Prop 8 Victory A Fiasco

Critics in the objective and unbiased media are mesmerized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint’s involvement in California’s Proposition 8. The Church is well organized and quick to mobilize. Membership includes many productive, prosperous families willing to work for a cause they believe in. As a result, the LDS Church is widely recognized in this country and by governments abroad as an important ally in the effort to fight hunger, improve literacy and provide medical care for those in need.

It is worth noting that Mormon’s support of Prop 8 has not involved discussion about how their opponents are strange, spooky, or weird. On the other hand, the proponents of gay-marriage, failing to make their case with the voters of California, have defaulted to shrill, vitriolic attacks on the Mormon’s.

Mounting a rebuttal along the lines of ”Hey, your pretty weird and a lot of people don’t like you” might make your arguments look weak to the thinkers in the crowd. The Mormon’s have been listening to this kind criticism for a long time now. Remember when Lilburn Boggs made it legal to shoot Mormon’s in Missouri. Critics have been predicting that the “Mormon Moment” is passed for more than 160 years to no effect. It’s enough to make you wonder. 

Critics should focus on an honest debate about the virtues of their cause. Predicting the worst for the Mormons or blaming them for society’s ills has proven ineffective. Note that Pundits still consider two Mormons as top potential presidential possibilities for 2012. Among those campaigning in Georgia for Saxby Chambliss, it’s worth noting that McCain and Palin rallies were free. Romney still commands $2,500 per couple among conservative supporters.

Marriage is the very substance of our society, our lives and who we are as human beings. There is nothing more essential, or eternal than human love and the family. That makes this debate emotional and consequently contentious. Gay activists and their supporters in the totally unbiased and objective media are seeking to exploit that emotion and an easy target instead of making their case. 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/the_friday_line_ten_republican.html

http://kickingalion.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/mormon-involvement-in-prop-8-viewed-as-a-%e2%80%99fiasco%e2%80%99/#comment-15

Religious Extremists Once Again Associated With Violence

New York Times Editorial Writer, Maureen Dowd, is quick to associate Mormons, Catholics and other ominous “church backed” conspirators with graphic descriptions of the death of Harvey Milk; the late gay activist.

Dowd interviewed Dianne Feinstein who talks in detail about the horror of finding Milk’s body and placing her fingers in a bullet hole to find a pulse. That’s going to leave an impression on anyone and it’s true that Church groups exercised their first amendment rights to support an issue they feel strongly about. Their support of that effort did not involve damaging any property, making threats against opponents and of course it did not involve violence.

Dowd’s effort to associate those who supported Prop 8 with the psychology of a murderer is as dishonest as it is telling.

I have been watching the coverage of the ongoing tragedy in Mumbai and I have yet to hear anyone on CNN or the Networks name the perpetrators as Muslim Terrorists even though a Muslim terror group has claimed responsibility. I wonder if the NYT will be as quick to name names in the gruesome deaths of hundreds this weekend as they are to make a vague association between the actions of Dan White 30 years ago and the majority of California voters, including some churches today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=1

Why Americans Fear Same-Sex Marriage

Despite adamant protestations to the contrary, the current struggle over same-sex marriage goes way beyond a simple desire to redefine marriage. 

Business Week reports that the on-line matchmaker eharmony.com will launch a new service catering to same-sex couples. A private company, founded by a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, has been compelled by the government to do something to which they object on principle. No laws were broken. Activist bureaucrats need only the most mild pretense of offense in order to “man-handle” the unenlightened. 

The LA Times reports that Eric McKinley complained to the New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after finding that eharmony would not help him find a gay partner. This is not Rosa Parks being displaced on a bus in Montgomery Alabama. There is no natural right to an electronicaly generated romance. Mr. McKinely’s misplaced and misdirected frustration is broadly representative of the gay community which resents Americans who object to same-sex marriage as a matter of moral or religious principle. Will the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights be pursuing matchmaker sights which cater to the Gay and Lesbian Community?

It’s only reasonable to speculate about what’s next since social trends and legislation are progressive. What about movie studios who blatantly disregard the rights of gay Americans, producing movies which appeal to a heterosexual audience? What happens when Mr. McKinley finds himself at a bar or restaurant which he feels does not cater specifically to the needs and preferences of gay patrons? How do the tax payer funded gay activists at the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights feel about web-sites that that produce opinion content objectionable to gay Americans?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/11/eharmony-goes-g.html

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D94I7A500.htm

The Truth about Proposition 8 and Gay Marriage

Michael Medved clearly articulates some of the the negative social consequences that result from attempts to weaken traditional marriage.

The effort to institutionalize same-sex marriage as equivelent to traditional marriage has negative social outcomes insofar as it weakens the traditional family as the basic unit of  society by placing pesonal gratification above social responsibility.

Medved puts same-sex marriage in the larger context of all social influences which exalt personal gratification over social responsibility. It’s not possible to have an honest debate about same-sex marriage as long as one side refuses to acknowledge the truth that same sex marriages have negative social consequences. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/05/21/gay_marriage_recycles_bad_idea?page=2

California Teachers Forced to Support Gay Marriage

According to the Wall Street Journal, The California Teachers Association is the major donor behind the “No on 8″ movement.  Clearly, not all members of the CTA support “No on 8.” Their actions further support suspicions that the pro-gay agenda includes teaching young children to regard gay marriage in the same light as  traditional marriage.

  .  .  .  Yet last week the union donated $1 million to the “No on Proposition 8″ campaign. Of the roughly $3 million raised by opponents of the measure so far, $1.25 million has come from the teachers’ union. “What does this cause have to do with education?” said Randy Peart, a public school teacher in San Juan who was contacted by a local television station. “Why not put that money into classrooms, into making a better place for these kids?”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480597946864923.html

Support Proposition 8 to help ensure the radical left can not use public schools as a channel for indoctrinating young children.   http://www.protectmarriage.com/?s=emailhdr

Why Gay Marriage Matters to You

This issue is important not only because the sanctity of marriage is threatened.  Who wants an increasingly socialist state, antagonistic towards anthing resembling Christianity, to demand every child’s participation in this kind of forced indoctrination?

http://protectmarriage.com/article/proposition-8-who-s-really-lying-

Dear Friend,

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts.  Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.
 
Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.
 
“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”
 
Lying…who’s really lying?
 
The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.” This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at www.noonprop8.com)
 
In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 “Lies” television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.”
 
It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Newsom called the (Yes on ad ‘classic distraction’ and misleading.”  Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.
 
“Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of ‘diversity,’  taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age,” Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its “diversity education” to five year old children in kindergarten.
 
According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.
 
The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.
 
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
 
“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3]
 
(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)
 
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
 
“In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]
 
“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13]
 
(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8. The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions. The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
 
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
 
“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]
 
“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]
 
(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
 
These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – ‘whether you like it or not.’
 
To make sure Californians know the truth, we need you to do three things right now:
Forward this email to your friends and family right now, and ask them to forward it to their friends. Every California voter needs to know about this.
Watch the truthful ads the No on 8 campaign doesn’t want you to see, and donate to keep them on the air.
Please volunteer today, and we’ll put you out in the field talking to voters directly — as thousands are already doing.
Thank you for all that you do. Please spread the word and make sure your neighbors know the truth before they vote!

Sincerely,

Frank Schubert
Campaign Manager
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8

 

www.protectmarriage.com
© 2008 ProtectMarriage.com. All Rights Reserved. ProtectMarriage.com is a project of California Renewal (I.D. #1302592) | Contact Us