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: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006_docs/Francesummary.pdf).

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: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191). 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: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage).

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

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: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/students-school-rally-2208662-high-kalagian

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 http://whatisprop8.com

ACLU gives advice on gay marriage

Yet another awesome tip from Emily - this time, it's a document from the American Civil Liberties Union advising how best to go about getting gay marriage approved throughout the United States.

The best tactic? Use the courts and the state legislatures - not the voice of the people.

Read for yourself:

Now that we’ve won marriage in California, should we be bringing cases in other states or suing the federal government? If not, what can we do to help secure the freedom to marry nationwide?

Bottom Line. If you’re ready and it’s right for you, get married in California. If you do, claim the name and act like what you are―married. But don’t go suing right away. Most lawsuits will likely set us all back. There are other ways to fight which are more likely to win.

Summary: The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting marriage through state courts (to show that fairness requires it) and state legislatures (to show that people support it). We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning. When we’ve won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that point, we’ll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we’ll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states.

Couples who want to should get married, call themselves married, and ask (sometimes demand) that family, friends, neighbors, businesses, employers and the community treat their marriages with respect. Making the marriages of same-sex couples a conspicuous part of American society will help us get something we’ll need to win ultimately: public acceptance of equal treatment for lesbian and gay families. [A word to the wise: getting married could have unintended and damaging consequences for some people. If you are in the military, on a visa, thinking about adopting or getting government benefits, you should talk to a lawyer who knows that area, or get in touch with one of the legal organizations]

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

American College of Pediatrics questions the wisdom of same-sex parenting

Emily always gives the best links in her comments!!! Thanks, Emily!

This is her latest link - an article by the American College of Pediatrics. Feelings can be argued with, but what about scientific research? According to ACP... well... just read for yourself. I deleted all the footnotes to make this read more clearly, but if you want all the documentation, click here.

(And, as a disclaimer - I'm not saying that gay people make bad parents, nor am I saying that the only way to have a happy family is to have a nuclear family. However, it's been shown in study after study that a nuclear family is ideal - the lodestar to which we aspire. Of course it has to be modified to fit individual situations, but that doesn't downplay the merit of the ideal.)

Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted. Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is "to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being." We promote "a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly." The College further notes, "that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being."

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

Countdown: 14 days!

Good morning, everyone!

Only two weeks until election day - we're sprinting toward the finish and need every ounce of effort we can give. Keep pushing toward that finish line!

And, with that, here are today's top stories, courtesy Hizzeather - read, comment, get involved and spread the word!

This LA Times op-ed piece questions why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vowed to fight attempts to ban same-sex marriage in April, has been keeping out of the Prop. 8 fray.

OneNewsNow reports that Prop. 8 supporters have no intention of folding their tents. Although this article doesn't have a comments field, it does have plenty of links to more Prop. 8 news.

Orson Scott Card has authored another great piece - this time it discusses upholding the Constitution, not letting activist judges legislate from the bench as they have since Roe v. Wade. Here's a sample - go read more at http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-12-1.html:

Upholding the Constitution

On one extreme, we have the idea that the Constitution is a written document that can only be altered by a deliberately time-consuming process of amendment.

On the other extreme, we have the idea that the Constitution means whatever a group of judges says it means.

The Constitution itself belongs to the first group -- it declares that it can only be changed through the amendment process.

But ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973, we have watched as, first the U.S. Supreme Court, and now state supreme courts in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, make new law by judicial decree, based on "ideas" purportedly found in the federal and state constitutions, but not based on the plain language of those documents.

No one in their right mind can possibly claim that when these constitutions were approved, there was the slightest intention to force abortion, and now gay marriage, on societies that had never been given a chance to vote on such morally portentous matters.

And, finally, for your viewing pleasure, another video - this one answers the question "If Prop. 8 passes, won't it take existing rights away from gay couples?"



For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Video of the Day: Same-sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone, right?

PreservingMarriage.org just released seven new videos - so I'll be posting one a day for this week.

