Judges uphold privacy of Prop. 8 proponents' communiques

* Cool pic, huh? Can't take credit - I snagged it here.

Hey there, readers!

Been a while, hasn't it? Sorry about that - almost immediately following my last post, I lost my job, got walking pneumonia, moved out of state and started a new job and a new life (oh, and I did a production of The Sound of Music in there, too, as Sister Sophia). It's been a little nutty, to say the least, but now that the dust is settling, I'm hoping to get back into the swing of blogging here, even if it's just once or twice a month, to keep you apprised of the latest Prop. 8 / traditional marriage news.

And what better way to return than to share some great news! The Los Angeles Times reports:

Gay marriage supporters challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 lost their bid Friday to see the internal communications of those who supported the initiative when an appeals court ruled that disclosure would violate the 1st Amendment.

Lawyers for two couples denied licenses to marry because they are of the same sex had sought access to e-mails and letters among Proposition 8 backers, hoping to show that the campaign aimed to stir "discriminatory animus" toward gays and lesbians.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco had ordered the initiative backers to make available those documents that reflected the internal thinking of campaign organizers and key contributors.

The Yes-on-8 side, led by the Protect Marriage group, objected to disclosure and turned to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with their arguments that the request was irrelevant and unduly burdensome and that the communications are protected by the 1st Amendment...

"We reverse," the three 9th Circuit judges, all appointees of President Clinton, said in an expedited ruling released Friday afternoon. "The freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas lies at the heart of the 1st Amendment."

Disclosing the inner workings of the Proposition 8 campaign "would have the practical effect of discouraging the exercise of 1st Amendment associational rights," the judges said, adding that the initiative's foes had failed to show that their need to review the
communications outweighed the defendants' rights and interests.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage, said Proposition 8 backers were
"very pleased" with the appellate ruling.

Well, I agree with Andy Pugno - I, too, am very pleased with this ruling. The First Amendment is CRITICAL to preserving our nation's amazing freedoms. Whether or not you agree with people's politics, there are some things that should be sacred cows, and freedom of expression is paramount to that.

As I've always said - "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Trust me, it's something I came across aplenty as a journalist in Orange County's most liberal community. What I thought of the issues and decisions made in the town wasn't important - what mattered was that I provided a platform for both sides to make their opinions and views known. If only that courtesy would go both ways...

It's good to be back. :)

L.A. Times reports No on 8 lead is eroding

The L.A. Times reports this morning that the No on Prop. 8 lead is eroding quickly.

Of course, which side is leading all depends on who you ask - which means it will be a close race, to say the least. Here's what the Times has to say:

While California voters remain closely divided on the question of gay marriage, a majority oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

But the poll also found that support for Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage, has gained somewhat since a similar survey was taken in late August. The latest results show 44% in favor and 52% opposed, with a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points.

Recent polls commissioned by groups for and against the initiative have showed it passing, though most political analysts put less faith in polls funded by partisans than in those conducted by independent groups like the Public Policy Institute.

The institute's president, Mark Baldassare, predicted that the election would be close. Polls on the more general question of how voters feel about gays and lesbians marrying have consistently shown a deeply divided electorate, with voters split almost evenly and passionate feelings on both sides.

With huge turnout expected from younger voters and independents, the election is filled with uncertainties, and polling experts say it poses special challenges for pollsters.

Oh, also be sure to check out this cool graphic that shows where the money is coming from on both the Yes and No sides of the issue. If you scroll over the counties, it also reports how those counties' residents voted on Prop. 22 - pretty cool!

The end is in sight, friends - only 11 days to go! Let's keep up the hard work in these last two weeks!

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/

Google and Prop 8

I received this email and want to pass it along to any Californians who might want to sign this pledge.


Thanks for your support.

Google has just come out in opposition to the California marriage amendment -- a move The LA Times said was an "unusual step."

Google co-founder Sergey Brin made the announcement himself, stating that the marriage amendment's "chilling and discriminatory effect" left Google no choice but to oppose marriage.

