I’ve recently spoken with people in our community about Proposition 8. Several I’ve encountered said they didn’t agree with gay marriage. Yet, they weren’t sure if they should impose their beliefs on others.
I’d like to point out that four California Supreme Court judges had no such pause as they overturned the voice of the people. We will find out on Nov. 4 if the majority’s view has changed on this issue, but before you mark your ballot, be sure you know just what you are imposing upon others.
In the state of California, same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as married couples under the Domestic Partnership Law. A “no” vote doesn’t give same-sex couples rights they don’t have now. All it does is change the meaning of a word, one that has, since the beginning of time, signified the committed relationship between a man and a woman.
It’s true that those of us who want the definition of marriage to remain what it has always been are imposing our beliefs, but when the majority speaks, the imposition is honored — or at least that’s how it used to work in this country. A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 doesn’t take anything away from anybody; it does however, reinstate the voice of the people.
http://www.whatisprop8.com/religious-viewpoints.html (Evangelical,Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, LDS)http://www.catholicvote.com/ (Catholic)http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx (Adventists)http://www.preservingmarriage.org/ (LDS/Mormon)http://protectmarriagesd.com/ (For pastors & churches)
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
It means more than you know....
Yes on Proposition 8: California Protect Marriage Constitutional Amendmentby Rich Deem
Introduction
On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on Proposition 8, the Protect Marriage Constitutional Amendment. In March, 2000, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, which stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." However, the California State Supreme Court declared Proposition 22 unconstitutional by a 4-3 vote on May 15, 2008. Proposition 8 restores the exact wording of Proposition 22 to the California state constitution reversing the activist decision of those four California Supreme Court judges.
Marriage is not a right!
Contrary to the claims of the anti-prop 8 forces, marriage is not a right. Marriage is a responsibility and a legally-binding contract intended to stabilize families with children.
Marriage has always been restricted
Numerous laws exist that restrict the ability of certain people to enter into a marriage contract. First, marriage is only allowed between adults, not minors. Second, marriage is only allowed between two individuals. Multiple partner marriages (polygamy and polyandry) are not legal. Third, marriage is not allowed between closely related individuals (brothers, sisters, and first cousins). If marriage is declared a fundamental right of all individuals, then all restrictions to marriage would be declared unconstitutional, opening the doors to polygamy, polyandry, incest, and child marriage.
Marriage is for procreation, not recreation
The reason why marriage is already restricted only to unrelated adult males and females is because the marriage contract is designed to stabilize a family so that children can be born and raised by a male and female parent. Marriage is all about procreation and not recreation. Individuals, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, are perfectly capable to showing love towards others without entering into a lifelong marriage contract.
Prop 8 does not limit gay rights
Proposition 8 does not take away legal rights from anybody. Any two individuals in the state of California may enter into a domestic partnership, which, by statute, grants them all legal rights and responsibilities of married individuals (Family Code 297.5).
A "right" of gay marriage will restrict the rights of others
Where gay marriage has already been enacted, the rights of others have been abridged. Here are some examples:
In February, 2007, the judge in a Massachusetts case ordered the teaching of the homosexual lifestyle to children in public schools.5
In March 2007 freshmen were told not to tell their parents about Deerfield, Illinois High School's pro-gay seminar and were required to sign a confidentiality agreement.3
In March 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.4
In February 2008, a professor was fired from San Jose Evergreen Community College after being accused of providing an "offensive" answer out of the textbook to a student's question about heredity and homosexual behavior.2
In April, 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.7
In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.1
In September, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that California doctors who have religious objections to artificially inseminating same-sex couples can no longer refuse to treat them.6
In September, 2008, A Placer County couple's marriage license was denied because they had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B".8
In October, 2008, First grade public school students were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding. The indoctrination of young minds has just begun!9
In October, 2008, An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked an injured a Proposition 8 supporter.10
Conclusion
Proposition 8 is not about rights, but is about protecting marriage and families against the destruction of traditional marriage through the actions of four activist judges. If the institution of marriage is declared a right for all individuals then any laws that restrict that right will be declared unconstitutional, requiring that polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriage be made legal. Vote YES on Proposition 8.
