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/

Whether we like it or not?!

I'm sure many of you have seen this 30-second ad from the Yes on Prop. 8 coalition - but if you haven't, take half a minute to watch:



Whether we like it or not, huh? I'm sorry, but that just smacks right against the whole American democracy system upon which our country was founded.

Funny how "tolerance" really boils down to "being tolerant with those who agree with us."

Also - I ran across these pro-8 letters to the editor in the Pasadena Star-News. Feel free to go show these letter writers your support!

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

Shop for the Vote

Ok, so maybe my post "Stop Shopping" was a little harsh for some of you. If you're just dying to swipe that plastic, maybe you should buy yourself one of these:

Now you can be stylish AND supportive. Click HERE or visit the online store at protectmarriage.com. Happy shopping!

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/

Prop. 8 in plain English

Happy Monday!

I found just came across this YouTube video and think it breaks down the basics on Prop. 8 pretty well - check it out!



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/

Interfaith fast TOMORROW!!!

Tomorrow Sunday, October 12th we are having a fast to support proposition 8. Please join me in fasting tomorrow, the Las Flores Ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been invited to participate in this very important fast. I know many other wards in the area and other churches around the country are joining in this important fast. My bishop has asked us to spread the word to our friends and family members. I sent out a mass email. You can help by fasting and doing the same. It is important we faithfully pray and seek the Lord in this important cause.

Today I put the Yes on 8 sign in our apartment window. I hope and pray it will make a difference.

Will you join me in fasting tomorrow?

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/