of you remember in the days growing up (if you’re my age) watching America Rock on Saturday mornings? It was a fun cartoon with catchy little tunes all about American History. There was one called the Three-Ring Circus which explained the form of our government with its three branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--each with their unique duties and also with checks and balances upon each other to prevent one from becoming more powerful than the others. Our Founding Fathers did all they could think of to prevent tyranny in our country after fighting against it with England. We are up against the very same challenge with the decisions made by 4 judges in the California Supreme Court. Basically, they have decided what is proper and correct for millions of people, disregarding what the majority of voters safeguarded in 2000. Think about it--is it the responsibility for judges to determine the definition of marriage? Who should define it--four judges or the people of the state? When the majority voted that marriage was between a man and a woman in 2000, they did not change anything already in the Constitution; they only responded to a threat of change. In all of history, when has marriage been known as anything other than between a man and a woman? I have checked my dictionaries (I even have an 1828 dictionary) and they all agree it is what we have known it to be. When the judges made a decision that Prop 22 was unconstitutional, they actually changed what was recognized at the time the Constitution was written. It is not the duty of the judicial branch to create new legislation. Whether you agree with the judges’ decision is not the issue; it is that they out-stepped their jurisdiction and are not following the established forms. What does this mean for you and me? It means that we have a state being run by the will of a panel of judges rather than by the will of the people--that is called an oligarchy. If our vote can be trampled on like that, where does that lead us in other situations?

For the case of parental rights, we only need to look at examples where the definition of marriage has been redefined to see how this will affect us. Massachusetts is one such place. In Massachusetts, the homosexual agenda is being taught in schools to children as young as kindergarteners. In a certain case, the parents of one such child asked the school to give them notification if that topic was going to be taught so they could have their child opt-out. The parents were denied this parental right. It went to court and the couple lost. There is information online regarding Parker v. Hurley. This website also tells the story briefly:

I know that the opponents to Prop 8 are claiming that voting no on 8 will not affect the education of our children in any way. They state that there is a mandate that already prohibits teachers from teaching health issues without parental consent. While that may be true (for now), it doesn’t address whether they will teach about gay unions while discussing either families or diversity. Books are being read to 1st graders in Massachusetts about men marrying other men as part of normal family life. Do we want this to be the right and role of the State to teach our children or do we want to retain it as parents? What is even more baffling is that on one hand the California Teachers Association is backing the no on 8 --with $1.25 million already donated for their cause--while on the other they are insistent that this has nothing to do with education. If that is truly the case, then isn’t it a little ironic that the Association is even involved?

Furthermore, the other organizations against Prop 8 (namely the ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, Equality for All), who say gay marriage will not be taught in public schools, are the same organizations who fought for it to be so in Massachusetts. Their statements in the Parker v. Hurley case are on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)). Here are a couple of their statements:

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: “In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

If these organizations are saying one thing in Massachusetts, and telling Californians something else, is it quite possible that they are being deceitful and have an agenda similar to that in Massachusetts?

I have now only covered two of the reasons I mentioned in the beginning of my letter as to why voting YES on Prop 8 is so imperative. Without going into long detail about all of our 1st Amendment rights, let me explain a personal matter regarding our free exercise of religion.

My husband is the Bishop of the local church to which we belong. Recently he received a call asking if he would be willing to marry a same-sex couple. Telling the inquirer that it was contrary to his beliefs and the doctrine of our church, he said he would be unable to do so. Fortunately, that was all to the matter. If Prop 8 does not pass, my husband, and many churches, may be faced with lawsuits for discrimination and possibly the termination of marrying couples under the recognition of the State as a civil union. What does this mean? The very nature of marriage will change and how it fits into society, creating chaos and confusion.

Marriage has been instituted from the beginning of man for the rearing and protection of children. I believe it to be the basic unit of society, and the indicator of the success of any society. When marriages and families thrive, so does society. When they fail, society follows.

Ultimately, I believe this battle will not go away by a simple measure on the ballot. We are at a point in our society where there are definitely two different points of view about the nature of right and wrong. There are those who believe that equality means they should be free to do as they choose and that “anything goes,” regardless the cost to others; and there are those who still believe that there are morals and actions of right and wrong, and that those actions have consequences according to their nature. We are at a fork where we must decide what path is best. We cannot go down both roads.

With respect for your individual beliefs, I hope I have persuaded you at least to think about the ramifications of Prop 8. What I hope even more is that you will join me in voting Yes on Prop 8.

With Love and Respect,


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Another letter from Marvin


The CNN interview aired this morning. For those of you who missed it, I’ve included a link to view it on-line. For those of you who saw it, I’ve included the text of everything you actually missed that I can recall from memory. The reporter and the cameraman were very obviously against prop 8. And being so, they chose to leave out all of the details that have been so successful in helping voters see through the distortions of the opponent of YES on 8. Will you pass this on to all you know CA? It may help them to see through the blatant deceptions. Also included are video links from CA teachers.