Introduction
On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on Proposition 8, the Protect Marriage Constitutional Amendment. In March, 2000, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, which stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." However, the California State Supreme Court declared Proposition 22 unconstitutional by a 4-3 vote on May 15, 2008. Proposition 8 restores the exact wording of Proposition 22 to the California state constitution reversing the activist decision of those four California Supreme Court judges.
Marriage is not a right!
Contrary to the claims of the anti-prop 8 forces, marriage is not a right. Marriage is a responsibility and a legally-binding contract intended to stabilize families with children.
Marriage has always been restricted
Numerous laws exist that restrict the ability of certain people to enter into a marriage contract. First, marriage is only allowed between adults, not minors. Second, marriage is only allowed between two individuals. Multiple partner marriages (polygamy and polyandry) are not legal. Third, marriage is not allowed between closely related individuals (brothers, sisters, and first cousins). If marriage is declared a fundamental right of all individuals, then all restrictions to marriage would be declared unconstitutional, opening the doors to polygamy, polyandry, incest, and child marriage.
Marriage is for procreation, not recreation
The reason why marriage is already restricted only to unrelated adult males and females is because the marriage contract is designed to stabilize a family so that children can be born and raised by a male and female parent. Marriage is all about procreation and not recreation. Individuals, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, are perfectly capable to showing love towards others without entering into a lifelong marriage contract.
Prop 8 does not limit gay rights
Proposition 8 does not take away legal rights from anybody. Any two individuals in the state of California may enter into a domestic partnership, which, by statute, grants them all legal rights and responsibilities of married individuals (Family Code 297.5).
A "right" of gay marriage will restrict the rights of others
Where gay marriage has already been enacted, the rights of others have been abridged. Here are some examples:
In February, 2007, the judge in a Massachusetts case ordered the teaching of the homosexual lifestyle to children in public schools.5
In March 2007 freshmen were told not to tell their parents about Deerfield, Illinois High School's pro-gay seminar and were required to sign a confidentiality agreement.3
In March 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.4
In February 2008, a professor was fired from San Jose Evergreen Community College after being accused of providing an "offensive" answer out of the textbook to a student's question about heredity and homosexual behavior.2
In April, 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.7
In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the University of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.1
In September, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that California doctors who have religious objections to artificially inseminating same-sex couples can no longer refuse to treat them.6
In September, 2008, A Placer County couple's marriage license was denied because they had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B".8
In October, 2008, First grade public school students were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding. The indoctrination of young minds has just begun!9
In October, 2008, An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked an injured a Proposition 8 supporter.10
Conclusion
Proposition 8 is not about rights, but is about protecting marriage and families against the destruction of traditional marriage through the actions of four activist judges. If the institution of marriage is declared a right for all individuals then any laws that restrict that right will be declared unconstitutional, requiring that polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriage be made legal. Vote YES on Proposition 8.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Do Whats Right...
I believe in human rights. I believe in civil liberty. I believe that no government or law of man has the right to compel anyone or any entity to perform any act or service contrary to his own beliefs as long as his beliefs does not constitute harm to others. This is the reason why I will vote yes on Prop. 8. Prop. 8 will reaffirm the voice of the people in California that marriage is between a man and a woman. And those four activist judges in San Francisco cannot and should not be the voice of the populous overwhelmingly passed what was then Prop. 22 in the year 2000. Preserving the definition of traditional marriage is important for California and good for our society.
I am not prejudice. I respect individual rights and the freedom of choice. I have neighbors who are gay. They are good and decent people. I respect their rights to choose. I accept them as what they are. I don't impose my values on them and they don't impose their values on me. But if Prop. 8 does not pass, the law will demand their values be imposed on me. All businesses, all entities and all of us will be compelled by law to treat all marriages without distinction. The schools in California will be compelled to teach children and that children must accept that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Any child does not accept all marriages are same would be construed as breaking the law. Churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if that is contrary to the church's position. Churches would not be able to use their doctrinal beliefs to defend their positions.
