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
Voice of the Nation on now!
Monday, March 23, 2009
VT senators approve gay marriage 26-4
Vermont marriage vote to come TODAY
Hi, folks!
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
Legislative Directory
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
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Redefine marriage? Merriam Webster's already has
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.
Countdown: two hours to "Voice of the Nation" debut
Hi, friends!
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.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Marriage talk show to hit the Web waves Thursday at 2 p.m.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
U.S. to sign U.N. gay rights bill
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.)
Anyways.
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.
VT pushes for gay marriage despite drop in civil unions
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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Vermont to consider same-sex marriage this week
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.
Great video on fortifying the family
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.
Friday, March 13, 2009
BREAKING: Obama admin. sets pro-gay marriage and abortion agenda at UN TODAY
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 . . .”
Developing….
Link to document:
http://data.unaids.org/publications/irc-pub02/jc520-humanrights_en.pdf
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.
**signature
(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!)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Live Tweets of the CA Prop. 8 marriage hearings
Tune into the Prop. 8 court hearings!
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!)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
(RUMOR): 200,000 gay protestors plan to disrupt LDS General Conference
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.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Less Shouting, More Talking
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.
"I thought you guys had already voted on that thing"
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!
Monday, March 2, 2009
CA legislature urges the overturn of Prop. 8
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.
http://www.capitolresource.org
*****
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.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Prayer Day for Prop 8
Just got this email from the ProtectMarriage.com folks, probably just like many of you.
* * *
Dear Friend,
Proposition 8 was put before the people of California, and by a wide margin of 600,000 votes became a part of the California Constitution (Article 1, Section 7.5). Next Thursday, March 5, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to determine whether the sovereign will of the people should be upheld, and whether marriage between only a man and a woman will stand.
This is the most important legal issue impacting families in a generation. The outcome of this case is “do or die” for traditional marriage. If the California Supreme Court were to overrule the vote of the people (for the second time) it would not be long before homosexual marriage is the law of the land across this country.
ProtectMarriage.com, the committee responsible for enacting Prop 8, urges you and all our supporters to take action. We are declaring this Sunday, March 1, to be a Day of Prayer for Marriage.
Proposition 8 was supported by over 7 million voters, and we call on those who support traditional marriage to pray for it to be upheld. Please ask the Lord for wisdom for the Justices of the California Supreme Court. Pray, also, for those who oppose this amendment to our Constitution, that they would understand our motivation is to affirm traditional marriage, not to offend any person or group.
Activists who oppose Prop 8 are organizing a candlelight vigil in several cities for March 4, followed by a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court building in San Francisco on March 5. Organizers against Prop 8 are calling for a march of 100,000 people to the Court building (click here to view their events list). It has come to our attention that many Prop 8 supporters are also making plans to appear at the steps of the Supreme Court building on the morning of March 5. We welcome your participation, but request that all messages on homemade signs affirm traditional marriage, avoiding offensive statements regarding alternative lifestyles. If you are in close proximity to San Francisco, plan to arrive by 8 a.m. at the court, located at 350 McAllister. We do not wish to provoke or permit any kind of confrontation with our opponents. Please avoid any such activity carefully. Our only purpose is to remind the media, Californians and Americans everywhere that support for traditional marriage is the majority position in the state. Twice now voters have supported traditional marriage and rejected gay marriage. We won the Prop 8 election. The constitution has been amended. The will of the people should now prevail.
ProtectMarriage.com is the only group that will appear before the Supreme Court to uphold the vote of the people enacting Prop 8 and affirm traditional marriage as the law of the land. The upcoming Day of Prayer will provide a vehicle for all our supporters to express their own support for traditional marriage and to call on God, the author of marriage, to bless the arguments our attorneys will present to the Court and to grant the justices wisdom as they consider the arguments.
Thank you for your support of Proposition 8. Please participate in the Day of Prayer this coming Sunday and, if you are in proximity to San Francisco, come to the steps of the Supreme Court building at 8 a.m. on March 5 to show your support for Prop 8.
To make a financial contribution to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, click here.
Thank you so much for your attention and support.
Very truly yours,
ProtectMarriage.com, Yes on 8
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The dangers of complacency
Here's a quick quote of the day for you to mentally chew on:
I always knew I liked him, but wow - so insightful beyond his scientific brilliance!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tea Party Movement: Mad as... you know where...
If I were to look up a clip to describe how I'm feeling about the many ways in which legislators and politicians are trampling all over the Constitution and the voice of the people these days (i.e. the Assembly and Senate resolutions to overturn Prop. 8 and, well, basically everything Pres. Obama is proposing, it seems), I'd have to go no farther than this clip from Network: (pardon the G-D that he drops):
STAND UP AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD THIS FRIDAY!!!