There are a couple of things to note about the interview and the footage of our sign waving rally:


* They asked me several times was I involved in fund raising (No)
* They asked me several times is it mainly a moral issue for me. Each time I respond with a list of things with morality being an afterthought at the end
* They asked me several times what is the main issue or most important issue for me. Each time I respond with a list of things and that there was not just one.
* Note that they included in the interview the No supporter’s legal or civic arguments and cut out all of mine
* Notice they keep saying that this won’t effect the schools, all while it’s affecting the schools. (see second and third links from CA teachers)


* Note the phrasing is negative toward the YES campaign.
* Note that they were able to find 2 no on 8 supporters and put them in the midst of over 300 Yes supporter.
* Note that they ended with those and then a flash to one of our signs with “freedom of religion, while making the point that Marvin is Mormon



CA TEACHER - If 8 has nothing to do with schools, why is the CTA involved?



CNN Stan Wilson: How did you first get involved with prop 8 campaign?
Marvin Perkins: A friend from church and one of my neighbors brought the subject to me. And at that point, I was not heavily involved. I was simply making phone calls on Saturday.

CNN Stan Wilson: When did you get more deeply involved?
Marvin Perkins: I received 3 calls on the same day and was asked to speak at a legislative hearing the following day. I went to the hearing and had a great opportunity to listen to both sides. I had great compassion for both the supporters and opponents of prop 8. However, when I heard distortions on every point coming from the opponents and their trying to equate this to the civil rights movement of Blacks in America and that it would have no effect on the children, I knew that I had to get more intimately involved.

CNN Stan Wilson: So what having a yes on proposition 8 mean to you?
Marvin Perkins:
* It means a restoration of the votes and voice of an overwhelming majority of Californians.
* It means the preservation of democracy
* The preservation of free speech
* Parent rights
* Rights of children
* Freedom of religion
A YES on Prop 8 takes nothing away from same sex couples. They currently enjoy all the access benefits of married heterosexual couples. See California Family Code - section 297.5

California Family Code – Section 297.5 Reads
297.5 (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
So if same sex couples already have the same rights as married couples in CA, voters have to ask themselves, what is this really about?
Unless we get a Yes on 8, it would mean taking rights away from Californians and voters of other states. Last week I had a conversation with a Rev. on the board of the SCLC, Southern Christian Leadership Council, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He shared with me a conversation he had with a gay man. "With civil unions, you have the same rights as married couples, so why is gay marriage so important to you" he asked. The man said "You're right, we do have the same rights with civil unions. But if we move to another state which has chosen not to recognize same-sex marriage, if we have a legal marriage, they have to recognize it. So as you can see this is not about civil rights.

The year 2000 – Proposition 22
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California was on the ballot”
52 out of 58 CA Counties voted YES on Prop 22., over 4.3 million votes.
61.4%, voted YES 38.6% voted NO

8 Years Later in May, 2008, 4 San Francisco Judges ignored the votes and voice of over 4.3 million and made same sex marriage legal. So I believe that every Californian should vote yes on Prop 8 to restore the voice and votes of the majority of Californians and to preserve democracy.

CNN Stan Wilson: So what did you think about one of the Supreme Court Justices saying that this reminded him of the civil rights movement of the 60’s?
Marvin Perkins: You know, I was born in the midst of the civil rights movement. My family marched in the civil rights movement. They were subject to police batons, dogs and water hoses and all manner of hate. We integrated schools and were subject as kids to every manner of hate, racial slur from adults and other kids, signs and our buses going through gauntlets of rock throwers.
Now we see the same thing coming from opponents of YES on 8. There have been violent attacks, harassments, sign stealing the works. One of my dear friends even had the outside of their home vandalized. So yes, it reminds me of the civil rights movement where violence, hate and scare tactics were used against us to keep us for standing up for our rights. The YES on 8 supporters are suffering the same things as we stand up for our rights, the rights of our children, democracy, free speech and religion.

CNN Stan Wilson: Where in the language of the ruling by the CA Supreme Court Justices does it say anything about what kids are taught in schools?
Marvin Perkins: It doesn’t say it in the ruling that I’m aware of, however is gay marriage is legal in CA as it is now by the actions of the 4 judges who overturned the voice and the will of CA voters, then there will be free reign to teach homosexuality in schools. Look at the case in MA who legalized gay marriage earlier this your, or last year I think it was. They already have the books ready to go. A first or second grader came home with a diversity book bag and in it a book entitled the King & the King. San Francisco first graders were taken to a same sex wedding to throw rose pedals. Just Thursday, a Hayward school surprised K-8 graders with a Gay Day, or a Coming Out Day.
So here we have such a hotly contested issue on the ballot for election day. You’d think everyone would be on their best behavior. So if they’re willing to do these things just before the election, it is only reasonable to think that if we don’t get a YES on 8, that it would be even more wide spread after the election.