The opponents viewed this as another scare tactic. I wish this is only a scare tactic but it is the truth. It is happening in states such as Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legalized. Passing of Prop. 8 will protect individual liberty, protect our schools from mandatory teaching same-sex marriage to our children and protect our churches from performing marriages contrary to their doctrine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkv6miGIcTUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmZaHbGgXH8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-MwVKe1oT0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY1k10IqN_ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeUJd4y87iU
I am not prejudice. I respect individual rights and the freedom of choice. I have neighbors who are gay. They are good and decent people. I respect their rights to choose. I accept them as what they are. I don't impose my values on them and they don't impose their values on me. But if Prop. 8 does not pass, the law will demand their values be imposed on me. All businesses, all entities and all of us will be compelled by law to treat all marriages without distinction. The schools in California will be compelled to teach children and that children must accept that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Any child does not accept all marriages are same would be construed as breaking the law. Churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if that is contrary to the church's position. Churches would not be able to use their doctrinal beliefs to defend their positions.
The opponents viewed this as another scare tactic. I wish this is only a scare tactic but it is the truth. It is happening in states such as Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legalized. Passing of Prop. 8 will protect individual liberty, protect our schools from mandatory teaching same-sex marriage to our children and protect our churches from performing marriages contrary to their doctrine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkv6miGIcTUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmZaHbGgXH8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-MwVKe1oT0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY1k10IqN_ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeUJd4y87iU
It's Simple...
Why YES on Proposition 8?
First of all, if you have no idea what Proposition 8 it, it's a bill that is being voted on in California.It will place into the California Constitution these words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." This was already passed by 61% of Californians (about 4 million people) as Proposition 22 and then, outrageously, overturned by four Supreme Court Judges.As much as I'd like to write out a lengthy, involved reason on why I think Proposition 8 should be passed, it's really not that complicated. I live my life by the Word of God (the Bible). The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman and anything apart from that is sin.It's not a question of liking or disliking homosexuals (I like them), but a matter of disagreeing with that lifestyle (the Bible calls it sin, although no different from gossip, lying, etc..) and protecting marriage as a God-ordained, not man made, institution.
First of all, if you have no idea what Proposition 8 it, it's a bill that is being voted on in California.It will place into the California Constitution these words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." This was already passed by 61% of Californians (about 4 million people) as Proposition 22 and then, outrageously, overturned by four Supreme Court Judges.As much as I'd like to write out a lengthy, involved reason on why I think Proposition 8 should be passed, it's really not that complicated. I live my life by the Word of God (the Bible). The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman and anything apart from that is sin.It's not a question of liking or disliking homosexuals (I like them), but a matter of disagreeing with that lifestyle (the Bible calls it sin, although no different from gossip, lying, etc..) and protecting marriage as a God-ordained, not man made, institution.
What part don't you get?
Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage between any two adults is of the same worth, regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: "traditional marriage," or "family values" because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is "hate speech."
It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages; doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage between any two adults is of the same worth, regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: "traditional marriage," or "family values" because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is "hate speech."
It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages; doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Protect California.
Empowering Families exists for the purpose of taking the hurt out of relationships and strengthening the family. Proposition 8 on the California ballot in November, supports those two purposes. If it is defeated, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed and its powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost. A defeat would result in the very meaning of marriage being changed to nothing more than a contractual agreement between individuals. No longer will the best interest of the child and families even be considered.
The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the core of society since the very beginning. Much research has found that the ideal environment for a child to be raised is with both a father and a mother living together in the same home to even entertain the thought of anything less than that for our children.
Divorce and death already disrupt the ideal situation for children and as a society, we need to put the best interest of our children first, which has been proven to be in a traditional home with a father and a mother. Voting No on Proposition 8 would destroy marriage, as we know it and cause profound harm and hurt to children, families and, in the long run, to our society as a whole.
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage, not about attacking a gay or lesbian lifestyle. It does not take away any rights or benefits already enjoyed by the homosexual community. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protection and benefits” as married spouses (Family Code §295.5). Prop 8 will not change any of that.
In 2000 nearly 2/3 of the voters passed Proposition 22 to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage and four activist judges in San Francisco overturned that vote calling it unconstitutional. That is why it is necessary for those same 14 words to now be presented as a constitutional amendment. Those 14 words are:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
By amending the California Constitution, the courts will be required to uphold traditional marriage instead of overturning the will of the people on this issue again.
Proposition 8 is endorsed not only by Empowering Families, but by a wide range of local, state and national organizations as well as other businesses and individuals. To learn more and to view a list of supporters, visit http://www.ProtectMarriage.com.
