Wednesday, October 29, 2008

A Baby Talks about Gay Adoption

This is a hoot! Well pretty soon same sex marriage will be taught to pre-schoolers, maybe even in the womb. Oh, abortion was legalized so they may never get the chance!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Gay Talk Show Host OPPOSES Gay Marriage

This article by a well known gay talk show host reveals the common sense approach some are taking. Here are highlights of the article with a link to the full article:

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays.

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly.

...almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.......

Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself......

...... They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. ......

....... Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make...

Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC. <--- Click here to view the full article

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Gay Marriage Is Not A Civil Rights Issue

I am not apt at creating well written articles that provide all of the legal ramifications that are pro (or con) on this subject. Here is a great article that makes it clear that same-sex marriage is NOT a civil right!

The NO on Proposition 8 activists are trying to get undecided voters to think it is. It makes sense to me in a logical way why their changing a traditional institution (Marriage) is NOT a good thing for 98% of our society. I have observed these past months, the gay community and their activists do not look at this in a logical way, they use emotion and a continual misleading plethora of lies to mask the truth and what they want to accomplish.

Read this article and see what you think. Click on the title above or here to view the article.

WATCH THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO ---->Black Church Leaders Say GAYS Have NO RIGHT to call gay marriage a civil right!

Monday, October 13, 2008

The Destruction of a Society

Here's the thing....we are talking about a definition that will alter society! It has been this way for 1000's of years and all of a sudden a small group in our world society wants us to change not only tradition but how the majority of the people think and live to suite the smaller groups criteria.

Can you think of other societies that have fallen because of their lack of foresight and acceptance of destructive ways and lifestyles? History is full of them.

Marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman! Why is it necessary to change the meaning of marriage; the foundation of a strong and lasting society?

One reason groups outside of this smaller group are willing to go along with this change is so they can say they are open minded and understanding of this smaller groups feelings and needs. Okay, that does not make sense to me at all!

This small group of individuals (the gay society) have ALL of the RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, CONCESSIONS, ENTITLEMENTS, FREEDOMS and ADVANTAGES as any married man and woman have today. The laws have already been afforded them legally by way of 'Civil Union's".

Marriage is Marriage - between a man and a woman.
Civil Union can be the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

What everyone is NOT considering is the negative snowball effects this will absolutely have on our society as a whole. Other countries and states have gone along with accepting this change in terminology (the new definition of marriage) and many adults, children, businesses and their societies have suffered the consequences that have not yet been fully realized.

It will lead to government control and a loss of the majority of our citizens rights! This has been a planned progressive effort by many well organized gay individuals and groups over the past decade or longer. Just take a look at the history of all of this in my other post below this one.

You remember the story about the frog who jumped into the pot of cool water? He got COOKED! The heat was turned up slowly, little by little until it was too late for him to realize he needed to jump out to save his life. He just got used to the temperature and floated along thinking everything was cozy.....but like I said, he got boiled, then skinned and eaten. That is what has and will continue to happen here friends! Is it too late or are we going to be able to save ourselves, our families and our society? If you are at all concerned you must vote YES on Proposition 8!

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Know Your History About Proposition 8

Just like every other state, California has historically defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. It was not an explicit definition under California law until 1977 but there was never a question in the minds of the people or in the courts before that time.

1977 - California's legislature was explicit and defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. (See Family Code section 300)

2000 - in response to the possibility of other states allowing marriage between same-sex couples, 61% of California voters chose to codify a state law that defined marriage as only being recognized if it is between a man and a woman (to stop out-of-staters from moving into the state as a married gay couple). Refer to Proposition 22, codified in California's Family Code section 308.5.

Despite this clear intent expressed by the people, California's legislature tried twice, both in 2005 and 2007, to allow marriage to extend to homosexual couples. Although the legislature had power to overturn section 300, the Governor vetoed the bill. In contrast, the legislature could not overturn section 308.5 (Proposition 22) without the people's vote, and the courts held that section 308.5 clearly preserved marriage as only being between a man and a woman in California. Thus, the legislature failed in these attempts.

In the last several years, the same substantive rights that are given to married couples have been extended to "domestic partnerships" formed between homosexual partners. There is no difference in what benefits and responsibilities a domestic partnership receives as a "married" couple, except for the title of marriage (Family Code section 297.5, etc).

On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court held that several gay marriages condoned by San Francisco city officials were void and of no legal effect.

On May 15, 2008 in a court case entitled "In Re Marriage Cases," which was really six different cases taken on appeal, four California Supreme Court justices overturned the will of 61% of California voters by holding that the "dignity" of holding the title of marriage is itself a right, that gays seeking marriage were a "suspect class" similar to gender and religion, that sections 300 and 308.5 were in conflict with the California constitution's Equal Protection clause, and that the laws did not meet the standard required to survive that conflict (e.g. they held it was not necessary to serve a compelling state purpose).