CNN Stan Wilson: This all this sounds like you’re quite homophobic:
Marvin Perkins: I have gay friends and neighbors and co-workers. We love each other like family. Gay couples, per CA Family Code Section 297.5 (a) have the same rights as married couple. I just don’t thing the rights of CA voters, children, parents, speech and religion should be sacrificed when gay couples already have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

CNN Stan Wilson: So this is a moral issue for you?
Marvin Perkins: It’s actually several issues for me.
* California voters right
* The preservation of democracy
* The preservation of free speech
* Parent rights
* Rights of children
* Freedom of religion

CNN Stan Wilson: So you don’t have a moral issue with this?
Marvin Perkins: Morally I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But I also believe that we all have the right to choose to live in any manner that we choose. I will not attempt to push my morality on the gay community and I simply want the same in return for the gay community not to push homosexuality on me or my children.

CNN Stan Wilson: So tell me about your Mormon beliefs and how they affect your feelings on gay marriage?
Marvin Perkins: Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian religion. Our beliefs are the same as all the Christian religions and many others on this issue. The bible clearly teaches that all men have the agency to do whatever they choose, to choose for themselves how they live. We Christian religions believe the bible and this teaching. The bible also clearly indicates that the gay lifestyle is not in keeping with the commandments and the law the Lord has set forth all His children.

CNN Stan Wilson: So what gives you the right to judge?
Marvin Perkins: Oh, did I say something that made it appear I was judging? I’m not, I’m simply saying that all have the right to choose and I support that right. I will not push my beliefs on others and I’m just asking the same in return.

CNN Stan Wilson: Wasn’t there a time when interracial marriage was illegal? How do you respond to that?
Marvin Perkins: There was. Interracial couples were told they could not marry or have any of the rights of marriage. Same sex couples in CA have the same rights with domestic partnerships. There were no domestic partnerships for interracial couples.

~Marvin Perkins

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

Great Article in the OC Register

Yes: Other side's hypocritical argument

Mission Viejo resident

It is simply amazing how the "No on Prop. 8" campaign is unwilling to stand up for what it believes. For a week now the campaign has said one thing; yet it believes something else.

What do I mean? Well, the "No on Prop. 8" campaign maintains that, if Proposition 8 fails, kids will not be exposed to same-sex marriage instruction in school; yet it maintains that gay marriage is a fundamental right. Huh? If gay marriage is a fundamental right, then it should be taught in school. Can you think of another fundamental right that is not taught in school? The campaign's dirty little secret? They know gay marriage will be taught in school and they are desperate to say anything so that we don't figure it out on our own.

In an effort to make sure we don't figure this out, they have now paraded the state education chief, Jack O'Connell, out to say that schools don't have to teach about marriage. Sadly, Mr. O'Connell hasn't told the whole truth. According to California Education Code Section 51933, if a school decides to teach a comprehensive sex education class to K-12 graders (and which school district doesn't?), "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Thus, marriage is taught in California schools.

Moreover, the California Safe Schools Coalition asserts that children will be taught in class about homosexuality and gender identity (read confusion). Please note that many of the members of the California Safe Schools Coalition are also supporters of the "No on Prop. 8" campaign, including the California Teachers Association, the ACLU (which actually argued in the Massachusetts case that the court should require the teaching of same-sex marriage in schools) and numerous other gay and lesbian organizations.

Interestingly, according to the coalition's Web site, the Capistrano Unified School District, Escondido Union High School District, Monterey Unified Peninsula School District, Palm Springs Unified School District, San Francisco Unified School District and the Ventura County Office of Education are all members of this coalition.

According to the coalition's Question and Answer Guide on California's Parental Opt-out Statutes, the coalition asserts that parents do not have the right to notice about and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation or other controversial topics.

The coalition describes how a school district can develop a plan that will preclude parents from opting out of such teachings. According to the coalition, so long as the purpose and content of these diversity programs are "carefully articulated" and do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions), parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out.

In essence, the coalition's reasoning is precisely the same reasoning successfully used against the parents in the Massachusetts case where a federal appeals court held that the parents could not opt their kindergartner out of a class discussing tolerance of gay marriage. According to this reasoning, if Prop. 8 fails, same-sex marriage will be taught in schools.

We don't need to look any further than our own state to see how this will work. The implementation of this coalition's goals is already in progress in a charter school in Hayward. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, parents of a kindergartener at the Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" was to be celebrated at the school Oct. 23. The school chose not to tell parents ahead of time. The school is celebrating Gay and Lesbian History Month. During this celebration, the parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families.

Gay marriage will be taught in schools if Prop. 8 fails. Why doesn't the "No on Prop. 8" campaign come clean and say what it really believes will happen if Prop. 8 is defeated? If the campaign is so confident in its position that gay marriage is a fundamental right, then why lie? Now ask yourself: do you really want to support a campaign of this type of hypocrisy? If the answer is "no," then just vote "Yes" on Prop. 8.

Please go to the article by clicking HERE and rate & comment!

support prop 8 multi-ethnic groups rally

what: multi-ethnic rally in support of traditional marriage

when: sunday, november 2 at 2:30pm

where: los angeles city hall, south lawn
200 n. spring street
los angeles, ca 90012

arrive early! musical performances to begin at 1:30pm.

sponsored by the save marriage & family coalition .

