Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thousands in Los Angeles protest gay-marriage ban
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER – 3 days ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Outside the gates of a Mormon temple, Kai Cross joined more than 2,000 gay-rights advocates in a chorus of criticism of the church's role in a new statewide ban on same-sex marriage.
Once a devout Mormon who graduated from Brigham Young University, the 41-year-old Cross was disowned by his family and his church after he was outed as a gay man in 2001.
"They are on the losing side of history," Cross said Thursday of the church's opposition to gay marriage. Cross and other protesters blame leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for encouraging Mormons to funnel millions of dollars into television ads and mailings in favor of Proposition 8.
The ballot measure passed Tuesday, which was sponsored by a coalition of religious and social conservative groups, amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act. It overides a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.
The protest came amid questions about whether attempts to overturn the prohibition can succeed and whether the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California over the past four months are in any danger.
For Cody Krebs, 27, four months was not enough time to fulfill his "intense hope" to marry one day; he and his boyfriend have been together for little more than a year, so they aren't ready to wed.
On Thursday, Krebs dodged eggs hurled at protesters from an apartment building. He said he'd seen worse growing up in Salt Lake City.
"It's important to come out like this because it gets the gay community into the public eye," Krebs said. "I feel like this has started a lot of conversations that had to get started."
The demonstration began outside the temple in the Westwood section of Los Angeles and noisily spilled through the western side of the city, with chants of "Separate church and state" and "What do we want? Equal rights." Some protesters waved signs saying "No on H8" or "I didn't vote against your marriage," and many equated the issue with the civil rights struggle.
Two people were arrested after a confrontation between the crowd and an occupant of a pickup truck that had a banner supporting Proposition 8. One demonstrator ended up with a bloody nose in the fracas. Seven arrests occurred during Los Angeles-area street marches late Wednesday.
The temple protest was organized by the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center. Its chief executive, Lorri Jean, announced a Web-based effort dubbed InvalidateProp8.org to raise money to fight the constitutional amendment.
Gay-marriage proponents filed three court challenges Wednesday against the ban. The lawsuits raise a rare legal argument: that the ballot measure was actually a dramatic revision of the California Constitution rather than a simple amendment. A constitutional revision must first pass the Legislature before going to the voters.
Andrew Pugno, attorney for the groups that sponsored the amendment, called the lawsuits "frivolous and regrettable."
"It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters' decision," he said.
The high court has not said when it will act. State officials said the ban on gay marriage took effect the morning after the election.
"We don't consider it a `Hail Mary' at all," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "You simply can't so something like this — take away a fundamental right at the ballot."
With many gay newlyweds worried about what the amendment does to their vows, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he believes those marriages are still valid. But he is also preparing to defend that position in court.
The amendment does not explicitly say whether it applies to those already married. Legal experts said unless there is explicit language, laws are not normally applied retroactively.
"Otherwise a Pandora's Box of chaos is opened," said Stanford University law school professor Jane Schacter. Still, Schacter cautioned that the question of retroactivity "is not a slam dunk."
An employer, for instance, could deny medical benefits to an employee's same-sex spouse. The worker could then sue the employer, giving rise to a case that could determine the validity of the 18,000 marriages.
Supporters of the ban said they will not seek to invalidate the marriages already performed and will leave any legal challenges to others.
A 2003 California law already gives gays registered as domestic partners nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of married couples when it comes to such things as taxes, estate planning and medical decisions. That law is still in effect.
Associated Press writer Paul Elias in San Francisco contributed to this report.
Michael Swift: "Gay Revolutionary"
This horrible rant was published in 1987.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html
Sunday, November 9, 2008
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8
“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8. This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision. The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself. The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process. It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516). The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”
Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest
SALT LAKE CITY 7 November 2008 The Church issued the following statement today:
It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.
Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.
Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
Catholic Bishop Decries Religious Bigotry Against Mormons
SACRAMENTO 7 November 2008 (This news release was issued by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento) The following statement was released today by Bishop William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento and former Bishop of Salt Lake City, in response to attacks on (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) for supporting California’s Proposition 8, defending the traditional definition of marriage:
“Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western Civilization for millennia.
“The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included — but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.
“Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8.
“As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes.
“I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — coming from the opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically, have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant.
“I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words — and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.”
SOURCE: Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento
“Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western Civilization for millennia.
“The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included — but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.
“Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8.
“As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes.
“I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — coming from the opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically, have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant.
“I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words — and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.”
SOURCE: Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento
Prop 8 Protesters Targeted the LDS Los Angeles Temple
The LDS Temple in Los Angeles was under siege yesterday by 2,000 protesters angry over the Church's role in passing Proposition 8, forcing the closure of the temple.
According to reports, a gay activist called the temple saying they would be protesting outside the temple permanently until there is gay marriage.
Signs were hung from the fence around the temple and protesters screamed in anger, snarled afternoon rush-hour traffic and said, “This isn't going to stop us…If we do this we have a chance.” “We're going to fight it until the world changes,” protesters claimed.
“Shame on you,” chanted the protesters. Outside the temple, grafitti was scrawled on the walls and signs hung, “Go back to Utah,” and “Go to hell Mormons.” Their signs said, “No on H8.”
Protesters promised to go after the Church's tax-exempt status and harass Mormons who had donated to the cause, listed on a website Mormonsfor8.com. The promise was to make the Mormons pay for their role in the passage of Prop 8.
One LDS member in the area said, “I don't quite understand our police response (even though I'm one of the police). If this was happening at a Jewish synagogue or a Catholic church, we would be arresting people for hate crimes. As it is at the moment, protestors are sitting on the walls of the temple and the police are on the grounds inside. Church members in our area were called last night to come down to the stake center and spend the night protecting the building from vandalism -- it's like 150 years ago.”
To see a news report on these events click here.
This was the politics of intimidation and harassment, targeting the LDS church, though many other churches had helped in the effort—and a sample of how the homosexual agenda has spread across the nation. It was like San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsome, said when he illegally started marrying couples in the city before that America was going to have this whether you like it or not.
It will not be about people being able to vote their conscience, or calmly assess the issues and consequences, but about threats and vilification.
Other churches who participated in the effort have not been similarly targeted.
The LDS Church is, of course, in no danger of losing its tax-exempt status. The only donation made to the campaign according to records was $2,078.97, an expense which covered the travel of church leaders who went to California to meet with the coalition. The Church insists that by law it has the right to speak out on moral issues.
Threats from Blogs Target Christians
A Worldnetdaily.com article noted that homosexual blogs have been boiling with threats toward Christians. Burn their [blank] churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on a blog. On another website “Tread” wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives." On another website, a contributor wrote, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
On another website “scottinsf” wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs."
Another blog entry: "If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."
Thus it continues on and on and Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel called the statements "hate crimes" for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs and called on the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and "other leaders within the homosexual lobby" to call for an end to such threats.
Thus, the true colors of some of those who push this agenda are in clear display. It is a kind of domestic terrorism designed to silence and quell anyone who oppose this agenda as it marches through our nation.
On the same day, this happened, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement calling for mutual civility. “No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated or harassed.”
Lawsuits against Prop 8
At least three lawsuits have been or are in the process of being filed protesting the passage of Proposition 8.
Andy Pugno, attorney for the Protect Marriage coalition said, “The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California 's constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People's decision to enact Proposition 8 . . .
“It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected.”
Family Leader's attorneys agree with this estimation.
According to reports, a gay activist called the temple saying they would be protesting outside the temple permanently until there is gay marriage.
Signs were hung from the fence around the temple and protesters screamed in anger, snarled afternoon rush-hour traffic and said, “This isn't going to stop us…If we do this we have a chance.” “We're going to fight it until the world changes,” protesters claimed.
“Shame on you,” chanted the protesters. Outside the temple, grafitti was scrawled on the walls and signs hung, “Go back to Utah,” and “Go to hell Mormons.” Their signs said, “No on H8.”
Protesters promised to go after the Church's tax-exempt status and harass Mormons who had donated to the cause, listed on a website Mormonsfor8.com. The promise was to make the Mormons pay for their role in the passage of Prop 8.
One LDS member in the area said, “I don't quite understand our police response (even though I'm one of the police). If this was happening at a Jewish synagogue or a Catholic church, we would be arresting people for hate crimes. As it is at the moment, protestors are sitting on the walls of the temple and the police are on the grounds inside. Church members in our area were called last night to come down to the stake center and spend the night protecting the building from vandalism -- it's like 150 years ago.”
To see a news report on these events click here.
This was the politics of intimidation and harassment, targeting the LDS church, though many other churches had helped in the effort—and a sample of how the homosexual agenda has spread across the nation. It was like San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsome, said when he illegally started marrying couples in the city before that America was going to have this whether you like it or not.
It will not be about people being able to vote their conscience, or calmly assess the issues and consequences, but about threats and vilification.
Other churches who participated in the effort have not been similarly targeted.
The LDS Church is, of course, in no danger of losing its tax-exempt status. The only donation made to the campaign according to records was $2,078.97, an expense which covered the travel of church leaders who went to California to meet with the coalition. The Church insists that by law it has the right to speak out on moral issues.
Threats from Blogs Target Christians
A Worldnetdaily.com article noted that homosexual blogs have been boiling with threats toward Christians. Burn their [blank] churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on a blog. On another website “Tread” wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives." On another website, a contributor wrote, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
On another website “scottinsf” wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs."
Another blog entry: "If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."
Thus it continues on and on and Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel called the statements "hate crimes" for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs and called on the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and "other leaders within the homosexual lobby" to call for an end to such threats.
Thus, the true colors of some of those who push this agenda are in clear display. It is a kind of domestic terrorism designed to silence and quell anyone who oppose this agenda as it marches through our nation.
