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.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Hi, all -
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 12:05 PM
Monday, March 23, 2009
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 5:03 PM
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
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
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 9:58 AM
Thursday, March 19, 2009
As associate editor Kory Stamper responded to WorldNetDaily:
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.
"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."
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.
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 2:32 PM
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.
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 11:49 AM
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 10:44 AM
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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.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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 9:25 AM
Monday, March 16, 2009
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
There's also a Facebook group for the cause - visit Defend the Natural Family: Stop Gay Marriage in Vermont! for more info.
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 7:17 PM
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.
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 2:10 PM
Friday, March 13, 2009
Make sure this doesn’t get past us!
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 . . .”
Link to document:
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.
(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!)
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 2:24 PM
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 10:20 AM
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!)
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 9:23 AM
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
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.
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.
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 2:54 PM
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
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.
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.
Posted by Hizzeather at 9:24 AM
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!
Posted by Hizzeather at 8:14 AM
Monday, March 2, 2009
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.
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.
Posted by Christa Jeanne at 9:45 PM