For more information go to

California School Holds 'Gay Day' for Kindergartners

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the entire article from WorldNetDaily.


Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

For more information go to

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

For the Record

Teaching children in school from K-12 about marriage IS in the California Education code.

SECTION 51890-51891

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
(D) Family health and child development,
including the legal and
financial aspects
and responsibilities of marriage and

(E) Oral health, vision, and hearing.
(F) Nutrition, which may include related topics such as obesity
and diabetes.
(G) Exercise, rest, and posture.


51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health
education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any
kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the
appropriate courses.
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual
health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by
school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all
of the following criteria:
(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
(2) All factual information presented shall be medically accurate
and objective.
(3) Instruction shall be made available on an equal basis to a
pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing
curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as
otherwise provided in this code.
(4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with
pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and
cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.
(5) Instruction and materials shall be accessible to pupils with
disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of a
modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative
formats, and auxiliary aids.
(6) Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to
communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human
(7) Instruction and materials shall
teach respect for marriage and

committed relationships.

(8) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall teach
that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to
prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual
activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted
diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while
also providing medically accurate information on other methods of
preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Domestic partnerships have all the same
rights as married spouses.

SECTION 297-297.5

297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.
(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when
both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the
Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of
filing, all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of
another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been
terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would
prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.
(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under
Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section
402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social
Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged
individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership
unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.
(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic
(c) "Have a common residence" means that both domestic partners
share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right
to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two
people have a common residence even if one or both have additional
residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common
residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall
have the same rights,protections, and
and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations,
and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations,
court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon

(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same
rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.
(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,

More "Tolerance"

This is how the Patrick Family of Simi Valley was treated this week.

Thoughts on Civil Rights

Our guest speaker today is Blaine, a great friend of mine...

Civil rights were brought about by many years of political battles. First, our country was founded on the civil right of freedom of religion. Then came woman's rights. And slowly racial rights. As well as a host of others. All of these things have something in common: they are inherent at birth. They are who you are. There is no reasonable way to change that. A woman or a black person are born that way and cannot change. Behaviors are not covered under civil rights. Even behavioral religious civil rights have their limits. For example, in the late 1800's, the LDS Church felt they had the right to practice polygamy (a behavior). The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that you may believe what you want as far as religion is concerned but may not DO or behave how you want. Even if your religion dictates it because they felt society was damaged by the behavior. Many black civil rights leaders who fought years ago to promote civil rights for blacks are angry that those involved in homosexual behavior are trying to use civil rights laws to promote their agenda. Civil rights leaders feel their work is diluted and actually damaged by equating a behavior (homosexual behavior) with a born trait (black skin). This is why so many involved with homosexual behavior try to say they were "born that way." If they can prove that, then civil rights may apply to them. Please read Sister Erin Eldridge's book "Born That Way?" (note the question mark in the title). She speaks from experience. She was an LDS lesbian who became involved in homosexual behavior as a teenager. She fought against the Church for many years trying to get gay marriage recognized. To make a long story short, she got professional treatment and worked with her bishop for several years. When I heard her speak she was married in the temple and seven months pregnant with her second child.

I personally respect a persons right to believe how or what they may but they may not always do what they want. Which brings me to another point: What is a right? Our founding fathers had specific ideas in mind when they established the Bill of Rights. A right was something that you could do without fear of legal consequence. However, rights are not absolute. Our Bill of Rights were things that people could do but government or society was not required to provide you with the means to practice that right. For example, you have freedom of speech but society and the government are not required to provide you with a radio station to exercise that right. You have freedom to bear arms but fellow citizens are not required to buy you a gun. You have freedom of religion but the nation is not required to build you a church. That's why medical care is not a right. Others would have to pay for you to receive it. That's why it's not in our Constitution. The same thing could be said of the government buying you a house.

Another aspect of rights is that they are limited. Your right to do something cannot limit someone else's right to do something or infringe on their "pursuit of happiness." For example, freedom of speech or the press is not absolute. Saying or printing things about an individual can result in slander or libel suits because one right was used which damaged the right of another. I may have the right to bear arms but I can't shoot up the side of your house and infringe on your property rights.

This is the case with the "right" to marry anyone - male or female. We believe doing so will harm our right to raise our children how we believe is the pursuit of happiness for us and them. Some may deny or not understand this but it is true. Also, if that right is given then that right could and will be used to damage our rights, specifically our religious rights with regard to marriage. this is a very brief look at rights and what they are. Certainly it gets a bit more complex than this but this is an important start.

Prop. 8 protests at Capo Valley High School

Looks like the pro- and anti-Prop. 8 teens came forth at Capistrano Valley High School this morning:

What do you think of the rallies? Is a high school campus the appropriate place for this battle? Go, click, comment!

For more information go to

Another Myth Dispelled

I've heard some argue that Prop 8 should be defeated to ensure that California same-sex couples who move to other states will be able to force those states to recognize their marriages.