I'm sure by now that many of you have heard about the "Chicago Tea Party" movement, but for those of you who haven't, here's the scoop:
CNBC's Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" Thursday, drawing cheers from the trade floor in Chicago (see clip below). As a result, Santelli sparked the rallying cry to revolt against the Obama Administration's mortgage bailout plan.
As a result, dozens and dozens of grassroots protests have been planned across the nation for Friday, Feb. 27. Web sites have popped up all over the place with information (here's the "official" site with lots of location links), many referencing the Boston Tea Party of old, a tipping-point event that moved toward the American Revolution.
In putting this together, I'm amazed by how many tea parties are springing up across the nation! Google "Chicago tea party," and you'll see what I'm talking about. Driving forces behind this include #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and the blogger extraordinaire, Michelle Malkin (click here for her excellent article on the movement).
Here's a short list of the events I know of in California. Many of the events are being organized via Facebook. If you know more (especially the Bay Area - surprise, surprise, nothing's come up in my searches), please let me know in the comments, and I'll add them in to the list!
SAN DIEGO: Just north of the Star of India on San Diego Bay - starts at 9 a.m. (I'll be at this one, if you want to say hi!)
LOS ANGELES: Santa Monica Pier - starts at 9 a.m. (Santelli's also planning one for July 4)
SACRAMENTO: California State Capitol, North Steps, L Street Sacramento - starts at noon
FRESNO: "Virtual" tea party March 2-9
***********************************
I know this isn't a California one, but we've got a fair number of Utah readers, so, FYI, there's a protest in SALT LAKE CITY slated for Friday at 10-11 a.m. at the Utah State Capitol.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Glenn Beck on what he forecasts ahead
Hi, friends -
There is so much to say on the topic of gay marriage right now, between Hawaii becoming the fifth state to legalize same-sex unions and with all the Prop. 8 bashing at last night's Oscars (but, seeing as it's Sean Penn, were we surprised? Not at all. Bring on the "shame.") - but for tonight, I'd like to share this clip by Glenn Beck. He strikes a chord that's played heavily on my mind lately: preparedness.
It is so important to be self-sufficient and to prepare for what's ahead. Latter-day Saint leaders have emphasized this for years and years, but I worry that those of other faiths (or of no faith, for that matter) haven't heard this message as clearly. Please, friends, do what you can now to stock your pantries and to get out of debt. Things will continue to get grimmer economically, and it's vital to be ready for the worst-case scenario. Think of New Orleans after Katrina, or of Manhattan immediately after the towers fell at 9/11.
And remember, Noah didn't wait for the raindrops to fall before he built the ark. The sun was shining, and people called him crazy, but when the deluge hit, He was blessed greatly for following God's counsel and not man's. Let's learn the same lesson.
Monday, February 16, 2009
BIG NEWS: CA lawmakers consider resolutions to oppose Prop. 8
Tomorrow morning (Tuesday, February 17th) at 10:30 a.m., The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Proposition 8, followed at 12:30 p.m. by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.
THIS IS WRONG!!! The people of California have spoken - the lawmakers who the people voted into office (lest they forget who they're representing) have a responsibility to protect the people's voice, not to disregard it!
Several of my DNA colleagues and others who want to preserve traditional marriage will be there to represent the votes of the nearly seven million California citizens, whom these legislators fail to represent. If you can make it, attend the hearing. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family.
Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5
(916) 319-2042
Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov
Van Tran - Vice Chair (Rep-68)
(916) 319-2068
Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov
Julia Brownley (Dem-41)
(916) 319-2041
Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov
Noreen Evans (Dem-7)
(916) 319-2007
Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov
Dave Jones (Dem-9)
(916) 319-2009
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
Steve Knight (Rep-36)
(916) 319-2036
Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov
Paul Krekorian (Dem-43)
(916) 319-2043
Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
Ted W. Lieu (Dem-53)
Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov
William W. Monning (Dem-27)
(916) 319-2027
Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov
Jim Nielsen (Rep-2)
(916) 319-2002
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
Dean Florez: Phone: (916) 651-4016; Fax: (916) 327-5989
Tom Harman: Phone: (916) 651-4035; Fax: 916 445 9263
Mark Leno: Phone: (916) 651-4003
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
CA Supreme Court to hear marriage case March 5
The hearing is one of the most anticipated in the court's history. Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 will make their case about whether the measure should be invalidated. Pro-gay marriage groups filed a lawsuit after the November election, saying the gay marriage ban violated the state Constitution.
Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown at first said he would defend Proposition 8, but then he changed his mind and argued that it was unconstitutional. Backers of the measure have filed briefs supporting the ban. According to the court, justices will consider three issues:
-- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (Christa's note: I believe Jerry Brown already said no on this point)
-- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
-- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
American News Project's "investigation" not truly investigative journalism
My investigative journalism professor, Joel Campbell (aka the Mormon Media Observer), wrote this piece for MormonTimes.com that I thought you'd all enjoy:
Investigation, secrecy, documents, Oh My!
The American News Project is promoting a news video "investigation" of the LDS Church's support of Proposition 8. While this film could be called an advocacy documentary or simply propaganda, please don't call it quality journalism or even "news."
It's produced by Steve Greenstreet, who identifies himself as a former Mormon missionary who produced the documentary "The Divided State" about Michael Moore's and Sean Hannity's visits to Utah Valley State College.
Set to the drone of sinister music you might expect in a spy thriller, Greenstreet lays out his case about "two contradictory stories" that have emerged after the Proposition 8 battle. In essence, Greenstreet implies there is a cover-up by the LDS Church.
Having revealed "undisclosed" audio tapes and transcripts, he points out the LDS Church helped provide Web sites, phone banks and a satellite broadcast that were never accounted for in campaign contributions. Of course, the writer emphasizes twice that the California Fair Political Practices Commission is also "investigating." Greenstreet doesn't explain how he obtained the undisclosed documents. Such transparency is a hallmark of good reporting. He also does not say where the California inquiry has gone.
This kind of framing, coupled with a steady stream of anti-Mormon signs and footage of protests at LDS temples, is propaganda rather than balanced news reporting. So, first is this latest work news or investigative journalism? No, there is not much new in this report. Investigative journalism, by definition, means reporters bring something new to light. Most of the report is simply a rehash of things previously reported in the press.
A quick Internet search yields stories with the same information weeks before this report.
However, what Greenstreet does is skillfully juxtapose sinister music, the propaganda of Mormon critics and stereotypes about Mormons. By definition, "propaganda is a one-sided, biased presentation of an issue, trading on emotional appeals and a widerange of rhetorical devices in order to override critical assessment." Producers certainly allowed no room in this report for a dialog about how and when religion can participate in the public arena and even a discussion from both sides about the vagary of rules that govern such things. Instead, viewers are offered implied indictment instead of public-service enlightenment.
The report does not meet the standard promoted on ANP's Web as "dedicated to defending and promoting the public interest through high-quality, investigative video journalism."
One only needs to look at the first two canons of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics to find Greenstreet's shortcomings. The code says: "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible."
The way this news report is produced is a deliberate distortion, first in making the audience believe the reports has uncovered new information and second it's format filled with photographs of anti-LDS signs, protests and innuendo. The only two sources interviewed for the report questioned the LDS Church's motives. The report is alsodismissive of the LDS claims about their position based on spirituality.
The second SPJ canon is to "diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing." There was no evidence of diligence here. Why no LDS voices? There was nothing to indicate Greenstreet contacted the LDS Church, Mormons or others inside the Proposition 8 movement forcomment.
Greenstreet has had some history with this kind of reporting. He's even been lauded for advocacy. Instead of calling this kind of work investigative journalism, please label it advocacy and commentary. The SPJ Code says: "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."
Greenstreet was contacted for response, but did not return a phone call. Space will be provided in a future column if he chooses to respond.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama's civil rights agenda makes Clinton look conservative
I came across this video that discusses Barack Obama's civil rights agenda more in depth and find it interesting how his fight for "civil rights" squashes others' rights:
Note that he commentators bring up some of the same cases we've discussed in light of Prop. 8. Obama's taking a far, far-left stance with dramatic changes regarding same-sex issues and abortion (the Freedom of Choice Act will wipe away all limits on abortions; Obama has already signed an executive order that now allows for taxpayer-funded abortions overseas).
Buckle up, friends - we are in for a ride!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Tom Hanks apologizes for "un-American" Mormon comment
Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as "un-American." I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are "un-American" creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use "un- American" lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have. Sincerely, Tom Hanks.
Pres. Obama looks to repeal DOMA
Send a letter to your representatives. Spread the word. Fight for the family - after all, if we don't, who will?
And so, likewise, I have no problem with laws that push for people to be treated equally. I disagree with discrimination and think people should be judged on the content of their character - not on skin color or sexual preference (although I most certainly do not see the two as the same sort of issue, since one is a noun and the other a verb - but that's a post for another day).
Does voting for same-sex marriage help or hurt politicians?