The first one addresses the question, "I don’t see how same sex marriage really hurts anyone else. Really, what’s the harm?"



For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Agreeing to disagree

There's been much back-and-forth debate in the comments section lately. Some of the No on 8'ers have been really respectful and thoughtful in their comments, and I appreciate that. Others have been spiteful and attacking, and that detracts from the spirit of this blog. To them, I request the same tolerance, respect and understanding that they ask of us.

The intent of this blog is to provide information for our fellow Yes on 8'ers or to give undecided people a source of information and opinion as to why we support Proposition 8 - not to convince No on 8 people that they're wrong. Many, if not most, of us bloggers have close loved ones who are gay.

I've talked with one gay friend at length about Prop. 8, and ultimately, we have to agree to disagree. We come from vastly different perspectives on the issue - but, in the end, we also respect the other's view and appreciate that we can have enlightening conversations on the subject and still remain friends.

I know that I will never change his mind - nor would I even try! I respect his right to follow the dictates of his conscience. I love my gay friends, and I want every happiness for them. They're amazing, amazing people. But I, too, have the right to follow the dicates of my conscience, and I support Prop. 8 - on sociological grounds as well as religious reasons.

Please respect my right to this as well as that right of the other bloggers on here. The fight for tolerance and equality should extend to tolerance and equal voice for those of us favoring Prop. 8.

Meanwhile, I finally got a chance to watch Deb Stapley's wonderful video on YouTube - go check it out! While clicking around, I found this video by Jeff, an old friend of mine. Jeff joined the ranks of the marrieds a few years back and has a darling family. I wanted to share what he's said via YouTube about agreeing to disagree on Proposition 8, as it echoes some of my feelings:




For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Prop. 8 reaffirms the voice of the people - a letter

My friend Karly posted this excellent OC Register letter to the editor on her blog - I can't find the letter's link, but I wanted to repost the text here. This is by D. Lew of Laguna Beach:

I believe in human rights. I believe in civil liberty. I believe that no government or law of man has the right to compel anyone or any entity to perform any act or service contrary to his own beliefs as long as his beliefs does not constitute harm to others. This is the reason why I will vote yes on Prop. 8.

Prop. 8 will reaffirm the voice of the people in California that marriage is between a man and a woman. And those four activist judges in San Francisco cannot and should not be the voice of the populous overwhelmingly passed what was then Prop. 22 in the year 2000. Preserving the definition of traditional marriage is important for California and good for our society.

I am not prejudice. I respect individual rights and the freedom of choice. I have neighbors who are gay. They are good and decent people. I respect their rights to choose. I accept them as what they are. I don't impose my values on them and they don't impose their values on me. But if Prop. 8 does not pass, the law will demand their values be imposed on me. All businesses, all entities and all of us will be compelled by law to treat all marriages without distinction. The schools in California will be compelled to teach children and that children must accept that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Any child does not accept all marriages are same would be construed as breaking the law. Churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if that is contrary to the church's position. Churches would not be able to use their doctrinal beliefs to defend their positions.

The opponents viewed this as another scare tactic. I wish this is only a scare tactic but it is the truth. It is happening in states such as Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legalized. Passing of Prop. 8 will protect individual liberty, protect our schools from mandatory teaching same-sex marriage to our children and protect our churches from performing marriages contrary to their doctrine.

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

California Teachers Association gives $1 million to No on Prop. 8

The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert posted last night that the California Teacher's Association reported donating $1 million to the No on Prop. 8 efforts - a news tidbit that's echoed in the latest ad put out by the No on 8 campaign.

I think this is unfortunate for two reasons. One, what place do educators have in this discussion? Their job is to teach writing, reading, math, science - but they should leave the moral education to their parents, especially when it comes to teaching something controversial. Children are impressionable, and teachers carry a lot of weight. Parents shouldn't have to deprogram their children when they come home! It's confusing for children, getting conflicting lessons from teachers and parents.