Opponents of Proposition 8 have also argued that defeating Prop 8 is important to ensure rights from the Federal Government for same sex couples. A friend of mine wrote the following to me: "Exactly 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections [are] provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law." His point presumably was that defeating Prop 8 will ensure that California same sex couples get these thousands of federal rights that are being denied to them now.

In a nutshell then, those against Prop 8 argue that Prop 8 could take away the rights of same sex couples under Federal law and under the laws of other states.

This is false and here's why:

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. This is more commonly known as the Federal Defense of Marriage Act or "DOMA."

DOMA has two main effects.

First, it provides that no state is required to recognize a same sex relationship as a marriage within their own state, even if the same sex relationship is called a marriage in another state. (See 28 U.S.C. Section 1738C).

This means, for example, that if a same sex couple is "married" in Massachusetts, but then moves to Ohio (where the Ohio Constitution bans same sex marriage), Ohio does not have to recognize that "marriage."

Second, the Federal Government may not (i.e. is prohibited) from treating same sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if recognized by a state. (See 1 U.S.C. Section 7).

Thus Prop 8 cannot take away any federal rights from same sex couples, because DOMA prevents the Federal Government from recognizing any same sex "marriages." Prop 8 will also not take away rights of California same sex couples who move to other states, because DOMA does not require other states to recognize California same sex marriages.

Please remember to vote YES on Prop 8! All of our hard work and efforts to persuade others does not mean anything if our own vote is not counted.


victims of vandalizing, take heart.

day after day, reports of vandalism in conjunction with proposition 8 have been rolling in. whether it's yard sign theft, bumper sticker removal or defacement of private property, it is becoming increasingly clear that those in opposition to YES on prop 8 are getting worried. after days of vandalism and sign theft, some YES on prop 8 supporters took matter into their own hands.

in the final days of the fight for this cause, take heart. sure, those in opposition to prop 8 can take our signs, break our windows and slash our tires, but they can never, NEVER take our voices. in these final days, speak out in support of YES on proposition 8!

For more information go to

Black Community Says YES on 8 "THIS IS NOT a CIVIL RIGHTS Issue"

An email received from Marvin Perkins


Great news!

With the Black community now leading the support for Yes on Proposition 8, victory is within our grasp. However, we can't let up. We must show California voters that civil rights is not the issue. The information in this email will do just that. So will you please share this email with everyone you know in CA? The real agenda for the gay rights movement is political power and control. It is about manipulating public opinion and indoctrinating children. As Dee Garrick, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, says at the end of the attached video, "It's not about civil rights. Racism was about civil rights. This is about society, our future and our children." For those of you in other states, see summary #5 on how CA decision affects your states.

1. CNN Interview Airs Today Gay Supreme Court Judge and Two Others Said "NO" to Overturning Prop 22

Judge Carol Corrigan, one of 3 dissenting CA Supreme Court Justices said "In a democracy, the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference. That is the way democracies work. Ideas are proposed, debated, tested. Often new ideas are initially resisted, only to be ultimately embraced. But when ideas are imposed, opposition hardens and progress may be hampered." Corrigan is saying she would like to see gay marriage become the law of the land. She just did not think it was the place of the court to make it so. And she feared that in so doing, the court might actually do more harm than good.

2. Over 1000 Congregations Represented, Black & Hispanic Clergy Hold Press Conference To Say YES on 8, "Our Children Have Civil Rights Too"

One of the highest ranking African American religious leaders in California and in the country has endorsed YES on Prop 8. (See partial list of clergy support)

3. Black Community, Mormons, Hispanics, Asians & Indians Come Under Attack for Supporting YES on Prop 8

Upset that now with the Black and minority communities voting YES on 8, Santa Monica attorney and opponent of 8 lashes out: "Prop 8 has a chance of passing" (Must scroll down to page 4)

4. CA School Holds "Gay Day" for K-8 Graders (October 23, 2008)

Opponents of Prop 8 say that it has nothing to do with children or what is taught in schools. If they're willing to be this blatant before the election, can you imagine what it will be like if we don't get the YES on 8?

5. Gay Man Speaks of CA Prop 8 Decision On Other States

Last week I, Marvin, had a conversation with a Rev. on the board of the SCLC, Southern Christian Leadership Council, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He shared with me a conversation he had with a gay man. "With civil unions, you have the same rights as married couples, so why is gay marriage so important to you" he asked. The man said "You're right, we do have the same rights with civil unions. But if we move to another state which has chosen not to recognize same-sex marriage, if we have a legal marriage from CA, they have to recognize it. This further demonstrates that this is not at all about civil rights. In essence, not only are they looking to take away the rights of Californian voters, parents and children, but those of other states as well. See similar wording in the Gavin Newsom Video.

6. CNN Interview Airs Today (Tuesday, October 28, 2008)

CNN sent two opponents of Prop 8 to interview and film me yesterday in my home yesterday. Afterwards they came to film a sign waving event organized by Nathan Aina and members of the Valencia Stake. Over 300 supporters of YES on 8 participated. It is supposed to air today between 5-6 p.m. PST.