To become involved on a personal level, getting the word out on Prop 8, you can call ProtectMarriage.com at: (916) 446-2956.
The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the core of society since the very beginning. Much research has found that the ideal environment for a child to be raised is with both a father and a mother living together in the same home to even entertain the thought of anything less than that for our children.
Divorce and death already disrupt the ideal situation for children and as a society, we need to put the best interest of our children first, which has been proven to be in a traditional home with a father and a mother. Voting No on Proposition 8 would destroy marriage, as we know it and cause profound harm and hurt to children, families and, in the long run, to our society as a whole.
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage, not about attacking a gay or lesbian lifestyle. It does not take away any rights or benefits already enjoyed by the homosexual community. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protection and benefits” as married spouses (Family Code §295.5). Prop 8 will not change any of that.
In 2000 nearly 2/3 of the voters passed Proposition 22 to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage and four activist judges in San Francisco overturned that vote calling it unconstitutional. That is why it is necessary for those same 14 words to now be presented as a constitutional amendment. Those 14 words are:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
By amending the California Constitution, the courts will be required to uphold traditional marriage instead of overturning the will of the people on this issue again.
Proposition 8 is endorsed not only by Empowering Families, but by a wide range of local, state and national organizations as well as other businesses and individuals. To learn more and to view a list of supporters, visit http://www.ProtectMarriage.com.
To become involved on a personal level, getting the word out on Prop 8, you can call ProtectMarriage.com at: (916) 446-2956.
Keep Up The Good Work.
Proposition 8 on the California ballot, which would negate a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual "marriage," appears to be gaining strength.
Previous polls have shown the traditional marriage supporters trailing, but a new one by a San Francisco CBS television station shows Prop. 8 is ahead 47 to 42 percent. "Ten percent are still undecided. It means it's still a close race, but the shift still seems to be taking place," says Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com. The pro-family activist believes success will depend on two factors -- encouraging people to vote, and getting Christians to vote according to the Bible. Thomasson is hopeful pastors will take an active role as the election nears. "They've got to be men of God who are bold and courageous and say, 'God says marriage is only for a man and woman,'" he adds. "We all must be Christians, not just people who say they're Christians and do not follow Christ in this matter." Thomasson attributes the new poll results in part to a new television commercial that does an effective job of selling the traditional view of marriage as well as the homosexual activists imposing acceptance of their lifestyle on everyone else.
Previous polls have shown the traditional marriage supporters trailing, but a new one by a San Francisco CBS television station shows Prop. 8 is ahead 47 to 42 percent. "Ten percent are still undecided. It means it's still a close race, but the shift still seems to be taking place," says Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com. The pro-family activist believes success will depend on two factors -- encouraging people to vote, and getting Christians to vote according to the Bible. Thomasson is hopeful pastors will take an active role as the election nears. "They've got to be men of God who are bold and courageous and say, 'God says marriage is only for a man and woman,'" he adds. "We all must be Christians, not just people who say they're Christians and do not follow Christ in this matter." Thomasson attributes the new poll results in part to a new television commercial that does an effective job of selling the traditional view of marriage as well as the homosexual activists imposing acceptance of their lifestyle on everyone else.
Another Point of View.
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low- conflict marriage."
All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.
For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to- be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children that something wonderful has happened!
For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child are best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?
Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.
Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkv6miGIcTU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmZaHbGgXH8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-MwVKe1oT0
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low- conflict marriage."
All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.
For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to- be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children that something wonderful has happened!
For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child are best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?
Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.
Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkv6miGIcTU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmZaHbGgXH8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-MwVKe1oT0
Friday, October 10, 2008
Know the truth.
If the California Supreme Court's ruling is not overturned, then the consequences facing voters are serious and real. First, it was wrong for a narrow majority of the court to ignore the decision of more than 61 percent of the electorate, more than 4 million voters, who decided that marriage should be as it always has been - between a man and a woman. To ignore the will of the voters, the court should find in unequivocal terms that the voters have done something they cannot legally do. That was not the case here. This case hotly divided the court and resulted in a narrow decision to overturn the voters' will - not because what voters did was legally wrong, but because four judges decided to change the meaning of the law to suit their own views.