On the same day, this happened, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement calling for mutual civility. “No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated or harassed.”
Lawsuits against Prop 8
At least three lawsuits have been or are in the process of being filed protesting the passage of Proposition 8.
Andy Pugno, attorney for the Protect Marriage coalition said, “The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California 's constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People's decision to enact Proposition 8 . . .
“It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected.”
Family Leader's attorneys agree with this estimation.
Prop 8 Impact on Schoolchildren
Editors' Note: This article was first published at HedgeHogCentral a blog located here: http://www.hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/
Perhaps the most hotly-debated question about Proposition 8 is the measure's impact on schoolchildren. If Proposition 8 fails, will young children be taught that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage? Opponents of Prop 8 have adamantly -- and falsely -- claimed this will not happen. The fact is, Prop 8's leading opponents have been very public for a long time about their goal of teaching schoolchildren about gender orientation at very young ages. What is worse, they have openly promoted strategies for overcoming or circumventing parental objections to such teaching. It is foolish to believe they will not use the same approach to teaching children about same-sex marriage. Why this matters When it comes to private sexual practices generally, I've long been attracted to the view of English actress Beatrice Campbell: "I don't care what [people] do, so long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses." My work colleagues and friends, and anyone who really knows me, know that I consider their personal lives to be just that: personal. All my friends, gay and straight, know I support them in seeking personal happiness. I support California 's already very expansive laws providing for domestic partnerships, which, in Family Code Section 297.5, guarantees to registered domestic partners "the same rights, protections and benefits . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." But marriage is different, and so is teaching schoolchildren. Most seven year-olds still need to learn how to sit up straight and cover their mouths when they sneeze. Kids don't need the schools teaching them about gender orientation -- an arcane and confusing subject to even the most precocious children -- before they have even thought about their own sexual identities. Besides, if we are going to start teaching six year-old children that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, that's a decision that should be made by the people, not by four of the seven judges on the California Supreme Court. The law on teaching schoolchildren about marriage Misinformation about just what California 's Education Code says about marriage has been flying around the internet and on television and radio ads by the No On 8 campaign. There is no doubt, however, what the Education Code requires as to teaching about marriage and families. Here's an excerpt from the key statute, Section 51933:
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria: . . . (7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
(Emphasis added.) According to the California Department of Education's website, 96% of California school districts provide sexual health education that places them under Section 51933's requirements. Can anyone reasonably deny that if Prop 8 fails, the instruction about "marriage" this statute refers to will include same-sex marriage? What Prop 8's leading opponents have said about parental rights The response to these concerns from from Prop 8's leading opponents has been that Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools . Amazingly, even the State Superintendent of Public Education has filmed a television ad promoting this falsehood. Think about it: If the State Supreme Court has defined marriage to include same-sex unions, and schools are required to teach about respect for "marriage and committed relationships," well, it seems pretty obvious that from kindergarten on, kids will be learning about same-sex marriage, doesn't it? But it gets worse. The other response from the No On 8 group has been that parents can simply "opt out" of instruction about gay marriage. This is another deception. The same people who make that claim have argued forcefully that no opt-out rights exist , as long as the instruction is part of "diversity education" encompassing gender orientation. They've even made their case in court. Regarding opt-out rights, an organization called the California Safe Schools Coalition published A Question & Answer Guide for California School Officials & Administrators. The Coalition's Steering Committee includes The California Teachers Association, Equality California, American Civil Liberties Union chapters throughout California, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, and other prominent backers of No On 8 who have already raised millions of dollars to oppose the measure. Here's one of the questions and answers:
Can parents 'opt out' of their children's participation in school programs that discuss sexual orientation and gender identity? State law explicitly provides that “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family law and do not discuss human reproductive organs or their functions” is not subject to the parental notice and opt out laws. Thus, where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs. California law does not support a broad parental veto regarding the contents of public school instruction.
(Emphasis added.) Translation: If you are a California parent and think you have the right to opt your second-grader out of story time because the teacher is reading the students a book about a prince who marries a prince, you should think again. As long as story time is part of a program "designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity," you have nothing to say about whether your child participates. You won't even hear about the book unless your child comes home and mentions it to you. The California Safe Schools Coalition also published on its web site a "Question and Answer Guide to California 's Parental Opt-Out Laws." The Guide's goals include helping educators who are promoting "tolerance and diversity" to circumvent the opt-out laws, as evidenced by this question and answer from that guide:
Do parents have a constitutional right to prevent their children from receiving education in public schools on subjects they disapprove? Almost never. Parents have filed a number of court cases seeking to prevent public schools from teaching their children controversial literature or subjects . . . and have lost virtually every case. Courts have held that so long as the public school curricula are secular and reasonably related to educational goals, parents do not have veto power over the content of public school instruction. . . . Schools may wish to excuse students from non-essential activities (such excusing a Jehovah's Witness student from a Valentine's Day party) but are not legally required to excuse students from curricular activities such as. . . diversity education. The interests of the school and student in education outweigh parents' interests in preventing their children from being exposed to ideas that conflict with religious traditions.
Here's the guide's concluding paragraph:
[By] carefully articulating the purpose and content of diversity education programs, schools can both fulfill their legal duty to ensure a safe and nondiscriminatory school environment for all students, and also avoid violating parents' notice and opt-out rights.
(Emphasis added.) So, you see, it's all a matter of how the schools set up their program. If they do that right, parents have no voice. The next time you hear a No On 8 spokesman tell you that parents need not worry about their kindergarteners being taught about same-sex marriage, think about the Question and Answer Guide to California 's Parental Opt-Out Laws. (Somewhat curiously, the Question and Answer Guide seems to have disappeared from the Safe Schools Coalition's web site. An e-mail correspondent sent me the Question and Answer Guide on October 23. By October 26, as I am writing this post, the guide no longer appears on the internet. The now-defunct URL is here.) Proposition 8 raises serious and controversial issues. Instead of continually dissembling about the real facts and the law, it's time for the opponents of Prop 8 to get serious about addressing those issues. And about telling the truth
Perhaps the most hotly-debated question about Proposition 8 is the measure's impact on schoolchildren. If Proposition 8 fails, will young children be taught that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage? Opponents of Prop 8 have adamantly -- and falsely -- claimed this will not happen. The fact is, Prop 8's leading opponents have been very public for a long time about their goal of teaching schoolchildren about gender orientation at very young ages. What is worse, they have openly promoted strategies for overcoming or circumventing parental objections to such teaching. It is foolish to believe they will not use the same approach to teaching children about same-sex marriage. Why this matters When it comes to private sexual practices generally, I've long been attracted to the view of English actress Beatrice Campbell: "I don't care what [people] do, so long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses." My work colleagues and friends, and anyone who really knows me, know that I consider their personal lives to be just that: personal. All my friends, gay and straight, know I support them in seeking personal happiness. I support California 's already very expansive laws providing for domestic partnerships, which, in Family Code Section 297.5, guarantees to registered domestic partners "the same rights, protections and benefits . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." But marriage is different, and so is teaching schoolchildren. Most seven year-olds still need to learn how to sit up straight and cover their mouths when they sneeze. Kids don't need the schools teaching them about gender orientation -- an arcane and confusing subject to even the most precocious children -- before they have even thought about their own sexual identities. Besides, if we are going to start teaching six year-old children that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, that's a decision that should be made by the people, not by four of the seven judges on the California Supreme Court. The law on teaching schoolchildren about marriage Misinformation about just what California 's Education Code says about marriage has been flying around the internet and on television and radio ads by the No On 8 campaign. There is no doubt, however, what the Education Code requires as to teaching about marriage and families. Here's an excerpt from the key statute, Section 51933:
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria: . . . (7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
(Emphasis added.) According to the California Department of Education's website, 96% of California school districts provide sexual health education that places them under Section 51933's requirements. Can anyone reasonably deny that if Prop 8 fails, the instruction about "marriage" this statute refers to will include same-sex marriage? What Prop 8's leading opponents have said about parental rights The response to these concerns from from Prop 8's leading opponents has been that Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools . Amazingly, even the State Superintendent of Public Education has filmed a television ad promoting this falsehood. Think about it: If the State Supreme Court has defined marriage to include same-sex unions, and schools are required to teach about respect for "marriage and committed relationships," well, it seems pretty obvious that from kindergarten on, kids will be learning about same-sex marriage, doesn't it? But it gets worse. The other response from the No On 8 group has been that parents can simply "opt out" of instruction about gay marriage. This is another deception. The same people who make that claim have argued forcefully that no opt-out rights exist , as long as the instruction is part of "diversity education" encompassing gender orientation. They've even made their case in court. Regarding opt-out rights, an organization called the California Safe Schools Coalition published A Question & Answer Guide for California School Officials & Administrators. The Coalition's Steering Committee includes The California Teachers Association, Equality California, American Civil Liberties Union chapters throughout California, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, and other prominent backers of No On 8 who have already raised millions of dollars to oppose the measure. Here's one of the questions and answers:
Can parents 'opt out' of their children's participation in school programs that discuss sexual orientation and gender identity? State law explicitly provides that “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family law and do not discuss human reproductive organs or their functions” is not subject to the parental notice and opt out laws. Thus, where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs. California law does not support a broad parental veto regarding the contents of public school instruction.