-Marvin Perkins

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

Please go to the video & rate & comment. Thanks!

Monday, October 27, 2008

Faceless donors? I think not!

I always skim the site traffic feed to see if people are coming in or leaving to sites I haven't heard of yet.

Tonight, one caught my eye:

Yes on 8 site, right?


This site looks like a pro-8 site, but it feels more like a witchhunt for LDS donors to the Yes on 8 cause, with a spreadsheet noting donor names, locations and amounts.

Now, mind you, as a former journalist, I know that campaign finance and donation records are, in fact, public domain - but, still, something about this reminds me more of a witchhunt.

LDS or not, it is their right to donate where their beliefs pull them.

Well, I hate to admit it, but I did, in fact, start skimming the list through the names of donors in my hometowns.

You know what I found?

The names of my friends' parents. My uncle. My old dentist. The families I babysat for as a teenager. My old church leaders.

To someone else, this might read like just a laundry list of names.

But to me?

It's a list of people whose stories I know, who have personally made a huge impact on my life - if not by their own influence, then most certainly by that of their children.

I'll take those kind of donors over Hollywood celebrities any day!

And while I am appalled that someone is putting these names out there for public display in a spirit of mocking and scorn, I also feel truly humbled and honored to know such amazing people who are willing to step up and put their money where their mouths - and hearts - are.

I may not have the means to give like these amazing men and women have so selflessly done - but at least I can give the gift of my time for a cause in which I believe.

For more information go to

Big Prop 8 Supporter will match our donations!!!

I just read this on another blog, and it got me SOOO excited!!! How amazing are our supporters??

One of our most fervent supporters has agreed to match, dollar for dollar, whatever you and others can donate, up to a total of $1 million. That means that every dollar you give will buy two dollars in advertising time.Click below to donate

For more information go to

Proposition 8 Resources

Check out this great website for you to find videos, read articles, and print your own flyers & banners!

Prop 8 Perspective

This is an email I received from my best friend's mom. Terry is a great friend of mine and I thank her for sharing her feelings about this with everyone.

I have been able to be at two "Yes on Prop. 8" rallies this last week. The first was in Lancaster, CA at the church that Pete Knight belonged to. Pete Knight was the congressman who wrote the original Prop. 22 that was originally passed by 61% of the people in California stating that only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in California. There were 700 people at that rally. There were about 3 or 4 speakers there. Different religious denominations were represented in the speakers. Pete Knight's son spoke. The people in attendance were respectful and attentive. I thought some times it would have been nice to have a little more yelling by the people. But I wasn't yelling. I feel very strongly about the subject, but I wasn't interrupting the speaker to yell and chant like you see on TV. There were about 15 protesters just off the property that were yelling very loudly trying to disrupt the speakers. I should explain, we yelled between speakers, the usual, "Yes on 8" etc., but no one was rowdy or rude, just respectful. There were at least 2 police cars just off the property with the protesters, so that made me feel better.

The rally was set up with the "Yes on Prop. 8" bus in front, placed in back of the podium where the speakers were, then lots of space for the rally attendees. In back of the attendees was another platform for the media. There was one television camera on the platform that I saw. The bus is big with both sides painted with happy couples and families, two large wedding rings etc. Very well done. Anyone that has donated money would be proud that their money might have been spent on such a well done advertisement.

I learned after I got there that this is part of the "Yes on Prop 8" bus tour. I learned that there was another rally in Los Angeles on Friday at 12:00. So I went to that one also. The same bus was there. The same well produced set-up with platforms for the media. At the Friday rally, I was about 1/2 hour early. I was wearing my American flag vest. That is probably what caught the attention of the Fox 11 newsman. He can up to me and asked if I would be willing to talk to him. I said I would. He asked me why I was there at the Prop 8 rally. He then turned on the camera and I answered him. I just said that I was there because this was a very important issue and I want to support marriage between a man and a woman. It was something benign like that. He turned off the camera and said , just talk, tell me what you think. So then I told him that I am the mother of 7 and the grandmother of 15. I feel that this is so important for our families and the children. Then I said that I feel that my rights will be compromised if this does not pass. I was surprised that the words came out so well. That is unusual for me :) The newsman was very nice and we talked for a minute. He said that I would be on the Fox 11 news that night.

I called (my husband) Blaine and told him my exciting news. He set up the recorder there at work to record all channel 11 news that day. There was only the 10:00 pm news and directly following that was a special on Prop 8. At first I was kind of excited to be on TV. Then when I heard about the special, I was a bit nervous. I thought having a 10 sec. little blurb would be good, but I wasn't sure about the special, and I didn't know what my interview would be used for.

We weren't able to see the news either Thurs. night or Friday night. So I don't know if the other channels covered the "Yes on Prop 8" rally on Thurs., but we watched the tape that Blaine made of the Fox 11 new programs for Friday. Neither the regular news, nor the "Prop. 8 Special" that followed on Friday night made any mention of the "Yes on Prop 8" bus tour. The special that followed the regular news started with scenes from "gay" marriages where the couples were very loving etc. Nice music was playing. Then they went to the "Yes on Prop.8" portions of the program. The people they chose to put into their program were radicals, in my estimation. They were screaming and yelling their prayers into microphones. These "Yes on 8" events they chose to include were very raucous events and people. We thought we might have missed my 10 second portion, so we went through the programs again. We didn't see anything that showed the passionate, but peaceful people that I had seen the last two days at the rallies.