A new study by Freedom to Marry argues that same-sex marriage is a non-issue that doesn't hurt a politician's electability. The San Francisco Bay Times reports:
I think this is an interesting comment, considering that the point of elected officials is to select people to represent your views in the government.Voting for same-sex marriage or against an attempt to ban same-sex marriage is a safe move for politicians, a new study by the group Freedom to Marry has found. A review of such votes in 21 states by more than 1,100 legislators found that the legislators were consistently re-elected. The report revealed:
* Legislators who voted to end marriage discrimination in California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts had a 100 percent re-election rate in all 499 instances in three consecutive elections.
* Legislators who changed their position from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage had a 100 percent re-election rate in consecutive elections.
* Legislators who voted for marriage equality in their state’s lower house and then sought higher office all won.
* None of 664 legislators from 17 states lost re-election after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“For politicians, standing up for marriage equality is not touching a third-rail; rather, it is a track to re-election,” said Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson. “Legislators should take the findings of this report as proof that there’s no reason to back down from supporting the freedom to marry and opposing anti-gay measures. And those of us outside the legislature should not be afraid to ask our representatives to do the right thing.”
As fellow DNA'er BeetleBlogger said, "This is not the opportunity to forgive and forget or turn the other cheek. It’s time to ask ourselves, 'What’s in the barrel?' and toss out those [bad apples] who pander to corruption and are rotten at the core."
She makes an excellent point - corruption doesn't seem to matter in today's political arena. What on earth has happened to reason, responsibility, common sense and virtue?
Californians have voted twice to uphold traditional marriage and define it as between one man and one woman. I would argue that the "right thing" is to respect the views of your constituency on all issues - especially when it comes to one so fundamentally linked to our society's fiber.
The family is the cornerstone of society - if we chip away at it enough, it will crumble, and we will fall.
Monday, January 19, 2009
DNA Task of the Day: Write the NY Times
Hello, my fellow traditional marriage supporters!
My colleagues in the Digital Network Army (DNA) and I want you to join in our letter-writing campaign today to the editor of the New York Times, following up to the article that ran today about the H8 maps.
NY Times instructions for submitting:
Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers. No attachments, please.
Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com.
Go viral, my dear ones! Thanks for standing up for marriage and for the donors' right to privacy!
Marriage Ban Donors Feel Exposed by List
From the NY Times:
SAN FRANCISCO — In many ways it is a typical map, showing states, highways, cities and streets.
But also dotting the online display are thousands of red arrows, marking spots from Bryn Mawr, Pa., to Jamacha, Calif., identifying the addresses of donors who supported Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly harassed since the election — with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes boycotts of their businesses.
“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”
So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information. In particular, the suit seeks to stop the final filing for the 2008 election, which is due Jan. 31. That filing includes donations made in the closing days of the campaign, when the proposition surged to victory.
James Bopp Jr., a lawyer from Indiana who filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Protect Marriage, said the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters violated their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.
“The cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people’s participation in the process,” said Mr. Bopp, who has argued several prominent cases challenging campaign-finance laws in California and other states. “The highest value in the First Amendment is speech, and some amorphous idea about transparency cannot be used to subvert those rights.”
The election law in question, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was approved by California voters as Proposition 9, and gay rights advocates say there is rich irony in supporters of Proposition 8 opposing the earlier ballot measure.
“They believe in the will of the people if it’s in tune with what they believe,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director with Lambda Legal, the gay rights legal organization, in Los Angeles.
Opponents of Proposition 8 are also suspicious of the intent of trying to prevent donors from being identified. “Do they want to hide something?” said Shannon P. Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.
Mr. Schubert insisted that there was “no smoking gun” and that the filing would show only “modest in-kind contributions” from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church members contributed millions to the “Yes on 8” campaign, and the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating accusations that the Mormon leadership neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions, including phone banks, a Web site and online commercials on the behalf of Proposition 8.
The lawsuit is just one part of the continuing legal wrangling over Proposition 8, whose constitutionality is being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. The court legalized same-sex marriage in May, a decision that was overturned by Proposition 8.
The court is expected to hear arguments on the proposition as soon as March, and will probably also decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed in the state.
Several prominent groups filed or signed on to briefs in recent days expressing opposition to Proposition 8, including civil rights and women’s rights organizations, labor and religious groups, and Google, which created the mapping technology.
In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”
In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been boycotted because of Proposition 8.
Mr. Bopp also said that the level set under California’s campaign law for public disclosure, anything above $100, was too low.
“There certainly would be an amount that would influence more than a few voters,” he said. “But it’s way above $100.”
Opponents of Proposition 8 have condemned any attacks on supporters, but noted that those claiming harassment are already protected by laws. “Violence and vandalism are illegal, and those laws should be enforced,” Ms. Pizer said. “And sadly people on both sides of this issue have experienced some of that.”
Posts