(Emphasis added.) Translation: If you are a California parent and think you have the right to opt your second-grader out of story time because the teacher is reading the students a book about a prince who marries a prince, you should think again. As long as story time is part of a program "designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity," you have nothing to say about whether your child participates. You won't even hear about the book unless your child comes home and mentions it to you. The California Safe Schools Coalition also published on its web site a "Question and Answer Guide to California 's Parental Opt-Out Laws." The Guide's goals include helping educators who are promoting "tolerance and diversity" to circumvent the opt-out laws, as evidenced by this question and answer from that guide:
Do parents have a constitutional right to prevent their children from receiving education in public schools on subjects they disapprove? Almost never. Parents have filed a number of court cases seeking to prevent public schools from teaching their children controversial literature or subjects . . . and have lost virtually every case. Courts have held that so long as the public school curricula are secular and reasonably related to educational goals, parents do not have veto power over the content of public school instruction. . . . Schools may wish to excuse students from non-essential activities (such excusing a Jehovah's Witness student from a Valentine's Day party) but are not legally required to excuse students from curricular activities such as. . . diversity education. The interests of the school and student in education outweigh parents' interests in preventing their children from being exposed to ideas that conflict with religious traditions.
Here's the guide's concluding paragraph:
[By] carefully articulating the purpose and content of diversity education programs, schools can both fulfill their legal duty to ensure a safe and nondiscriminatory school environment for all students, and also avoid violating parents' notice and opt-out rights.
(Emphasis added.) So, you see, it's all a matter of how the schools set up their program. If they do that right, parents have no voice. The next time you hear a No On 8 spokesman tell you that parents need not worry about their kindergarteners being taught about same-sex marriage, think about the Question and Answer Guide to California 's Parental Opt-Out Laws. (Somewhat curiously, the Question and Answer Guide seems to have disappeared from the Safe Schools Coalition's web site. An e-mail correspondent sent me the Question and Answer Guide on October 23. By October 26, as I am writing this post, the guide no longer appears on the internet. The now-defunct URL is here.) Proposition 8 raises serious and controversial issues. Instead of continually dissembling about the real facts and the law, it's time for the opponents of Prop 8 to get serious about addressing those issues. And about telling the truth
Great Editorial on 8
Dear Friends, In the aftermath of the recent election, we may find ourselves oddly on the defensive regarding our support for the Yes on Proposition 8 cause. Our young people have been especially subject to mean spirited comments by high school friends and teachers. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We did nothing wrong. In fact, we did everything that a civic minded American can and should do. I have put together a few facts that help me to appreciate our position better.
For example:
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted. Hold your heads up high – you did a great job on this most important cause. We will have more opportunities in the future to participate in our democratic process. Let's remember the lessons learned and do an even better job next time. These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in now way reflect official Church policy or doctrine.
Thanks, Kevin Hamilton
For example:
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted. Hold your heads up high – you did a great job on this most important cause. We will have more opportunities in the future to participate in our democratic process. Let's remember the lessons learned and do an even better job next time. These are my personal opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in now way reflect official Church policy or doctrine.
Thanks, Kevin Hamilton
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
How can they say this doesn't affect our Children!!!
School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners
By Michelle Maskaly
A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.
During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.
The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."
The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.
Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights.
Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken.
"We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not," said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.
Val Joyner, a school district spokeswoman, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that when deciding what to teach on this subject matter, educators "gather materials from community agencies and other education groups" and that "the materials have grade level indicators which help determine what is age-appropriate."
The district said the pledge cards were intended for middle school and high school students.
Asked last week if the district planned to take action against Miller, Joyner said she would have to look into the incident. On Thursday she told FOXNews.com that she did not have an answer for the question and that she would no longer be doing any media interviews.
Joyner said in an e-mail that Miller, the teacher, "planned to teach students how to become an ally and conflict-mediation through various activities." She added that the district doesn't advocate for a specific cause and/or lifestyle, and it has "no curriculum for gay, lesbian and transgender lifestyles."
The district employs a "Professional Learning Specialist: Equity," who is in charge of gathering material and helping teachers decide what should be taught on the subject matter.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, the group representing Voelker, said parents at the Faith Ringgold School weren't notified of what was going to take place in the classroom.
He said that teaching students as young as pre-school about gay, lesbian and transgender issues is common in California, but that there are "all kinds of material the average parent could find highly objectionable or potentially harmful" to their children.
When asked if the school district did anything wrong, he said, "possibly," but he declined to go into detail or say whether Voelker would sue the district.
Dacus would not comment specifically on whether children who signed the pledge could be held responsible if the school determined that they were not honoring it. He said they are minors and there are certain degrees of limited liability, but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame.
"[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said.
Meanwhile, opponents of gay marriage are up in arms over the incident, which occurred as California voters prepare to vote Tuesday on Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage.
"How do you teach a 5-year-old to sign a pledge card for lesbian, gay and transgender issues without explaining what transgender and bisexual is?" asked Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html
By Michelle Maskaly
A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.
During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.
The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."
The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.
Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights.
Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken.
"We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not," said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.
Val Joyner, a school district spokeswoman, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that when deciding what to teach on this subject matter, educators "gather materials from community agencies and other education groups" and that "the materials have grade level indicators which help determine what is age-appropriate."
The district said the pledge cards were intended for middle school and high school students.
Asked last week if the district planned to take action against Miller, Joyner said she would have to look into the incident. On Thursday she told FOXNews.com that she did not have an answer for the question and that she would no longer be doing any media interviews.
Joyner said in an e-mail that Miller, the teacher, "planned to teach students how to become an ally and conflict-mediation through various activities." She added that the district doesn't advocate for a specific cause and/or lifestyle, and it has "no curriculum for gay, lesbian and transgender lifestyles."
The district employs a "Professional Learning Specialist: Equity," who is in charge of gathering material and helping teachers decide what should be taught on the subject matter.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, the group representing Voelker, said parents at the Faith Ringgold School weren't notified of what was going to take place in the classroom.
He said that teaching students as young as pre-school about gay, lesbian and transgender issues is common in California, but that there are "all kinds of material the average parent could find highly objectionable or potentially harmful" to their children.
When asked if the school district did anything wrong, he said, "possibly," but he declined to go into detail or say whether Voelker would sue the district.
Dacus would not comment specifically on whether children who signed the pledge could be held responsible if the school determined that they were not honoring it. He said they are minors and there are certain degrees of limited liability, but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame.
"[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said.
Meanwhile, opponents of gay marriage are up in arms over the incident, which occurred as California voters prepare to vote Tuesday on Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage.
"How do you teach a 5-year-old to sign a pledge card for lesbian, gay and transgender issues without explaining what transgender and bisexual is?" asked Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html
Saturday, November 1, 2008
More Pictures coming Soon!
Today was so much fun. We were up bright and early out distributing door hangers to our community. They of course promoted Yes on 8 and also gave the polling place for our voters. Please Please Please! Don't forget to vote Tuesday! After that we headed home to grab posters and headed to Main street. When we first got there our corner where we were meeting was taken by No on 8 protesters... they are very angry. We headed down a few blocks and began to assemble. It was so fun to see people of all faiths joining us in the Yes on 8 Campaign. It was awesome!! We had at least 250 people out there. The enthusiasm was contagious! We had some really great signs that we had been working on. "It's Not About Hate! Yes on 8" "Tolerance is a Two Way Street" Tolerance not Tyranny!" "Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman" "Ask Massechuttes" and my favorite "Equality for All Yes on 8". We received a steady flow of honks for Prop 8. Of course we also received a number of flip offs, and variety of colorful names in support for No on 8. Many of us were challenged by the No on 8 Crowd.
They argue that we are homophobes... well does that make them Hetrophobes?
They Scream Bigot and claim they were born that way... I was born with the light of Christ and have a right to believe in the moral values he teaches!
They accuse us of Hate... yet hate our point of view
The insist we tolerate their moral beliefs... yet they refuse to tolerate ours
They deny this will be taught in schools and if it is, just talk to them after the fact...it has already begun and my parental rights are so important to me!
They insist this is about two people loving each other... yet when challenged and questioned about a mother and son marrying because they love each other they cringe and insist that is wrong... we all know that.
This quest has been enlightening for me. Society is good, we can ban together and show the world that we have moral values. We stand up for our beliefs! We will defend the constitution! There may not be a war of blood shed but believe me when I say we are fighting for our families! For our Children! For the Future of America. Join me in the Cause and Vote Yes on Prop 8 on November 4!
They argue that we are homophobes... well does that make them Hetrophobes?
They Scream Bigot and claim they were born that way... I was born with the light of Christ and have a right to believe in the moral values he teaches!
They accuse us of Hate... yet hate our point of view
The insist we tolerate their moral beliefs... yet they refuse to tolerate ours
They deny this will be taught in schools and if it is, just talk to them after the fact...it has already begun and my parental rights are so important to me!
They insist this is about two people loving each other... yet when challenged and questioned about a mother and son marrying because they love each other they cringe and insist that is wrong... we all know that.
This quest has been enlightening for me. Society is good, we can ban together and show the world that we have moral values. We stand up for our beliefs! We will defend the constitution! There may not be a war of blood shed but believe me when I say we are fighting for our families! For our Children! For the Future of America. Join me in the Cause and Vote Yes on Prop 8 on November 4!
Upholding the Constitution
M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
Upholding the Constitution By Orson Scott Card
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.
Roe v. Wade originally allowed abortions only in the first trimester of pregnancy. But through diktat after diktat, without any new law passed by constitutional process, the abortion "right" has come to allow killing a viable baby in mid-birth, or discarding a living baby when it was rude enough to be born breathing in the midst of an abortion.
Now various state courts are declaring that "marriage" must be redefined to include something that "marriage" has never meant in the history of the human race -- a reproductively and socially irrelevant "bond" between persons of the same sex.
As a science fiction writer, it has been my job to look at how the world works now, and then project into the future what might come next -- and, when I can, suggest how negative changes might be remedied.