The reason that I am writing this very long explanation of what I experienced at the "Yes on Prop 8" rallies is that the media is not covering these events. They are nice for those that attend, because we see others there that believe what we believe and we can take courage and go forward with more determination. But I don't know how the general public is going to know what we are about, what this proposition is really about unless we step it up a bit. So, I am asking that if you see that the "Yes on Prop. 8" bus will be anywhere near your area, go and support those people that are doing all this work and putting these rallies together. Let them know that there is support. Then because at least I don't have power over those that edit the program and decide what clips will be on the news and what won't, I guess we will have to tell the general public ourselves. Please go to whatever sign holding programs you can. Be kind, but passionate. In the news we are made to look like raving radicals. But we are not. We are good people trying to do something really important for our children and the nation. We need to push hard this last week. Please do all that you can. At the end of this, on Wed. morning, it would be very sad to think, if I had just called that last page of people, maybe it would have passed.

Our sign out front was stolen yesterday. A woman and two teenaged girls stopped and took it right in the middle of the afternoon in front of our neighbors that were out doing yard work. We will put two signs up today :) One of the pastors that spoke at one of the rallies said that it has been reported to him that there is at least one high school teacher in the area that has told her students that they will get extra credit for every "Yes on Prop 8" sign that they bring to her. That could be where our sign ends up. But we have more, thanks to you that have donated your hard earned money. Thank you :)

We can do this! :)


Mission Viejo students prepare to rally against Prop. 8

Okay, I'm going to be completely upfront with my bias toward this story: it's written by one of my best friends.

Yes, it's true - I'm posting an interesting, intelligent piece about a No on 8 rally.

Why, you ask? Because Scott is an amazing, talented writer, and although we don't see eye to eye on Prop. 8, I respect his viewpoint - and I think his story is a great read, too. Plus, as with any Prop. 8 story, there's a great discussion brewing in the comments.

So, go, click, comment and enjoy!

I'd like to say, it's so fascinating to me how many tangential arguments for and against Prop. 8 have come out of the woodwork. It seems like is a religion vs. secularism fight - but, really, all Prop. 8 is is 14 words that define marriage as between a man and a woman!

That's not to say that those 14 words don't have a world of unintended consequences and ramifications, either - but I don't think I've lived through such a heated proposition in my days.

Here's an excerpt of Scott's piece:

MISSION VIEJO – The Capistrano Valley High School students who organized a 250-person rally last year to support a popular teacher accused of making anti-Christian remarks are preparing to launch a similar effort Tuesday – this time, targeting California's same-sex marriage ballot initiative.

At first glance, the similarities aren't apparent between Proposition 8 and James Corbett's provocative classroom comments. But the students organizing the campus rally say the underlying issues are the same.

"We can sympathize with gay people because they are a minority and we are a minority," said Capistrano Valley High senior Doug Kalagian, 17, founder of the school's Freethinking Atheist and Agnostic Kinship student club.

For more information go to

Who's in a Family?

I stole this post from Emily's blog...thank you!

This is the cover for the book "Who’s in a Family?" This book is used to teach young children about all kinds of families. You might notice, that no where on this book cover is a traditional marriage with children (maybe the one on the middle right side? except I honestly can’t tell the gender of either “parent.”).

This is an analysis from my friend at beetlebabee:

I just got a good look at the book, “King and King“, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, that was read by a second grade school teacher to her entire class in a segment teaching about marriage. This book’s inclusion in the Massachusetts elementary school curriculum is shocking not just for the obviously inflammatory ending where the prince marries another prince instead of the princess, but in the way that it tears down and denigrates traditional marriage and women.

"By the time I was your age, I’d been married TWICE!” a horrible looking, overweight, crooked toothed figure tells her son.

How is this portraying marriage to our little ones? Dirty, Cheap? Meaningless? One by one, the princesses are brought in, “No!” the prince says and goes on to comment about how one princess is too fat, one has crooked teeth, one is black and her arms are too long…. The book sends a message that replaces traditional marriage, it’s not just including, it’s tearing down and replacing.
“Who’s in a Family?” by Robert Skutch is another book used by Massachusetts schools to teach about the family. Not only does it deal with gay families, but it does NOT include traditional, nuclear families on it’s cover. A quick glance illustrates the main point of the book. There are no pictures of what most of us would consider a family. As I look at the arguments of the opposition I have to ask, why the exclusion if there is no anti-traditional agenda?

Disagree, but don't be unkind

Once again I rely on better writers (and let's face it...people who are more respected than me) to say how I feel. Here is a wonderful article by Orson Scott Card, a popular writer.