Proposition 8 seeks to amend the California Constitution itself to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman. The constitution is the supreme legal document of California, with much more legal clout than a mere statute. This would return the power to the people of California and make it extremely difficult for the courts to overturn this definition in the future without an express vote by the people.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

An impressive video by our Catholic friends

This is a legal issue but also a moral issue for many Americans. Many faiths have strong opinions about how the redefining of marriage will affect their lives and the lives of their children. Not to mention the adverse affect to our entire society. Our Catholic friends have created an impressive and moving video that we think is important for you to view. Please take a moment to watch this and make some comments.

What Happens When Traditional Marriage Loses Its True Meaning....Watch what has happened already in Massachusetts!

Saturday, October 4, 2008

A Mothers Letter To Her Son

Dear Son,

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I want to explain in a clear way why we are supporting the "Yes on Proposition 8" initiative. I won't do this from a religious viewpoint, but strictly from a legal and political point of view. First of all, as I explained, in 2000, the people of California voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. I believe it was over 60% of the votes cast were pro-Proposition 22. So, by law, Californians made their views known, and it was settled. We thought.

Then a few years ago, Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco, decided that he was the smartest man in the world, and he would allow same sex marriages in his city, despite the law & wishes of the people. Once this little tiny door opened, it opened the way for 4 judges of the California Supreme Court (unelected, appointed) to declare California's marriage law unconstitutional. I suppose I could just sigh and shrug, thinking that the judges must be right, except for a few little things... and that is the strength of the people of California, who, through legal and constitutional means, petitioned and lobbied to have this initiative put before the people once again. This time, not to create a law, but a constitutional amendment for the state of California. Whether you agree or not, this is how our country works. It's not discrimination, nor is it unconstitutional. It's the way we do it when we disagree with how one branch of the government handles things.

There are two choices for the voters of California. Do we believe that the word marriage, as traditionally defined - the institution that supports and sustains families and children, is the best definition, or not? Yes or No.

Your Dad and I have a right to choose traditional marriage. It isn't discrimination to keep marriage the same as it's always been. To me, it's logical. In areas where marriage has come to mean anything, it comes to mean nothing. So why shouldn't we vote to uphold the definition of marriage that seems the best for our children and society? Many people ask what harm it can do to our marriages if we allow gays to marry. I wish it were so simple. Once you open that door, then it becomes illegal to discriminate in any way against same sex couples.

I do believe that gays deserve civil rights and protection. They should be allowed to live their lives in peace, safety and privacy. But it isn't really just the definition of marriage that is the issue - it's the future repercussions of legalizing and recognizing marriages for same-sex couples. Once that door is opened, then by law, anyone who refuses to perform marriages for gays, provide adoptions for same-sex couples, or countless other situations, will be in violation of anti-discrimination laws and guilty of hate crimes. The courts are very busy in Massachusetts dealing with hate crimes issues and discrimination cases as a result of their legalizing same sex marriages. It will become a legal nightmare here also. Really. You might think this is fear-mongering or bigoted, but it's true.

You might have heard about the Catholic Charities in Boston - probably the single largest adoption agency in the state. When Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriages, the state went after Catholic Charities, requiring them to place children in homes of same-sex couples. Catholic Charities said they had a problem with that, it went against their policies and conscience to place babies in a home without both a mother and a father. Massachusetts said 'YOU MUST COMPLY'. Catholic Charities said, 'We're out of the adoption business.' They no longer handle adoptions. This means that thousands of babies are no longer on the adoption rolls, and the backlog and waiting list for adoptions is enormous. Who won? Certainly not babies or families.

You might have heard that people could still follow their consciences even if the marriage laws are changed, but this is not so. Many organizations and individuals have been fined, jailed, had their tax-exempt status revoked, and otherwise forced to submit to social policies not directly linked to same-sex marriage.

You told me that times have changed. I think they have. But many people believe there is a difference between horrific racial discrimination of the past, and changing the definition of marriage. I DO believe in civil unions. I believe gays have a right to love whom they want, live with whom they love, have rights to inherit, hospital visitation, and any other legal contract. "Civil Unions" already provide these rights to the gay community. I also believe that gays should be allowed to adopt children too - although I'm not crazy about the idea - I think kids need a mother and a father, but I would not be in favor of outlawing gay adoption.

I don't believe that adoption agencies should be FORCED to place babies in homes with single parents, or same-sex parents if they have other, married man & woman couples waiting.

Times may have changed, but your Dad and I have a right to believe that the traditional definition of marriage is the best definition, and protects children and families. So, we'll cast our YES vote for Proposition 8. If it is defeated, we will have done our best to try to keep marriage between one man and one woman. We've been working on this for awhile, so we've heard all the arguments against Prop 8. I am sure you have lots of thoughts on the subject. But, please, realize that we feel that our responsibility is to do all we can to strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it or make it meaningless. So, just respect our point of view, and leave it at that, okay?

Thanks sweetie. I know you have a kind heart and a sense of fair play. But we are entitled to our view, and we really don't want you to feel obligated to straighten us out. We'll be okay!

Lots of Love