Full Faith and Credit
Despite their contempt for the Constitution, you can be sure that the proponents of gay marriage will use Article IV of the Constitution to force recognition of gay marriage in states that have not yet had it forced on them by their courts.
Article IV says "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
How does this work? For many years, when most states had tough divorce laws, people who wanted a divorce had to go to Nevada long enough to establish residency, and then get a divorce under Nevada's much easier law.
Then, when they returned to their home state, that Nevada divorce had to be recognized, even though such a divorce would never have been lawful under that state's own laws.
Congress has passed a law declaring that no state has to accept a gay marriage authorized in another state -- but this sort of declaration seems to me likely to be ruled as beyond the scope of what Article IV allows.
Congress can set a standard of proof, but it is hard to imagine the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Congress can simply negate the plain language of Article IV and declare that a marriage contract valid in California can be completely ignored in, say, North Carolina.
One can imagine litigation going on for years. Meanwhile, in state after state, by judicial fiat, gay marriages would be contracted and children adopted by gay couples until it would become nearly impossible to sort out the mess.
Worst Case Scenario...
In California , if Proposition 8 fails to pass, gay-marriage proponents will claim that this constitutes public approval of gay marriage.
Of course this is not true. Many people who have telephoned people about Prop. 8 have heard the person who answers the phone say, "No gay marriage! I am voting no on Prop. 8!" But when you try to explain that if you don't want gay marriage, you have to vote yes on Prop. 8, they often get confused.
But let's step back a little. There should never have been a Proposition 8.
In order to make such a radical change in human behavior and custom, the proponents of gay marriage should have followed constitutional, democratic process and persuaded people to support it until a majority was achieved.
That's what the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution require. And that has not happened anywhere in the U.S.
What was the public emergency that made it so the New Puritans could not wait to persuade people to vote for what they wanted? The only emergency was that they knew that they could not do it. They knew democracy would not choose what they wanted.
Therefore small groups of dictators have simply taken it upon themselves to deny universal human practice and remake the law as they saw fit, without waiting for democratic process.
Their pretexts are laughable, their authority nonexistent. No constitution declares that any court has such a right.
So why is anyone obeying them? Because, in support of their illegal action, the courts can issue writs removing the power of any other state official to resist them. There is no institution that even knows how to begin resisting the illegal usurpation of power by the judicial branch.
No branch of government was ever intended to have the power to dictate new law without other branches of government having a chance to stop them or at least slow them down.
In essence, we have suffered a coup and lost our democracy. A minority is dictating new law against the will of the majority, and will spread it by force throughout the country by using the full-faith-and-credit clause.
This should terrify the proponents of gay marriage, because a process that right now seems to work for them could just as easily, and just as unfairly, be used against them. But they think only in the short term. They don't mind leaving democracy in a shambles and making the Constitution a joke, as long as they get their way on this issue.
As much as I think gay marriage is a terrible idea, grounded on neither science nor common sense, we should be even more concerned that our republic is in the process of ceasing to be in any meaningful sense a democracy.
Amending the Constitution
We need a constitutional amendment declaring that no court, federal or state, can strike down or alter any law passed by a legislative body except when it contradicts the plain language of the applicable constitution, as understood at the time of passage.
The unconstitutional usurpation of powers by the judges must be brought to an immediate stop.
But with Democrats in control of the Congress, there is no chance of getting that body to propose a constitutional amendment that will correct this gross abuse -- again, because they have only seen it used to enact their agenda. Short-sighted as they are, they will not oppose this judicial power until and unless it is used against them. Then, of course, they'll scream bloody murder and behave much more badly than the too-long complacent American moderates and conservatives.
What recourse, then, do we have?
1. Right now most states have majorities of voters who are opposed to gay marriage. Since Congress and the Supreme Court are unlikely to provide any remedy, the Constitution provides an alternative. Article V allows the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call for a constitutional convention, and if they do, Congress is required to call that convention.
If the anti-gay-marriage majorities demanded that their state legislators vote to call such a convention, Congress could do nothing to stop it.
Such a convention can then propose amendments to the Constitution which, if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, would be as valid as any of the amendments originally passed by Congress.
Of course, once such a convention is called, it can propose any amendments it wants; and Article IV is silent on such matters as whether the states would get votes according to their size, or one vote per state.
And even if such a convention confined itself to undoing judicial dictatorship, we would still have to get three-fourths of the states to agree to repudiate authority which the courts were never given!
It should have taken a three-fourths majority to grant that right -- which would never have been granted, since no American majority would ever have agreed to throw away democracy and turn our government over to judges who think they're wiser than the common people.
Peaceful Noncompliance
2. The other recourse is this: We citizens do not have to recognize any attempt by any body of government to redefine a human relationship that existed for thousands of years before any existing government or constitution was established.
No judge, no legislature, no ruler has the right or power to change the meaning of a word. Languages are created by common consent. Governments did not create marriage, they merely regulated it -- requiring blood tests, refusing to grant legal status to marriages between persons too closely related, and deciding when or whether a marriage can be dissolved.
What they don't have the right to do is declare that "marriage" now includes relationships that were never intended when laws regulating marriage were enacted.
Nor do they have the power to force us to change our understanding of marriage. Regardless of what the government says, if we as individuals or communities refuse to accept anything except a heterosexual bond as a "marriage," we cannot be forced to change our mind, our language, or our social behavior.
But they will certainly try. Anyone who doesn't accept homosexual couplings as marriages will be called names and persecuted. Our children will be propagandized to accept "marriages" that we repudiate.
If we take our children to private schools, the state will refuse to certify any school that doesn't join in the propaganda.
If we take our children out of school to teach them at home, the state will declare home-schooling illegal -- there are movements already under way in several states to do exactly that.
Defying the Dictators
The New Puritans who are forcing this on us are dictators at heart, haters of democracy if it doesn't get the results they want. Isn't it ironic that most of them call themselves "Democrats" and call their opponents "fascists"? I guess "marriage" isn't the only word they've redefined.
(For instance, the Democratic Party leadership has openly talked of reinstating the so-called "fairness" doctrine exclusively against conservative talk radio, with the purpose of shutting it down. They hate freedom of speech for anyone who does not agree with them.)
The New Puritans will not rest until every scrap of resistance against them has been beaten down. We know this because this is how they already behave wherever they have power -- universities, news media, schools, and many other institutions already have shown us the mindless extremism of these New Puritans, and how relentlessly they deprive their opponents of their livelihood and reputation.
We saw in 2000 how eager the dictator-judges were to defy and destroy Florida election law in order to elect the U.S. president they preferred.
Meanwhile, any opposition to them is decried as bigotry, because, despite their track record of utter intolerance, the New Puritans claim to have a monopoly on tolerance!
Your ability to raise your children to believe in your religion is already under attack; the New Puritans are quite prepared to use force to take your children and propagandize them to believe the scientifically indefensible dogma that gay marriage is "just the same as" marriage.
What we must make clear is that we will never allow a dictatorship to define what marriages and families are. Those who have taken this dictatorial power have done so illegally and unconstitutionally; we do not have to obey dictators in America ; the Constitution does not require it. Indeed, defending the Constitution requires us to repudiate would-be dictators.
Because of the actions of the dictator-judges, we are required to get three-fourths majorities to restore the Constitution, it is possible that despite the will of the majority, such efforts will fail. A radical minority unconstitutionally forced a new law on us; but they require us to meet the constitutional process in order to overturn their "law."
Unload that Gun
At that point, what can we do? I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence.
Please read a history of the French Revolution. And then the Russian Revolution. Armed rebellion does not restore constitutional government, it most likely replaces one dictatorship with a worse one.
And while you're at it, read a history of the U.S. Civil War and decide if you think that's a good idea. I don't.
What we have to recognize is that Constitutional government has already been overthrown by judges who thought they were smarter and more righteous than us common people. Because the process was incremental, we have allowed it to go on, getting worse and worse, but it is not overthrowing the government to restore it.
They seized power in a nearly invisible coup, but seize it they did, and it's time for us to declare that we've seen their crime and refuse to accept it. As President Goerge H.W. Bush said after Iraq seized Kuwait in 1991, we must say, "This will not stand."
The way to restore the Constitution's requirement that only legislatures are allowed to legislate is simple and peaceful, though it requires more courage and unity than to try answer usurpation with force.
All we have to do is withdraw our support from the dictatorship.
Going on Strike
Conveniently, that portion of American society that supports the written Constitution, and that denies the power of government to redefine marriage, also provides the overwhelming majority of volunteers for the American military and for law enforcement and public safety.
What if Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, orthodox Jews -- and people of any religion who believe in democracy and the Constitution -- all retired from the military or police, or refused to enlist or reenlist as long as they are going to be used to enforce the "laws" made up by dictators?
What if we ceased to put any marriage announcements, obituaries, or want-ads in papers that run "gay marriage" announcements, or even stopped buying those papers at all? The "mainstream" media would quickly discover that they aren't so mainstream after all.
What if we all kept our children at home and refused to allow them to go to propagandizing schools?
How long could our government function if we withdrew all our support?
What if only ten percent of us conducted such open resistance? Or even one percent? How long would the government retain even a shred of legitimacy in other citizens' eyes if they are dragging us off to jail or taking away our children because we have committed the crime of wanting to raise our them in our own religion, or wanting to be subject only to laws passed by Constitutional means?
Along the way, we would declare public strikes: Everyone who rejects judicial dictatorship simply stays home from work and spends no money, anywhere. The first time, for one day. The second time, for two. If people get fired, we will establish strike funds to help them keep going. But we also boycott anyone who fires a striker.
What we need to decide, right now, is that we will not be ruled by dictators, our children will not be propagandized by the New Puritans, and we will not allow any government to redefine marriage.
