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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