Furthermore, that $1 million is presumably money that is not going to help California school children - the intended audience of those membership dues and donations from its 340,000+ members.

While digging for more than a sentence of info, I found this insightful post on the blog Views from the Crow's Nest. I hope its author won't mind me sharing it with you - please take the time to visit his blog and read the great cache of Prop. 8 posts he's written.

Lies and scare tactics? I don't think so

Yesterday's campaign finance report from the No on Proposition 8 campaign is startling.

The California Teacher's Association donated $1 million to the campaign. This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars already pumped in to the campaign by the CTA in the last few months.

Opponents of Proposition 8 claim that it's all lies when we warn that your children will be indoctrinated about same-sex marriage and homosexuality. They claim that you'll be able to opt your child out of class when same-sex marriage is taught or discussed. But we know that the judiciary is actively promoting the homosexual agenda by their overturning Proposition 22 this year. And case law shows that parents are losing their rights as well.

Last week the US Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a father in
Massachusetts who tried to opt his kindergarten child out of a classroom discussion about homosexuality. A lower court ruled that parents had no right to be notified when such discussions take place, nor will the children be allowed to opt out of the class.

If this is happening in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, it will happen in California.

With the help of the powerful CTA the homosexual agenda will be pushed in every classroom. Parents will be helpless to protect their children-because the government and judiciary have banned them from doing so!

These are not lies, or scare tactics-this is the truth because it's already happening.

For another good read on the CTA donation, visit http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2008/08/california-teachers-association.html

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

It's been one week - and why the California gay marriage vote matters nationally

Wow - PreservingMarriage.blogspot.com was launched a week ago almost to the minute, and we'll probably top 600 hits by the end of the night!

I'd say that definitely counts as going viral.

Thanks to the amazing team of bloggers as well as to everyone who's been sending us amazing tips on news articles, videos, etc. It's definitely been a community effort, and I hope you've found this to be an informative and engaging source of Prop. 8 facts and opinions as we approach the election. Only 19 days to go!

With that, here's some food for thought from Brian Joseph, chief of the OC Register's Sacramento bureau. Be sure to weigh in on the Reg blog! Also, the blog is where I got the chart above - looks like Yes on 8 is gaining traction! Let's hope the trend continues!

Why California’s gay marriage vote matters nationally

The University of Southern California’s Initiative and Referendum Institute has a fascinating new report on Proposition 8, which seeks to outlaw gay marriage in California.

Besides walking readers through a history of gay marriage measures in other states, the report offers a succinct analysis of why so much — money, effort, time — has been dumped into this campaign.

As the report states: "The huge amount of money being channeled to fight this proposition, despite its minimal economic impact, reflects the view of both sides that California is a critical firewall in the battle over gay marriage. Rejection of Proposition 8, in effect a popular affirmation of the right to gay marriage, would provide tremendous momentum to the gay rights side, especially since it comes in a huge state that is seen by many as a trendsetter."

The report adds that campaign finance reports show out-of-state contributions to both the Yes and No campaigns for Prop. 8 are high. It concludes that "Spending on Proposition 8, currently at $55 million, is likely to reach a record level for a social issue."

That dovetails with something my colleague at the Register, Marla Jo Fisher, told me — that her mother, in Utah, that the Mormon church is asking residents there to urge their California friends to support Prop. 8.

This measure, clearly, means something to activists across the country. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out on Nov. 4.

And speaking of the Register, blogger "Jubal" takes on the Register's anti-Prop. 8 editorial on the Red County Blog, making some excellent pro-8 arguments I recommend you check out. Here's a little sneak peak:

What individual right, pray tell, had been taken away prior to the state Supreme Court decision? Was there a prior "right" to same-sex marriage?

No, there was not. The court cited the domestic partnership laws that had been passed during the last decade and decided those created second-class citizenship for gays - never mind that domestic partnerships aren't limited to gay people, or that they were passed in order to give more legal rights to gay couples.