We have long been disunited and ineffective in our resistance to the encroachment of dictators. We have to decide, now, that they have finally gone too far, striking into the heart of our homes. We will try all the legal remedies available; but if we are unable to dislodge the dictators, we must, without violence of any kind, make it impossible to govern or defend this nation as long as the dictators claim and exercise these usurped powers.
Vote While We're Still Allowed To
Of course, all of this would be completely unnecessary if we were to elect a President and Congress that would appoint and confirm judges who did not usurp power, and who would pass laws denying any state court the right to redefine marriage.
But the media have helped Obama sell the lie that he is the moderate who can bring us together; in fact, Obama is the most radically leftist candidate ever to run as a major party nominee, and he has never shown the slightest willingness to compromise on anything. His judicial appointees would be committed dictator-judges, without exception.
We cannot do anything about whom the voters in the most liberal states choose to represent them in Congress. But we can make sure we choose pro-Constitution candidates in the states where we are the majority.
And we can vote for state legislators who are likely to be willing, when it becomes necessary, to go over the heads of Congress and vote for a constitutional convention to correct these abuses.
Two years of anti-democratic Democratic Party rule would make it clear that we have chosen the foxes to guard the chicken coop. If that should happen, then in 2010, we must try to make the calling of a constitutional convention the most important issue in every state legislative contest.
We can prevail in restoring Constitutional government to America -- if we have the courage to pay the price along the way.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina , and is used here by permission.
Upholding the Constitution By Orson Scott Card
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.
Roe v. Wade originally allowed abortions only in the first trimester of pregnancy. But through diktat after diktat, without any new law passed by constitutional process, the abortion "right" has come to allow killing a viable baby in mid-birth, or discarding a living baby when it was rude enough to be born breathing in the midst of an abortion.
Now various state courts are declaring that "marriage" must be redefined to include something that "marriage" has never meant in the history of the human race -- a reproductively and socially irrelevant "bond" between persons of the same sex.
As a science fiction writer, it has been my job to look at how the world works now, and then project into the future what might come next -- and, when I can, suggest how negative changes might be remedied.
Full Faith and Credit
Despite their contempt for the Constitution, you can be sure that the proponents of gay marriage will use Article IV of the Constitution to force recognition of gay marriage in states that have not yet had it forced on them by their courts.
Article IV says "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
How does this work? For many years, when most states had tough divorce laws, people who wanted a divorce had to go to Nevada long enough to establish residency, and then get a divorce under Nevada's much easier law.
Then, when they returned to their home state, that Nevada divorce had to be recognized, even though such a divorce would never have been lawful under that state's own laws.
Congress has passed a law declaring that no state has to accept a gay marriage authorized in another state -- but this sort of declaration seems to me likely to be ruled as beyond the scope of what Article IV allows.
Congress can set a standard of proof, but it is hard to imagine the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Congress can simply negate the plain language of Article IV and declare that a marriage contract valid in California can be completely ignored in, say, North Carolina.
One can imagine litigation going on for years. Meanwhile, in state after state, by judicial fiat, gay marriages would be contracted and children adopted by gay couples until it would become nearly impossible to sort out the mess.
Worst Case Scenario...
In California , if Proposition 8 fails to pass, gay-marriage proponents will claim that this constitutes public approval of gay marriage.
Of course this is not true. Many people who have telephoned people about Prop. 8 have heard the person who answers the phone say, "No gay marriage! I am voting no on Prop. 8!" But when you try to explain that if you don't want gay marriage, you have to vote yes on Prop. 8, they often get confused.
But let's step back a little. There should never have been a Proposition 8.
In order to make such a radical change in human behavior and custom, the proponents of gay marriage should have followed constitutional, democratic process and persuaded people to support it until a majority was achieved.
That's what the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution require. And that has not happened anywhere in the U.S.
What was the public emergency that made it so the New Puritans could not wait to persuade people to vote for what they wanted? The only emergency was that they knew that they could not do it. They knew democracy would not choose what they wanted.
Therefore small groups of dictators have simply taken it upon themselves to deny universal human practice and remake the law as they saw fit, without waiting for democratic process.
Their pretexts are laughable, their authority nonexistent. No constitution declares that any court has such a right.
So why is anyone obeying them? Because, in support of their illegal action, the courts can issue writs removing the power of any other state official to resist them. There is no institution that even knows how to begin resisting the illegal usurpation of power by the judicial branch.
No branch of government was ever intended to have the power to dictate new law without other branches of government having a chance to stop them or at least slow them down.
In essence, we have suffered a coup and lost our democracy. A minority is dictating new law against the will of the majority, and will spread it by force throughout the country by using the full-faith-and-credit clause.
This should terrify the proponents of gay marriage, because a process that right now seems to work for them could just as easily, and just as unfairly, be used against them. But they think only in the short term. They don't mind leaving democracy in a shambles and making the Constitution a joke, as long as they get their way on this issue.
As much as I think gay marriage is a terrible idea, grounded on neither science nor common sense, we should be even more concerned that our republic is in the process of ceasing to be in any meaningful sense a democracy.
Amending the Constitution
We need a constitutional amendment declaring that no court, federal or state, can strike down or alter any law passed by a legislative body except when it contradicts the plain language of the applicable constitution, as understood at the time of passage.
The unconstitutional usurpation of powers by the judges must be brought to an immediate stop.
But with Democrats in control of the Congress, there is no chance of getting that body to propose a constitutional amendment that will correct this gross abuse -- again, because they have only seen it used to enact their agenda. Short-sighted as they are, they will not oppose this judicial power until and unless it is used against them. Then, of course, they'll scream bloody murder and behave much more badly than the too-long complacent American moderates and conservatives.
What recourse, then, do we have?
1. Right now most states have majorities of voters who are opposed to gay marriage. Since Congress and the Supreme Court are unlikely to provide any remedy, the Constitution provides an alternative. Article V allows the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call for a constitutional convention, and if they do, Congress is required to call that convention.
If the anti-gay-marriage majorities demanded that their state legislators vote to call such a convention, Congress could do nothing to stop it.
Such a convention can then propose amendments to the Constitution which, if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, would be as valid as any of the amendments originally passed by Congress.
Of course, once such a convention is called, it can propose any amendments it wants; and Article IV is silent on such matters as whether the states would get votes according to their size, or one vote per state.
And even if such a convention confined itself to undoing judicial dictatorship, we would still have to get three-fourths of the states to agree to repudiate authority which the courts were never given!
It should have taken a three-fourths majority to grant that right -- which would never have been granted, since no American majority would ever have agreed to throw away democracy and turn our government over to judges who think they're wiser than the common people.
Peaceful Noncompliance
2. The other recourse is this: We citizens do not have to recognize any attempt by any body of government to redefine a human relationship that existed for thousands of years before any existing government or constitution was established.
No judge, no legislature, no ruler has the right or power to change the meaning of a word. Languages are created by common consent. Governments did not create marriage, they merely regulated it -- requiring blood tests, refusing to grant legal status to marriages between persons too closely related, and deciding when or whether a marriage can be dissolved.
What they don't have the right to do is declare that "marriage" now includes relationships that were never intended when laws regulating marriage were enacted.
Nor do they have the power to force us to change our understanding of marriage. Regardless of what the government says, if we as individuals or communities refuse to accept anything except a heterosexual bond as a "marriage," we cannot be forced to change our mind, our language, or our social behavior.
But they will certainly try. Anyone who doesn't accept homosexual couplings as marriages will be called names and persecuted. Our children will be propagandized to accept "marriages" that we repudiate.
If we take our children to private schools, the state will refuse to certify any school that doesn't join in the propaganda.
If we take our children out of school to teach them at home, the state will declare home-schooling illegal -- there are movements already under way in several states to do exactly that.
Defying the Dictators
The New Puritans who are forcing this on us are dictators at heart, haters of democracy if it doesn't get the results they want. Isn't it ironic that most of them call themselves "Democrats" and call their opponents "fascists"? I guess "marriage" isn't the only word they've redefined.
(For instance, the Democratic Party leadership has openly talked of reinstating the so-called "fairness" doctrine exclusively against conservative talk radio, with the purpose of shutting it down. They hate freedom of speech for anyone who does not agree with them.)
The New Puritans will not rest until every scrap of resistance against them has been beaten down. We know this because this is how they already behave wherever they have power -- universities, news media, schools, and many other institutions already have shown us the mindless extremism of these New Puritans, and how relentlessly they deprive their opponents of their livelihood and reputation.
We saw in 2000 how eager the dictator-judges were to defy and destroy Florida election law in order to elect the U.S. president they preferred.
Meanwhile, any opposition to them is decried as bigotry, because, despite their track record of utter intolerance, the New Puritans claim to have a monopoly on tolerance!
Your ability to raise your children to believe in your religion is already under attack; the New Puritans are quite prepared to use force to take your children and propagandize them to believe the scientifically indefensible dogma that gay marriage is "just the same as" marriage.
What we must make clear is that we will never allow a dictatorship to define what marriages and families are. Those who have taken this dictatorial power have done so illegally and unconstitutionally; we do not have to obey dictators in America ; the Constitution does not require it. Indeed, defending the Constitution requires us to repudiate would-be dictators.
Because of the actions of the dictator-judges, we are required to get three-fourths majorities to restore the Constitution, it is possible that despite the will of the majority, such efforts will fail. A radical minority unconstitutionally forced a new law on us; but they require us to meet the constitutional process in order to overturn their "law."
Unload that Gun
At that point, what can we do? I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence.
Please read a history of the French Revolution. And then the Russian Revolution. Armed rebellion does not restore constitutional government, it most likely replaces one dictatorship with a worse one.
And while you're at it, read a history of the U.S. Civil War and decide if you think that's a good idea. I don't.