Some people have misunderstood the LDS Church's position on Proposition 8 in California, and its opposition to gay marriage. They think that we are "against homosexuals" -- that we think of "them" as our enemies, and that individuals who have entered into "gay marriages" pose a direct personal threat to us.

The unfortunate thing is that some of those who have this false impression are Mormons.

So let's set the record straight.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a long and successful history of rejecting social customs in the surrounding culture. We Mormons are pretty good at going our own way. We are as likely to be able to keep our children from embracing gay marriage as we are to keep them from smoking, drinking or taking drugs.

It's easier, of course, when the surrounding culture is not propagandizing against our values, but we tend to get more stubborn in defense of our faith when we are up against opposition. So our concern in this legal struggle is not for the church, but for the health and well-being of society at large, of which we are only a part.

2. We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who "marry" are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.

But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.

I speak from experience: My family and I have close friends who are gay, some of whom have entered into lawful marriages. They know we don't agree that their relationship is the same thing or should have the same legal status as our marriage, but we all accept that strong and clear difference of opinion and move on, continuing to respect and love each other for the values we share.

Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they called me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."

Tolerance implies disagreement -- it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we're being uniform.

It's uniformity or submission these former friends wanted, not tolerance at all.

It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with "friends" who either don't know us very well, or don't care about us very much.

3. Even if we fail to overturn the current legal movement toward gay marriage, we can treat our opponents politely and kindly, even when they do not extend the same courtesy to us.

4. Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom. And that will be because of their attempt to suppress religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and the right of parents to control their children's moral education.

Supporting Proposition 8 in California is a political action, which we undertake as citizens.

Preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ -- including our beliefs about marriage and the proper conditions for acts of procreation -- is quite separate.

We do not think that any belief system, whether it calls itself a religion or not, should be imposed on other people by law -- we won't impose ours on them, and we won't let them impose theirs on us or our families.

Instead, we believe that as long as we are citizens of a free country, changes in the laws and institutions of our society should be made only by common consent, after a free and candid discussion.

There is no place for any Latter-day Saint to be unkind to, or speak slightingly of, those who disagree with us. Just because someone else is engaging in conduct that we believe is wrong does not give us the right to hate them or mistreat them. We preach the gospel of Christ to any who are willing to listen, but we will force our beliefs on no one.

However, we do have the right, as citizens, not as Mormons, to try to persuade our fellow citizens to vote for good laws based on sound principles. We have a right to advocate laws that we believe will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

We would never try to force our beliefs on an unwilling majority, and we hope that our opponents on this issue will have the same respect for democracy and the Constitution.

In fact, I believe that even those who absolutely believe in gay marriage should join us in opposing any law that is forced on an unwilling majority by the dictates of judges. For those that are wise will recognize that once judges are given such power, that power has as much chance of being used against them as for them.

What are the reasons that we, as citizens, oppose gay marriage?

Legalizing gay marriage has huge legal implications far beyond letting same-sex couples enter into marriage contracts. Once "marriage" has been so radically redefined, it will become unlawful and discriminatory for schools or any other public facility to favor, for instance, heterosexual dating or dancing.

Since our culture (like all human cultures throughout all of history) is oriented toward promoting the maximum opportunity for reproductive success for all members of the community, but channeled in a way that will best promote the survival of the community, such a radical change should not be entered into lightly.
Yet serious examination of scientific, historical, and legal issues has been all but drowned out by name-calling and demands for "rights."

Why do we oppose legalizing gay marriage?

1. Homosexuality itself is simply not understood. The available evidence suggests that bisexuality is far more common than exclusive homosexuality, that same-sex attraction may be a phase in some individuals and is merely an option for others.

2. Even where individuals feel they have no option except same-sex attraction, we do not understand the cause. The available evidence argues for at most a genetic contribution, with other -- probably environmental -- causes involved. The best evidence is that children are most likely to be reproductively viable -- i.e., able to mate successfully in circumstances likely to produce children who grow up to be reproductively viable -- when they have two parents, one of the same sex, and one of the opposite sex.

3. Growing up with opposite-sex parents, but in a society that has normalized and actively promotes one-sex marriages, will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable.

4. Those who promote gay marriage have already shown a disposition to insist on uniformity of thought on the topic, and will certainly attempt to use the power of the state to suppress any attempt to publicly express a preference for heterosexuality, even (or especially) when such a preference has a religious basis, making this a potential religious-freedom and freedom-of-speech-and-press issue as well.

5. Gay marriage has been instituted in three states (so far) only by judicial decree, and without even the pretext that the constitutions involved were ever written with the intention of promoting or allowing gay marriage. This has happened even in a state (California) where a large majority of the people had already rejected gay marriage at the ballot box.

No serious attempt has been made to consider anything more than a general feeling that "tolerance is good" and "discrimination is bad." Yet we are proceeding headlong into a vast social experiment whose consequences, as far as we can see, risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few.

What's the hurry? Why the hostility toward even the slightest opposition? Can't our opponents wait to get their way until they have persuaded a clear majority? Can't they listen to people with ideas that are different from theirs?