And it bears mentioning that Prop. 8 is not simply "a majority vote, legislative enactment or administrative decision." It is a proposed constitutional amendment, and in case the esteemed libertarian hands at the Reg have forgotten, we the people have the right to alter or abolish any form of government that is destructive of our liberties - and I think the judicial despotism of which the Reg approves qualifies. That's why the Founders gave us the amendment process, so we could do the altering peacefully.

Read the whole post at http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/10/oc-registers-anti-prop-8-edito/ - and engage in the conversation!

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Scientific Proof

"According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. And he doesn’t say this for sentimental reasons. He says it because it’s sound science.

"'In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental...at every phase of the life cycle...social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father...The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.'”

To read the full article click here. Just another reason why I will be voting YES on Prop 8.

Why I Support Prop 8

I have thought a lot about Proposition 8 and the argument that some put forth that even if someone is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, the government should not be permitted to ban it because “you can’t legislate morality.”

This argument can be very daunting for good people who are understandably afraid of being accused of discrimination or being labeled as bigots or worse. It is important to remember, however, that all laws are based on a set of moral beliefs and always have been. From the earliest times, governments have enacted laws because they felt that certain actions were morally wrong—and should consequently be punished—or that other actions were morally right—and should be rewarded. If you think about it, you will realize that this is true and actually fairly obvious.

For example, we have laws that provide tax incentives to people that buy hybrid cars because our society has decided that it is morally correct to conserve more energy and use less oil. On the other hand, our society has enacted laws that limit a person’s right to smoke because we have decided that smoking can have detrimental effects those around the smoker.

Laws regarding marriage are no different. Governments recognize marriages because marriages stabilize society, promote families, and have other positive impacts. For a society to survive and even prosper, procreation is essential. Promoting families is perhaps the best way to encourage procreation and there is no argument that children do best when they are raised in a home with both a mother and a father. Children need strong families with both positive male and female parental influences. This arrangement has been proven to have an extremely beneficial impact on society and this is the reason why government has the right to endorse only those marriages that are between a man and a woman.

In some countries in Europe, for example, the economy and structure of the society are being severely impacted in a negative fashion because of declining birth rates.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DB143FF93BA1575BC0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

In Italy, the government has actually passed a law to pay families to have children:
http://www.mommiesonline.net/health/low-birth-rates.php

Proposition 8 does not take away an individual’s right to live or interact with another person in whatever manner or fashion they choose. Indeed, those that choose to do so are entitled already to receive additional rights as domestic partners. Proposition 8 states only that the state does not have to promote those relationships by calling it “marriage.” If Proposition 8 passes, marriage will be reserved for only those relationships that are between a man and a woman. This traditional definition does not take away the rights of anyone. It does, however, benefit everyone by promoting relationships that have a proven benefit to society because it encourages children and families that can best nurture those children.

Please do not be intimidated by those who protest that, because you support traditional families, your support of Proposition 8 means that you are imposing your morality on them. Every individual is free to make his or her own decisions and will be if Proposition 8 passes. As a society, however, we have the right to encourage behavior that is beneficial to the society as a whole. That is what Proposition 8 does and that is why I support it.

Greg

Iowa: Following in California's footsteps

Another same-sex marriage ruling is expected to anyday - its verdict will or won't allow for same-sex marriage in Iowa. If the lawsuit goes pro-marriage, it will make Iowa the fourth state (and the first in the Midwest) where such a marriage is legal.

With this in mind, I came across this editorial from The Daily Iowan - the editorial board piped up against Prop. 8.

Lucky for us, it has a comments board.

And so, I'd encourage my fellow Californians to hop over there and voice in why you disagree with the editors and instead support 8.

Even if you've never given Iowa a passing thought before in your life.

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com

Stop Shopping!