What we have to recognize is that Constitutional government has already been overthrown by judges who thought they were smarter and more righteous than us common people. Because the process was incremental, we have allowed it to go on, getting worse and worse, but it is not overthrowing the government to restore it.
They seized power in a nearly invisible coup, but seize it they did, and it's time for us to declare that we've seen their crime and refuse to accept it. As President Goerge H.W. Bush said after Iraq seized Kuwait in 1991, we must say, "This will not stand."
The way to restore the Constitution's requirement that only legislatures are allowed to legislate is simple and peaceful, though it requires more courage and unity than to try answer usurpation with force.
All we have to do is withdraw our support from the dictatorship.
Going on Strike
Conveniently, that portion of American society that supports the written Constitution, and that denies the power of government to redefine marriage, also provides the overwhelming majority of volunteers for the American military and for law enforcement and public safety.
What if Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, orthodox Jews -- and people of any religion who believe in democracy and the Constitution -- all retired from the military or police, or refused to enlist or reenlist as long as they are going to be used to enforce the "laws" made up by dictators?
What if we ceased to put any marriage announcements, obituaries, or want-ads in papers that run "gay marriage" announcements, or even stopped buying those papers at all? The "mainstream" media would quickly discover that they aren't so mainstream after all.
What if we all kept our children at home and refused to allow them to go to propagandizing schools?
How long could our government function if we withdrew all our support?
What if only ten percent of us conducted such open resistance? Or even one percent? How long would the government retain even a shred of legitimacy in other citizens' eyes if they are dragging us off to jail or taking away our children because we have committed the crime of wanting to raise our them in our own religion, or wanting to be subject only to laws passed by Constitutional means?
Along the way, we would declare public strikes: Everyone who rejects judicial dictatorship simply stays home from work and spends no money, anywhere. The first time, for one day. The second time, for two. If people get fired, we will establish strike funds to help them keep going. But we also boycott anyone who fires a striker.
What we need to decide, right now, is that we will not be ruled by dictators, our children will not be propagandized by the New Puritans, and we will not allow any government to redefine marriage.
We have long been disunited and ineffective in our resistance to the encroachment of dictators. We have to decide, now, that they have finally gone too far, striking into the heart of our homes. We will try all the legal remedies available; but if we are unable to dislodge the dictators, we must, without violence of any kind, make it impossible to govern or defend this nation as long as the dictators claim and exercise these usurped powers.
Vote While We're Still Allowed To
Of course, all of this would be completely unnecessary if we were to elect a President and Congress that would appoint and confirm judges who did not usurp power, and who would pass laws denying any state court the right to redefine marriage.
But the media have helped Obama sell the lie that he is the moderate who can bring us together; in fact, Obama is the most radically leftist candidate ever to run as a major party nominee, and he has never shown the slightest willingness to compromise on anything. His judicial appointees would be committed dictator-judges, without exception.
We cannot do anything about whom the voters in the most liberal states choose to represent them in Congress. But we can make sure we choose pro-Constitution candidates in the states where we are the majority.
And we can vote for state legislators who are likely to be willing, when it becomes necessary, to go over the heads of Congress and vote for a constitutional convention to correct these abuses.
Two years of anti-democratic Democratic Party rule would make it clear that we have chosen the foxes to guard the chicken coop. If that should happen, then in 2010, we must try to make the calling of a constitutional convention the most important issue in every state legislative contest.
We can prevail in restoring Constitutional government to America -- if we have the courage to pay the price along the way.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina , and is used here by permission.
Friday, October 31, 2008
NAACP Must Read
Friends,
This may very well be one of the biggest blessing of the campaign for yes on prop 8. In order to be effective, it will call for immediate action from the comfort of your home or office. I'll share first what has been done, and then what we need to do to take advantage of this opportunity to win on Tuesday. This is the final stretch, and your actions now may secure our victory.
WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE
The Black community is overwhelmingly in support of YES ON 8. The NAACP President came out against it. Like the CA Teachers Union speaking against without consulting the teachers, the Alice Huffman, NAACP President did the same thing, and we just found out why.
Alice Huffman, President of NAACP owns a company by the name of A C Public Affairs Inc. This company was paid over $198,000. by the No on 8 campaign. This might explain the disconnect between the African American community who supports 8 and the NAACP's coming out against it. We found this information on the CA Secretary of State's website.
LINK TO CA SEC. OF STATE WEBSITE SHOWING EXPENDITURES
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1259396&session=2007&view=expenditures
10/02/2008
A C PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC (ACPA)
CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS
$100,000.00
10/14/2008
A C PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC (ACPA)
CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS
$98,033.00
Alice Huffman's Company - A C Public Affairs Inc.
http://www.prweekus.com/AC-Public-Affairs/Listing/11135/
WHAT IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY
Send this email to everyone you know in CA
Call all local media in your areas, TV, newspaper and radio and ask them are they aware of this
Call in to talk radio shows to share this news
Flood the local NAACP chapter presidents in your city with calls and ask if they have received funds from the $198,000. that was paid to Janice Huffman's company by the No campaign (responses should be reported to the local media) CA NAACP phone numbers http://californianaacp.org/local/
Have any member of the NAACP call their chapter to express outrage over this payoff and demand their membership dues be returned
Pass out the attached fliers to African American, Latino and other congregations this Sunday, in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean etc.
Call Rev. Amos Brown President of the SF Branch, who is extremely upset over the money, especially since the local chapters are suffering. Ask him did he receive any part of the $198,033. (415) 922-0650
LINKS TO VIDEO OF WHAT CNN CHOSE TO LEAVE OUT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nJ98e3DJFQ&feature=related Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcobHtpdpY0&feature=related Part 2
Thank you all so very much to your incredible response to the call to stand up for justice, for truth and righteousness, for our liberties and our children and families. My deepest gratitude, love and admiration.
Marvin Perkinswww.BlacksInTheScriptures.com
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"
This may very well be one of the biggest blessing of the campaign for yes on prop 8. In order to be effective, it will call for immediate action from the comfort of your home or office. I'll share first what has been done, and then what we need to do to take advantage of this opportunity to win on Tuesday. This is the final stretch, and your actions now may secure our victory.
WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE
The Black community is overwhelmingly in support of YES ON 8. The NAACP President came out against it. Like the CA Teachers Union speaking against without consulting the teachers, the Alice Huffman, NAACP President did the same thing, and we just found out why.
Alice Huffman, President of NAACP owns a company by the name of A C Public Affairs Inc. This company was paid over $198,000. by the No on 8 campaign. This might explain the disconnect between the African American community who supports 8 and the NAACP's coming out against it. We found this information on the CA Secretary of State's website.
LINK TO CA SEC. OF STATE WEBSITE SHOWING EXPENDITURES
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1259396&session=2007&view=expenditures
10/02/2008
A C PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC (ACPA)
CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS
$100,000.00
10/14/2008
A C PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC (ACPA)
CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS
$98,033.00
Alice Huffman's Company - A C Public Affairs Inc.
http://www.prweekus.com/AC-Public-Affairs/Listing/11135/
WHAT IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY
Send this email to everyone you know in CA
Call all local media in your areas, TV, newspaper and radio and ask them are they aware of this
Call in to talk radio shows to share this news
Flood the local NAACP chapter presidents in your city with calls and ask if they have received funds from the $198,000. that was paid to Janice Huffman's company by the No campaign (responses should be reported to the local media) CA NAACP phone numbers http://californianaacp.org/local/
Have any member of the NAACP call their chapter to express outrage over this payoff and demand their membership dues be returned
Pass out the attached fliers to African American, Latino and other congregations this Sunday, in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean etc.
Call Rev. Amos Brown President of the SF Branch, who is extremely upset over the money, especially since the local chapters are suffering. Ask him did he receive any part of the $198,033. (415) 922-0650
LINKS TO VIDEO OF WHAT CNN CHOSE TO LEAVE OUT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nJ98e3DJFQ&feature=related Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcobHtpdpY0&feature=related Part 2
Thank you all so very much to your incredible response to the call to stand up for justice, for truth and righteousness, for our liberties and our children and families. My deepest gratitude, love and admiration.
Marvin Perkinswww.BlacksInTheScriptures.com
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"
Bringing the Religious Communty Together
Waving signs began with just Mormons but everyday we have people of other faiths stop and ask us when they can join us in the cause. It is so cool! Tomorrow our religious community is joining together with one voice for the fight for Yes on 8. We are meeting on Main Street from 12-1 rallying together to show our support for Prop 8. Join us in the cause! Wear yellow, bring signs, family and friends and help us protect and defend the family. It has been so heart warming to see that the majority of our community love and accepts the homosexual community but realizes that we must stand up for marriage, 1 man and 1 woman.
Thanks we were Hot!
(Wednesday 10/29/08)
I have been so impressed with the younger generation who have been so dedicated to helping Prop 8 pass. They are amazing, the persecution they have endured at school and from friends has been so crazy! This week many choose to wear or display Yes on 8 Bumper stickers. They have had their folders thrown across rooms, they have been told by good friends that they won't be friends unless they are no on 8, they have stood in front of classes defending the family many times convincing others to join the cause. They have truly become my heros. Everyday they are being confronted and defend Yes on 8! I am so proud of them! While we were out holding signs, I had many of these enthusiastic youth with us holding signs. One twelve year old girl was out proudly waving when all the sudden she was hit with a cup of coke. She was a bit shocked but soon bounced right back. It was hot and now she was cooled off. I just can't believe that someone could justify doing that!