Let's be clear... Google has decided to support the radical homosexual agenda. The fact is, homosexual activists are doing everything possible to defeat the three key marriage amendments in Arizona, California and Florida.

Only California residents can turn back these attacks.

That's why I'm asking you to forward this message to your friends across California and urge them to join you in signing Liberty Counsel's "I Will Vote For Marriage" citizen pledge now. Go here:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=11825&PID=18300804

Google thought it was important enough to break its company policy of not getting involved in "social issues" to strongly condemn the marriage amendment.

Will you counter Google and others who are pushing this radical homosexual agenda?

Again, only a grassroots movement of citizens supporting marriage can save marriage in California.

Families across California are counting on you. Quite frankly, the rest of the Nation is counting on you. If marriage is defeated in these key states next month, a tidal wave on pro-homosexual litigation and legislation could sweep from coast to coast.

Please alert your friends to take action!

Mathew Staver

Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel

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

Prop. 8 reportedly takes the lead in a new poll (and other news for Friday morning)

Good morning, friends!

Good news! According to ProtectMarriage.com, a recent poll by San Francisco's CBS 5 shows support for Prop. 8 taking the lead:

Yes on 8 is leading the race, 47% Yes to 42% No, with 10% undecided, according to a new CBS 5 (San Francisco) poll. That is up 3% for Yes and down 7% for No since September 25th - a total of a 10% gain for Yes. On September 25th, CBS 5's poll showed the race at 44% Yes to 49% No, with 7% undecided. Yes on 8 is attributing the gain to their first television ad, which was released last
week, and to their massive door to door campaign.

The ad features footage of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arrogantly speaking of gay marriage, declaring to Californians, "The door's wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!" The ad goes on to remind voters that gay marriage was imposed on California by a narrowly divided California Supreme Court overturning the vote of over 4 million Californians who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22.

"We are thrilled with the new polling data. It confirms what we have heard from thousands of supporters," said Yes on 8 Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. "The ad that is running is powerful and provocative. Not only does it show the arrogance of those who would impose same-sex marriage on California whether we like it or not, but it also shows that voters are beginning to understand there are consequences to all Californians if same-sex marriage is legalized. The ad talks about how people can be sued over their personal beliefs and, most importantly, that gay marriage is going to be taught to children in public schools. Those are real consequences, and voters are concerned about them."

The ad began airing statewide in all television markets last week. Copies of the ad are available on the http://www.protectmarriage.com/ website or by calling the campaign at (916) 446-2956.

In other news, the L.A. Times reports about YouTube videos for Prop. 8 - including this one:



And, finally, CitizenLink has a great article by judicial analyst Bruce Hausknecht that answers the question "Does same-sex 'marriage' affect my marriage?" Here's a sample - please go click on the article so they can see the support via page views:

A church that holds a biblically orthodox view of marriage and sexuality could lose its tax-exempt status as a result of the recognition of special rights for one sexual behavior.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a New Jersey United Methodist organization, lost part of its property tax-exemption for refusing to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property. Additionally, it is being investigated and charged with violating the state's nondiscrimination statutes. The church is still locked in litigation. And if you thought statutory "religious exemptions" would protect churches, forget it. New Jersey has one, and it hasn't stopped the government persecution of this church.

Parents are losing the right to oversee/direct the sexual education of their children in states like Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriage" is recognized as the moral equivalent to natural marriage.

The Parker and Wirthlin families in Massachusetts lost a federal lawsuit in 2008 when they asked to be informed when the teacher was going to address issues of sex and family. They were rudely informed by not one but two federal courts that any parental rights stopped at the schoolhouse door. Their right to control their children's moral upbringing did not supersede the homosexual agenda in Massachusetts. In the words of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: "Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition."

The two children involved in the suit attended kindergarten and first grade. The gist of the state's argument, with which the court agreed, is that the earlier the state can indoctrinate our kids, the less likely that the values (the court called them "attitudes and stereotypes" of course) taught at home can corrupt them. Think about that for a moment.

Google Alerts are amazing. If you want to keep in the loop on Prop. 8 news, sign up. Or just come here, and I'll try to keep you in the loop as best as I can.

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