Ok, so what does shopping have to do with Prop 8? Let me tell you. The following was an email sent to me by a close friend. After reading it I joined in the support and have contacted Urban Outfitters and decided to stop shopping at my FAVORITE stores until they decide to show equal support for Prop 8. Please take a moment to read the following and feel free to show your support by calling or emailing the contact below:


Hi everyone,

A family friend of mine was recently shopping in an Urban Outfitters store in Sacramento, Ca with her teenage son when they saw a t-shirt for sale that says: "I support same-sex marriage". To verify I called a retail store here in California and indeed they are selling the shirt. I asked if they are also selling any sort of t-shirt that supports traditional marriage and the manager said they are not. I have called Corporate to express my disappointment and I encourage everyone to do likewise. (UO online is not currently selling the shirt).

Here is their contact information:
1.877.598.7726
To email click HERE.

Anthropologie and Free People are also part of the same company and all 3 target the youth/young adult population. I will not be shopping at their stores anymore and hope you will do likewise.

Yes on Prop 8!

Sincerely,
Prop 8 Supporter

Calling all Californians -- Yes on Prop. 8

Hi -- I wrote my feelings about Proposition 8 on my blog yesterday and received an invitation to post it here on the Preserving Marriage for California's Future blog. My privilege! Read below:

I hesitate to write something political on my blog. I know others do all the time, but I like to keep mine mainly about food and fitness. But in this case, I just want to express my views about what's happening in California right now with Proposition 8. It's an ugly fight. It's sad that we have to fight about it.

This proposition is the same as Proposition 22, which won in California's 2000 election with a 61% vote. Its states "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

I voted yes in 2000 and was upset when I heard in May of this year that 4 members of the California Supreme Court found a loophole in the previous proposition (it hadn't been written into the California State Constitution) and reversed the vote of the citizens. I was upset first of all that the voice of the people was being ignored. It made me feel like I could vote for anything and it wouldn't matter, because a few in office could just decide that they had the power to fulfill their political desires at the neglect of the people. I was ready to leave the state. California has been our home for many years, but if the values do not reflect mine and I can't have a say in them, I'd rather move to a state who is willing to respect them.

I was happy to hear that the proposition would be on the ballot again this November. If Proposition 8 passes, it will become a state amendment and cannot be overturned.

From what I understand, the only states in our country that allow same-sex couples to be married are Massachusetts and Connecticut. New York recognizes same-sex marriages from out of state. Vermont and New Jersey both grant the same rights to same-sex couples in a civil union as they do for married couples. This is where California stood before the supreme court overturn.

California already has the same laws in place as New Jersey and Vermont. The No on 8 signs say "Equality for All" and are alluding to the idea that if Proposition 8 passes, that gay couples will not have equal rights. There is already a Domestic Partnership law in California that states that they do have all those rights that a state can grant to married couples. Yes on 8 would not reverse that or change it in any way.

Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. I respect the rights of others to choose how they live their lives and form their homes, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else. Changing the definition of a societal institution is not a right. Being treated with kindness, love and dignity is. I wouldn't treat anyone any other way.

I've been walking neighborhoods and have been making phone calls for the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign and it saddens me that there are so many assumptions about those who would vote "Yes." I have found that people of all opinions are much nicer in person than on the phone. Maybe it's the face to face contact -- enjoying each other's company, seeing into each other's hearts that helps keep the comments kind when in person. But on the phone, I've been told we are bigots, that we don't care about others' rights and freedom, that we shouldn't tell others what to do with their lives, and quite a few more choice words. I haven't engaged in the arguments. I don't think I would or could change any minds. I just thank them for their opinions and go on. I know if I met these same people on the street or in the store, we would smile and talk and assume each other as friends. That's how it is in our community. We care and we share.

I have friends from long ago and recent friends who are homosexual. I have a few relatives who are too. I don't treat them any different than anyone else. I enjoy their company and see the magnitude of their beings. I just have to make that clear because a friend of mine saw a bumper sticker on another mom's car at preschool that said, "8 is Hate -- Vote No on 8." I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Everyone I know who is in favor of Proposition 8 has no hatred whatsoever towards people who are gay.