I have been so impressed with the younger generation who have been so dedicated to helping Prop 8 pass. They are amazing, the persecution they have endured at school and from friends has been so crazy! This week many choose to wear or display Yes on 8 Bumper stickers. They have had their folders thrown across rooms, they have been told by good friends that they won't be friends unless they are no on 8, they have stood in front of classes defending the family many times convincing others to join the cause. They have truly become my heros. Everyday they are being confronted and defend Yes on 8! I am so proud of them! While we were out holding signs, I had many of these enthusiastic youth with us holding signs. One twelve year old girl was out proudly waving when all the sudden she was hit with a cup of coke. She was a bit shocked but soon bounced right back. It was hot and now she was cooled off. I just can't believe that someone could justify doing that!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Proud of my army of soldiers!
(Wednesday 10-29-08)
Today my oldest boy experienced his first dose of persecution. He proudly put a Yes on 8 Sticker on his backpack. We sat them down and had to explain what we were fighting for. As we were explaining it our young daughter matter of factly said, kids need a mom and a dad. So, after school he was waiting for me to pick him up and a kid came up to him and told him he was going to get spit on if he didn't take his sticker off his backpack and rip it up. He is not much of a talker so he just ignored him then told me all about it right when he got in the car.
Later that day we went sign waving and both boys wanted to be a part of it. They stood there proudly waving their signs. My younger boy kept thinking the flip offs were thumbs up and would get so excited when we would get one. It was so funny. Then a man drove by passed me then looked right at him and gave him a thumbs down. He was crushed! This broke his heart and his sign dropped low. He yelled down to me that he got a thumbs down. I assured him it was okay and told him to hold it high and smile. He then turned. Took a soilder stance and held that poster as high as he could. He was proud to hold that sign! I am so proud of my strong kids!
Today my oldest boy experienced his first dose of persecution. He proudly put a Yes on 8 Sticker on his backpack. We sat them down and had to explain what we were fighting for. As we were explaining it our young daughter matter of factly said, kids need a mom and a dad. So, after school he was waiting for me to pick him up and a kid came up to him and told him he was going to get spit on if he didn't take his sticker off his backpack and rip it up. He is not much of a talker so he just ignored him then told me all about it right when he got in the car.
Later that day we went sign waving and both boys wanted to be a part of it. They stood there proudly waving their signs. My younger boy kept thinking the flip offs were thumbs up and would get so excited when we would get one. It was so funny. Then a man drove by passed me then looked right at him and gave him a thumbs down. He was crushed! This broke his heart and his sign dropped low. He yelled down to me that he got a thumbs down. I assured him it was okay and told him to hold it high and smile. He then turned. Took a soilder stance and held that poster as high as he could. He was proud to hold that sign! I am so proud of my strong kids!
It's not about Hate! Yes on 8!
Today my mom made a sign: It's not about Hate! Yes on 8. So many people drive by screaming bigot, a*$H@#!, Religious Freaks, Haters, and so much more. This is not about hate. The homosexual community have every right that a married couple have. Now they want to call their civil union Marriage. Why is this so important to them since studies have shown that only 3 percent of them ever will get married? If they can get same-sex marriage accepted then it has and will be taught in schools as normal and acceptable. Therefore taking away our rights as parents to teach our children correct principals.
The universal sign for No on 8 is a flip off. Ironic since we are being accused as the haters. We just smile and wave! YES on 8!
The universal sign for No on 8 is a flip off. Ironic since we are being accused as the haters. We just smile and wave! YES on 8!
Proudly we Wave!
(Daily Experience from Waving signs for Yes on 8)
October 27, 2008
Today was the first day I waved signs at Wildcat canyon Road. What an Amazing Experience. I do have to admit, I was a little leary about being at an intersection that has frequent light changes. At first I used the Sign to block most of my face. I confess I didn't want to make eye contact. These are people I see monthly, weekly and daily at soccer, the grocery store, school, church and everywhere else I go. After about 5 minutes the hesitation had wore off and the excitement of being involved with something so important took and so huge took over. We are fighting for our parental rights, after all just last week a kindergarden class in California was taught all about homosexuality. And you guessed it, the parents weren't informed and weren't given the opt out option. We are fighting for our religious beliefs. We live in America, we shouldn't be forced to accept and tolerate a moral issue! We are fighting for our basic constitutional rights, Free Speech!
I have been so thankful that our family is involved the fight to pass Prop 8. If you want to contribute to the campaign click here.
October 27, 2008
Today was the first day I waved signs at Wildcat canyon Road. What an Amazing Experience. I do have to admit, I was a little leary about being at an intersection that has frequent light changes. At first I used the Sign to block most of my face. I confess I didn't want to make eye contact. These are people I see monthly, weekly and daily at soccer, the grocery store, school, church and everywhere else I go. After about 5 minutes the hesitation had wore off and the excitement of being involved with something so important took and so huge took over. We are fighting for our parental rights, after all just last week a kindergarden class in California was taught all about homosexuality. And you guessed it, the parents weren't informed and weren't given the opt out option. We are fighting for our religious beliefs. We live in America, we shouldn't be forced to accept and tolerate a moral issue! We are fighting for our basic constitutional rights, Free Speech!
I have been so thankful that our family is involved the fight to pass Prop 8. If you want to contribute to the campaign click here.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Dear Prop 8 Supporters
Here's a thought that I feel applies to our current, very real war to save the family. The following is a section of an article that appeared in the New England Chronicle in late 1775, shortly after the beginning of the Revolutionary War. The author of this article is unknown; it was signed by "A Freeman." Also, please know that although the author specifically addresses male soldiers, the words apply to both men AND women in our current situation:
"Your exertions in the cause of freedom, guided by wisdom and animated by zeal and courage, have gained you the love and confidence of your grateful countrymen; and they look to you, who are experienced veterans, and trust that you will still be the guardians of America. As I have the honor to be an American, and one among the free millions, who are defended by your valor, I would pay tribute of thanks, and express my gratitude, while I solicit you to continue in your present honorable and important station. I doubt not America will always find enough of her sons ready to flock to her standard, and support her freedom....
"Never was a cause more important or glorious than that which you are engaged in; not only your wives, your children, and distant posterity, but humanity at large, the world of mankind, are interested in it; for if tyranny should prevail in this country, we may expect liberty will expire throughout the world. Therefore, more human glory and happiness may depend upon your exertions than ever yet depended upon any of the sons of men. He that is a soldier in defense of such a cause, needs no title; his post is a post of honor, and although not an emperor, yet he shall wear a crown--of glory--and blessed will be his memory!" (1776, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York 2006, p. 62-63).
Thank you, fellow soldiers, for doing what you are doing in this great cause. We have so little time left and much to do, so remember that "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just/And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust." (The Star-Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key, final verse).
From a Prop 8 Supporter
"Your exertions in the cause of freedom, guided by wisdom and animated by zeal and courage, have gained you the love and confidence of your grateful countrymen; and they look to you, who are experienced veterans, and trust that you will still be the guardians of America. As I have the honor to be an American, and one among the free millions, who are defended by your valor, I would pay tribute of thanks, and express my gratitude, while I solicit you to continue in your present honorable and important station. I doubt not America will always find enough of her sons ready to flock to her standard, and support her freedom....
"Never was a cause more important or glorious than that which you are engaged in; not only your wives, your children, and distant posterity, but humanity at large, the world of mankind, are interested in it; for if tyranny should prevail in this country, we may expect liberty will expire throughout the world. Therefore, more human glory and happiness may depend upon your exertions than ever yet depended upon any of the sons of men. He that is a soldier in defense of such a cause, needs no title; his post is a post of honor, and although not an emperor, yet he shall wear a crown--of glory--and blessed will be his memory!" (1776, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York 2006, p. 62-63).
Thank you, fellow soldiers, for doing what you are doing in this great cause. We have so little time left and much to do, so remember that "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just/And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust." (The Star-Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key, final verse).
From a Prop 8 Supporter
It's far worse than most people realize
October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker
Anyone who thinks that same-sex "marriage" is a benign eccentricity which won't affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It's become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex "marriage." Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.
The public schools
The homosexual "marriage" onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex "marriage" in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be "marrying" their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.
Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. "In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'" she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
Second graders at the same school were read a book, "King and King", about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is "legal", a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now "different kinds of families." School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered "inappropriate behavior."
Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.
Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled "Courting Equality" into every school library in the state.
It's become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex "spouses" and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are "married" to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.
"Gay days" in schools are considered necessary to fight "intolerance" which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days". They "celebrate" homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating "homophobia" is now a top priority.
Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is "married" to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it's "wonderful being gay" and he wants to make sure there's enough HIV testing available for all of them.
Since homosexual marriage became "legal" the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
Citing "the right to marry" as one of the "important challenges" in a place where "it's a great time to be gay", the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives "tips" to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to "safely" have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex "married" couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
Businesses must recognize same-sex "married" couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
Businesses are often "tested" for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient "equality" now that homosexual marriage is "legal". In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
Issues regarding homosexual "families" are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.
Adoption of children to homosexual "married" couples
Homosexual "married" couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men "married" to each other as their "Parents of the Year". The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby's birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates
In 2004, the Governor ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
Also marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have "Party A and Party B" instead of "husband and wife."
Since homosexual relationships are now officially "normal", the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual "married" couples in the coverage.
The public square
Since gay "marriage", annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane "Dyke March" through downtown Boston, and recently a "transgender" parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could "become" men. Governor Patrick even marched with his "out lesbian" 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a "leather" group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It's "equal", they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.
A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly "married" homosexuals who march in the "gay pride" parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.
The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex "marriage" is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to "take such action as it may deem appropriate." Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans "judicial review" – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.
In conclusion
Homosexual "marriage" hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it's only just begun.