Second, the court elevated same-sex marriage to the highest legal class possible: a protected class. That means when the rights of people opposed to same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds conflict with the rights of same-sex couples, the courts will almost always side with same-sex couples because of the protected class status conferred by the state Supreme Court. Even expressing a view in opposition to same-sex marriage often exposes people to personal attack, ostracism, and even threats of loss of employment for standing for what they understand to be true about marriage. This goes beyond acceptance and tolerance. Many supporters of Proposition 8 are already experiencing these pressures to some extent, but the ruling of the court clears the way for lawsuits and further legislation to penalize people who do not cooperate with the desires of same-sex couples.
Finally, perhaps the most profound consequence will be to our children. California law provides for the teaching of children about marriage. Under the court's ruling, they would have to be taught that there is no distinction between the same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, and it would be discriminatory to view them otherwise. This interferes with a parent's right to teach their children the true meaning of marriage, which is important to their futures. This is the case in Massachusetts, which also legalized same-sex marriage. In one recent and famous case, a teacher taught a second-grade class using a book recounting the story of a prince marrying another prince, rather than a princess. Instructing young children about same-sex marriage in school undermines the rights of parents to approach this subject with their children on their own timetable and according to their family's values and beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is a major concern to California parents.
http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com
http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/
Second, the court elevated same-sex marriage to the highest legal class possible: a protected class. That means when the rights of people opposed to same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds conflict with the rights of same-sex couples, the courts will almost always side with same-sex couples because of the protected class status conferred by the state Supreme Court. Even expressing a view in opposition to same-sex marriage often exposes people to personal attack, ostracism, and even threats of loss of employment for standing for what they understand to be true about marriage. This goes beyond acceptance and tolerance. Many supporters of Proposition 8 are already experiencing these pressures to some extent, but the ruling of the court clears the way for lawsuits and further legislation to penalize people who do not cooperate with the desires of same-sex couples.
Finally, perhaps the most profound consequence will be to our children. California law provides for the teaching of children about marriage. Under the court's ruling, they would have to be taught that there is no distinction between the same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, and it would be discriminatory to view them otherwise. This interferes with a parent's right to teach their children the true meaning of marriage, which is important to their futures. This is the case in Massachusetts, which also legalized same-sex marriage. In one recent and famous case, a teacher taught a second-grade class using a book recounting the story of a prince marrying another prince, rather than a princess. Instructing young children about same-sex marriage in school undermines the rights of parents to approach this subject with their children on their own timetable and according to their family's values and beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is a major concern to California parents.
http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com
http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/
Did You Also Know...
There are many, many myths circulating in the media and on the Internet about Proposition 8. This fact sheet from the Protectmarriage.com website sets forth the following facts about Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 protects the people’s will and overturns activist judges.
In 2000 over 61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 to reaffirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. However, because this language wasn’t put into the state Constitution when it was approved, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote. In November 2008, Proposition 8 gives California voters the opportunity to reverse the court’s decision and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution.
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward.
Proposition 8 contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” By putting these words directly into the state Constitution, the court cannot strike them down as unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions to this. Proposition 8 will not change this.
Proposition 8 protects our children.
Proposition 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code §51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
http://www.nrl4prop8.wordpress.com
Proposition 8 protects the people’s will and overturns activist judges.
In 2000 over 61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 to reaffirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. However, because this language wasn’t put into the state Constitution when it was approved, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote. In November 2008, Proposition 8 gives California voters the opportunity to reverse the court’s decision and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution.
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward.
Proposition 8 contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” By putting these words directly into the state Constitution, the court cannot strike them down as unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions to this. Proposition 8 will not change this.
Proposition 8 protects our children.
Proposition 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code §51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
http://www.nrl4prop8.wordpress.com
Did You Know?
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the largest investor-owned power company in California, has just donated $250,000 to defeat Prop. 8 (this November’s marriage amendment ballot initiative). As a public utility that services more than 15 million Californians, PG&E has no place siding with the homosexual agenda and against the views of millions of pro-family Californians in this effort to restore the traditional definition of marriage in the Golden State. Even worse, PG&E is also spearheading a move to rally other California businesses to jump aboard its anti-family bandwagon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)