I do believe, however, that if the same-sex couples had the title of marriage for their union (which is the only thing a "No" vote on this proposition would give -- as I mentioned before, they already have all the rights of married couples), there would be a lot of changes that would impact my family and the rights of me as a parent. I want to protect my rights and freedom. I want to protect my children from being indoctrinated without my consent.

I just went to the No on 8 website to see what it was about and saw that they are claiming the Yes on 8 ads stating that children will be taught about gay marriage in school if this doesn't pass isn't true. I can't see how they can claim that. This is already being done here in California and has been done in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal. First of all, just last week, a first grade class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a gay wedding. That sounds like educating the children about gay marriage to me. Secondly, there have already been initiatives on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk to be signed last year, wanting to change the textbooks for school children to reflect the gay lifestyle. Another bill came across his desk recently to declare a day in school for Harvey Milk -- the first gay politician in California -- to teach the children about him and his significance. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that.

I don't understand how it's seen as okay for the values or morals of one group to be taught at a school when it's universally known now that schools are not the place to teach religion. If I had proposed a day for the school children to learn about Jesus, the life he lived and the influence he's had over time, there would be no question that this wasn't appropriate for school. Some parents would be outraged and many would support that. It's something that parents have the right to teach in their homes. They want to send their children to school, not worrying that the teachings will contradict the beliefs they hold & teach at home. Yet other differing morals like homosexuality is seen as a right for children to be taught at school by many. Just because homosexuality is not a religion doesn't mean it's a value-based teaching that doesn't belong in the schools.

I saw this video clip earlier this week about a family in Massachussetts who learned abruptly with their Kindergartner how the schools saw their role in teaching their son. I don't want my rights as a parent to be taken from me like it was for them. There's definitely more to the "No on 8" vote than meets the eye.

Here's the clip: family research council video

Here's the Yes on 8 website if you want to learn more about that position: protectmarriage.com

If you don't agree with my stance on this, I hope you don't get angry or think I'm being unfair. We just see things differently and I respect that. I hope we can still share in discussions about food, fitness, and family. TTFN! -- Renee

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

First Grade Class Taken To Gay Wedding

I got this story off of another Proposition 8 blog.

A first-rade class in San Francisco was taken to their lesbian teacher's wedding for a field trip. This is an example of our children being taught at school that same sex marriages are okay.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&hw=lesbian+wedding+field+trip&sn=001&sc=1000

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

The Desert Sun

The Desert Sun in Palm Springs, California wants to know where all the Pro Prop 8 people are. This surprises me, because I happen to see us everywhere.

It says:

Why am I not seeing many personal displays of support for Proposition 8 around town? Please, “Yes on 8” people, stand up and let your community know how you feel.

Proudly plant that lawn sign so your gay neighbors will know you think their loving relationships are not equal to yours.

Happily sport that Pro-8 button so the gay people checking your groceries, serving your dinner and cleaning your house can know you view them as second-class citizens.

Firmly plant that sticker on your bumper so your church parking lot will still proclaim “Yes on 8” while you are inside listening to words of tolerance and love.

Really. Gay people want to know who you are.

Sure, you say it's nothing personal; it's a religious thing; it's about activist judges overturning the will of the people.

But c'mon, we all know what you are really thinking.

Why don't you Proposition 8 supporters display the courage of your convictions and say it to our faces?

David Lee Palm Springs

There are some great comments posted, let's head over there and add some more.

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20081011/OPINION02/810100347/1026/news12

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Why one gay couple supports Prop. 8

While going through my Google alerts, I found this letter written by John and Robert, a gay couple who support Prop. 8 because they choose to affirm their families' beliefs and oppose the disrespect shown by some in the GLBT community that openly mock the religious beliefs of others.

I post only part - for the rest, see http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/gay-men-support-prop-8/

The backlash we face is significant, but the activists never thought about this.

Churches have a RIGHT to worship in peace as they choose. NOBODY has a right to disrupt, intimidate, protest, or disrespect these services, no matter what their agenda is.