It's pretty clear that the homosexual movement's obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and "marriage" as we know it isn't something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe's marriage section hasn't had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.
by Brian Camenker
Anyone who thinks that same-sex "marriage" is a benign eccentricity which won't affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It's become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex "marriage." Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.
The public schools
The homosexual "marriage" onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex "marriage" in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be "marrying" their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.
Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. "In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'" she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
Second graders at the same school were read a book, "King and King", about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is "legal", a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now "different kinds of families." School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered "inappropriate behavior."
Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.
Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled "Courting Equality" into every school library in the state.
It's become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex "spouses" and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are "married" to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.
"Gay days" in schools are considered necessary to fight "intolerance" which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days". They "celebrate" homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating "homophobia" is now a top priority.
Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is "married" to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it's "wonderful being gay" and he wants to make sure there's enough HIV testing available for all of them.
Since homosexual marriage became "legal" the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
Citing "the right to marry" as one of the "important challenges" in a place where "it's a great time to be gay", the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives "tips" to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to "safely" have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex "married" couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
Businesses must recognize same-sex "married" couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
Businesses are often "tested" for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient "equality" now that homosexual marriage is "legal". In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
Issues regarding homosexual "families" are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.
Adoption of children to homosexual "married" couples
Homosexual "married" couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.
In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men "married" to each other as their "Parents of the Year". The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby's birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates
In 2004, the Governor ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
Also marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have "Party A and Party B" instead of "husband and wife."
Since homosexual relationships are now officially "normal", the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual "married" couples in the coverage.
The public square
Since gay "marriage", annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane "Dyke March" through downtown Boston, and recently a "transgender" parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could "become" men. Governor Patrick even marched with his "out lesbian" 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a "leather" group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!
The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It's "equal", they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.
A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly "married" homosexuals who march in the "gay pride" parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.
The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex "marriage" is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to "take such action as it may deem appropriate." Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans "judicial review" – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.
In conclusion
Homosexual "marriage" hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it's only just begun.
It's pretty clear that the homosexual movement's obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and "marriage" as we know it isn't something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe's marriage section hasn't had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.
Teachers Union
Friends,
Please pass on word about a new website - http://www.teachersforprop8.org - encouraging teachers (and concerned parents) to donate just $10 to help outraise the CTA.
Other organized efforts such as school walkouts can raise attention, but it's important that we organize to support the "Yes on 8" campaign instead of fighting against the opposition. Please consider a donation today through this website to help unite your voice with other concerned teachers and parents.
http://www.teachersforprop8.org - pass it on!
Please pass on word about a new website - http://www.teachersforprop8.org - encouraging teachers (and concerned parents) to donate just $10 to help outraise the CTA.
Other organized efforts such as school walkouts can raise attention, but it's important that we organize to support the "Yes on 8" campaign instead of fighting against the opposition. Please consider a donation today through this website to help unite your voice with other concerned teachers and parents.
http://www.teachersforprop8.org - pass it on!
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartnersParents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event
Posted: October 22, 20089:34 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling© 2008 WorldNetDaily
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.
One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.
The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."
The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.
According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.
The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."
Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school's "Coming Out Day" tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national "Coming Out Day" usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar."
When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online schoolcalendar.
Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.
"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."
Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by calling (510) 889-7399. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829
By Chelsea Schilling© 2008 WorldNetDaily
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.
One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.
The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."
The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.
According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.
The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."
Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school's "Coming Out Day" tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national "Coming Out Day" usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar."
When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online schoolcalendar.
Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.
"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."
Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by calling (510) 889-7399. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What's to Come if Prop 8 fails - Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day
Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.
"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," White said.
California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall's main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.
The two met on a dance floor two years ago.
"This is one girl I can honestly say deserves happiness, and it came in the form of Kerri," said Carder's friend Dani Starelli.
Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Marc Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder's students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.
Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."
It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."
As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.
A parent came up with the idea for the field trip - a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day.
"She's such a dedicated teacher," said the school's interim director Liz Jaroslow.
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Nonetheless, the excursion offers Proposition 8 proponents fresh ammunition for their efforts to outlaw gay marriage in California, offering a real-life incident that echoes their recent television and radio ads.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The trip illustrates the message promoted by the campaign in recent days, namely that unless Prop. 8 passes on Nov. 4, children will learn about same-sex marriage in school.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," White said.
California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Parents can excuse their child from all or part of the instruction.
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall's main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8" banners.
The two met on a dance floor two years ago.
"This is one girl I can honestly say deserves happiness, and it came in the form of Kerri," said Carder's friend Dani Starelli.
Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Marc Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder's students said they were happy to see their new teacher married.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
The students' parents are planning to make a video with the children describing what marriage is to them.
Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."
It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."
As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Monday, October 13, 2008
CBS 5 Poll: Young Voters Lead Prop 8 Support Shift
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ― A new CBS 5 poll finds that California's Proposition 8 has picked up support in the wake of a television ad campaign that features footage of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay "whether you like it or not."The poll conducted for CBS 5 by SurveyUSA indicates that support for the measure to ban gay marriage has grown among voters in the state over an eleven day period - most especially among young voters.According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents.The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters - considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters - who now support the measure after previously opposing it.It should be noted that the poll, conducted statewide Oct. 4 and 5 among 670 likely voters, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent, and the pollster continued to label the race too close to call - just as it did eleven days ago."Polling on ballot measures in general is an inexact science, and polling on homosexuality in general is a tricky business. So, not too much should be made of the 5 points that separates 'Yes' and 'No' today," concluded a summary of the results prepared by SurveyUSA.Unchanged from the two recent polls: Those in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley continue to back Proposition 8, while those in the Bay Area remain opposed. Those in the greater Los Angeles area also remained largely split.Not surprisingly, support for a gay marriage ban was strongest among those who considered themselves conservatives and identified themselves as regular churchgoers. Opposition was strongest amongst liberals and those who are less religious.
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Law of the Land
LAW OF THE LAND
Decision to teach kids to be 'gay' allowed to stand'
This despicable ruling not of the people, nor for the people, but against the people'
Posted: October 08, 200811:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A federal court decision approving mandatory public school instruction for children as young as kindergarten in how to be homosexual is being allowed to stand, drawing a description of "despicable" from the parent who unsuccessfully challenged his school district's "gay" advocacy agenda.
Estabrook Elementary
The U.S. Supreme Court without comment has refused to intervene in a case prompted by the actions of officials at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., who not only were teaching homosexuality to young children, but specifically refused to allow Christian parents to opt their children out of the indoctrination.
The case on which WND has reported previously involves Massachusetts father David Parker, who with his wife now have withdrawn their children from public schools, for which they continue to pay taxes, and are homeschooling.
The decision by the Supreme Court leaves standing the ruling from the appeals court for Massachusetts, where Judge Sandra Lynch said those who are concerned over such civil rights violations "may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state."
Earlier District Judge Mark Wolf had ordered that school officials' work to undermine Christian beliefs and teach homosexuality is needed to prepare children for citizenship, and if parents don't like it they can elect a different school committee or homeschool their children.
According to a new report from MassResistance, a pro-family organization following the case, the dispute was over the "Lexington Schools' aggressive policy of normalizing homosexual behavior to elementary school children and not allowing parents to be notified before or after, or being able to opt-out their kids from it."
The dispute grabbed headlines when Parker, on April 27, 2005, "was arrested and thrown in jail by school officials over his insistence on being notified regarding his son in kindergarten being taught about homosexual relationships by adults," Mass Resistance reported.
Another family was alarmed by a similar situation a short time later as the school not only continued its indoctrination, but "became more hostile to the Parkers, and local liberals and homosexual activists did their best to harass the family," Mass Resistance reported.
In fact, the school, led by Supt. Paul Ash, then stated in school publications they would not "compromise" on any points regarding the homosexual agenda.
"The [Supreme] court did not even bother to notify the Parkers or their attorneys," said Mass Resistance, which said what now will be enforced in the judicial district will be the lower bench rulings that the state has not only the right but "even the obligation … to promote homosexual relationships to young children."
"The unrelenting action of the Lexington schools to push homosexuality in the lower grades, as well as the ugly hostility of local liberals toward the Parkers and their children over this incident has taken its toll," Mass Resistance said. "This year the Parkers removed both of their children from the Estabrook Elementary School and have been homeschooling."
Parker gave no indication, however, he was quitting the overall battle against rampant normalization of homosexuality.
"The federal Supreme Court of the United States has tragically decided to deny our case from moving forward," Parker said in a statement. "We have exhausted all our legal options in the federal system for the protection of young children in the public schools. The Supreme Court has cowardly turned their backs on a parental rights issue that clearly has national significance with profound consequences.
"We believe that parents have the right and sacred responsibility to defend the psyches of their young impressionable children against such child predation. This includes more forceful measures to defend against, the inculcation and penetration, of perversion into their minds, behind the parent's back and against their will," Parker said.
"This despicable ruling is not of the people, nor for the people, and nor by the people – but against them. We, the people, must take back our government for the sake of our children and the sake of this nation," he said.
When Parker asked the Supreme Court for a review he noted the questions raised in the case have not been answered in previous cases. Those include: "Whether objecting parents have a constitutional right to opt their public school children out of, or even to receive notice of, undisputed government efforts to indoctrinate kindergarten, first and second grade school children into the propriety, indeed desirability, of same gender marriage."
Also at issue is whether those schools' "open and specific intention to indoctrinate … children into disbelieving core tenets of their families' deeply held religious faith constitutes a burden on the families' free exercise of religion."
The high court previously found, the request argued, the "primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. Aspects of child rearing protected from unnecessary intrusion by the government include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship."
In an earlier interview with WND, Parker warned allowing the appeals ruling to stand would "allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be.
"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]" he noted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