While I may not agree with many of the Church’s doctrines and teachings, out of respect and tolerance I remain humble, quiet, and respectful during the proceedings.

I take great offense to anyone in MY community who demands the “right” to get married, yet thinks nothing of trampling the rights of others to worship in peace as they choose and believe.

Proposition 8 has forced us and others like us to make a choice: A choice between “going with the flow” and voting as gay men OR protecting our families values, their right to worship in peace, and their right to their religious institutions (like marriage).
We have news for many in our community: When our community condones, supports, or tacitly approves of such baiting tactics, then you can bet we will cross lines. We will protect our families and all the beliefs they hold dear regardless of what mainstream West Hollywood or San Francisco will be doing.

Prior to this ballot measure, we were really indifferent to the whole
matter. However, as voters and as a gay couple it has now gotten personal. We
are now being asked to make a choice between our families and our community.

We have news for all those angry-bitter people in our community; we choose to protect our family from the gay activists who threaten our families’ beliefs and religious institutions. This is a no-brainer.

Please take the time to comment on John and Robert's letter and show them your support - I'm sure they'd appreciate it!

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Sometimes love just ain't enough

One of the major arguments I've heard in favor of Prop. 8 is that people should be able to marry the one they love.

Love is wonderful - but I disagree that love is all it takes to create a marriage.

If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

Widening the definition of marriage opens a Pandora's box. If it's all about love, then why can't adults marry children, if both consent? Why outlaw polygamy or polyandry? Leaving it to just a matter of love opens a wide gate. Marriage has never fundamentally been about just love - hence laws against marrying close relatives. It's a sociological institution that fosters perpetuating the species, and that can't be done naturally in a same-sex union.

In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) are unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this decision paves the way for same-sex "marriage." But in an ironic way, the Court's rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermines any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.

The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy, successful society. Paul Nathanson, a homosexual scholar, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves -- things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

· Foster the bonding between men and women
· Foster the birth and rearing of children
· Foster the bonding between men and children
· Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
· Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that "children need mothers and fathers" and "marriage is the most practical way to get them for children."

Also, regarding the argument likening this to breaking down interracial marriage bans: this analogy is not valid at all. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women is both a worthy goal and a part of the fundamental purpose of marriage, common to all human civilizations.

Laws against interracial marriage, on the other hand, served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage.

Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.

Hat tip: the Family Research Council's Q&A about why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/

Denying rights - but whose?

My uncle Jeff wrote this insightful letter to the editor that I'd like to share with you:

In the recent vice presidential debate, both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin declared their support of equal rights for gays and lesbians but opposition to same-sex marriage. Last summer, four Justices of the California Supreme Court decided that equal rights required same-sex-marriage. The difference between Biden/Palin and the Court is the meaning of “equal.” Proposition 8 allows Californians to choose between Biden/Palin’s and the Court’s concept of equal rights.

In an effort to grant rights to some, the Court’s approach runs the danger of denying rights to others. In Canada, it is a crime, “hate speech,” for ministers to teach that God condemns homosexuality. The Catholic Charities in Boston closed rather than comply with a government requirement that the Charities facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples. A Methodist facility in New Jersey lost its tax-exempt status because it refused to celebrate a same-sex civil union on its premises.

Limiting speech, closing religious organizations, and economically penalizing those who reject same-sex marriage is not equal and is destructive of rights. Equal treatment based on respect for our differences is the true expression of equal rights.

This issue is too important to let four people decide. Voting “Yes” on Proposition 8 puts California law back as it was before the Court redefined marriage. Reversing the Court’s ill-advised decision allows further deliberation so that future governmental action does not benefit some at the expense of others.

I have strong personal opinions on the subject of same-sex marriage. Many on both sides of the issue do. That is not the point. The question is how to accommodate persons of differing beliefs so that the rights of all are equally protected. Voting “Yes” on Proposition 8 allows this debate to continue without forcing a premature, one-sided and unequal end to the discussion.

For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/