California: Oppose Senate Bill 54 and Senator Leno’s "Gut and Amend" Tactic to allow out-of-state gay “marriage”.

Stand for Marriage posted an email they received from Protect Marriage:

As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.

We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”

Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage — and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.
It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver. That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.

Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.

Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.

SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.

But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly!

Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.

In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.

Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)
(310) 285-5490

Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)
(714) 668-2100

Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D – Calabasas, Oxnard)
(818) 596-4141

Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)
(707) 546-4500

Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)
(916) 324-4676

Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)
(661) 267-7636

Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)
(818) 558-3043

Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)
(310) 615-3515
Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)
(831) 425-1503

Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)



  1. Euripides said,

    July 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    These activists will try to neuter marriage any which way they can. Of course they don’t think of the consequences for anyone else but themselves and they certainly don’t see anything wrong with circumventing the constitutional process in order to fill their own selfish gains.

  2. July 11, 2009 at 1:34 am

    The Globalists who REALLY run our country have this in their agenda, so they will never give up. But that doesn’t mean we’re going to just roll over for them!

    Also, just wanted to share this, from NARTH:


    For Immediate Release
    June 10, 2009

    New Scientific Research Refutes Unsubstantiated Claims Regarding Homosexuality

    Awesome! I love it when REAL science takes a stand!

  3. Frisco said,

    July 11, 2009 at 6:23 am

    A basic education in objective analysis of scientific sources would lead someone to look doubt at a report funded by an organization with an agenda to cure homosexuality,

  4. beetlebabee said,

    July 12, 2009 at 4:07 am

    Frisco, do you have anything to counter this research? I find it quite interesting, especially in light of the fact that the APA itself just admitted that their idea of the homosexuality gene, which they promoted for years falsely, simply isn’t true. Let the truth come out!

    “Encino, CA- A new report in this month’s edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation is not immutable and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions is beneficial and poses no significant risk of harm……

    We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs.”

  5. hiacynth said,

    July 12, 2009 at 11:43 am

    You should also consult a 2001 study by Dr. Spitzer of Columbia University, which showed that lesbians and homosexual men who wanted to become heterosexual had respective success rates of 95% and 90%.

    But even without these scientific studies, it is simply impossible to believe that homosexuality is immutable. Look no further than Hollywood, where job opportunities often determine one’s sexual preferences.

    Financial reasons aside, you may be predisposed to by gay because of low self esteem, underlying medical conditions (making it more difficult for you to feel you fit in sports, etc.), and/or molestation or seduction by a gay person when you were very young. Nevertheless, with professional help you have a very good chance to change your lifestyle, of course only if you want to.

  6. Ross said,

    July 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    “You should also consult a 2001 study by Dr. Spitzer of Columbia University, which showed that lesbians and homosexual men who wanted to become heterosexual had respective success rates of 95% and 90%. ”

    Totally laughable, hiacynth. Of course there was a high success rate, consider the pool of subjects..these are people who were obviously unhappy with their lives and WANTED to change for whatever reason. I would wager with almost any type of person who was that unhappy with their lives to seek psychiatrist/medical help would be capable of changing if their motivation is hard enough. There are many gay and lesbian individuals in society who are happy, successful, partnered, disease-free, have a strong system of support from friends and loved ones. They don’t want to change and who can blame them? A person should be their own personal barometer for their happiness, not someone else.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    July 12, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Hiacynth, is that the same Spitzer that was on the APA board back when they decided to try to make homosexuality normal by taking it off of the disorder list?

  8. hiacynth said,

    July 12, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Yes, it the same person, so gay activists, however hard they tried to, cannot possibly find any bias. Dr. Spitzer was in fact instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the 1970’s.

    And Ross, you are right. The success rates Dr. Spitzer’s study showed applied to homosexuals who wanted to change their lifestyle. I do not think you could conduct such study on gays who do not want to change their lifestyles, unless you incapcitated, hypnotized them, etc. So, your comments make no sense.

  9. Frisco said,

    July 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    The possible negation of one scientific theory, such as a genetic cause for homosexuality, does not automatically negate any other biological reasoning for homosexuality, such as brain structure. Obviously if the Big Bang Theory was found to be false, we should all believe what the Bible says, as all other scientific, physical, rational theories would be false.

  10. hiacynth said,

    July 13, 2009 at 6:36 am


    The truth is often inconvenient. You personally may want to believe that your homosexuality is immutable to make yourself feel better about your lifestyle choice. Gay lobby wants to perpetuate the immutability myth to gain political advantage.

    Nevertheless, the scientific truth is that 9 out of 10 homosexual men unhappy with their lifestyle can successfully become heterosexual. The numbers are even higher for lesbians. There goes the immutability falsehood!

    Any person capable of critical thinking would rather believe a study conducted by a highly regarded (and clearly not biased) Professor of Psychiatry at one of the world’s top universities than self-serving non-scientific claims by gays.

  11. Ross said,

    July 13, 2009 at 8:33 am

    Hiacynth: “So, your comments make no sense.”

    Actually, Hiacynth, your comment is the one that makes no sense because there is no point to it. So studies show that sexuality can be changed if the motivation is strong enough? So what? Pretty much any aspect of a person’s life can be changed if the motivation is strong enough (alchoholism, dependency, drug abuse, etc). And I know where your mind is going…. You’re thinking, but see those are all “bad” things. Harmful things. Against the “norm”. And while I agree that those things are often harmful to the individual and to other people….I don’t see how homosexuality is such a bad thing if the person is engaging in safe sex, has a strong and loving support system, friends..etc.

    In this case, its like a person’s handedness..which is determined by a VARIETY of factors and is also scientifically proven to be muteable. Should a person who is left handed be encouraged to be right handed because it is “the norm” ( society is designed more for right-handed people after all… think from a product standpoint). The point of the comment is, a person can be happy being left handed. A person can be happy being homosexual. Why should a person change their lifestyle if they are happy for the purpose of fitting into the collective norm? Since when are other people a barometer for other people’s happiness?

  12. Ross said,

    July 13, 2009 at 8:38 am

    And I agree with Frisco, as I personally am a believer in no genetic coding for homosexuality, but more a hormonal influence from the womb (look at studies involved male siblings, fraternal twins, identical twins, etc).

    What beetlebabee and hiacynth are talking about is often a tactic of anti-marriage equality advocates. They bring up statistic after statistic of people who homosexuals who are unhappy with their lives..And focus solely on that. And the “misery” of the homosexual lifestyles. They choose to politely ignore the gay and lesbian men and women out there who lead fulfilling, successful lives with family, partners, etc.

  13. beetlebabee said,

    July 13, 2009 at 10:44 am

    Ross, it’s not about forcing homosexuals to have an acceptable lifestyle. That’s a choice we all make. The question here is what is marriage. A relationship between two men isn’t a marriage.

  14. hiacynth said,

    July 13, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Frisco and Ross,

    You may very well be happy with your lifestyles. There are gays, however, who are not. These people welcomed Dr. Spitzer’s study, as it gave them hope and showed they can become heterosexual. Again, 95% of lesbians and 90% of homosexual men involved in the study were successful in becoming heterosexual.

    Dr. Spitzer’s findings also finally settled the question whether homosexuality is immutable. Dr. Spitzer showed that it is NOT.

    You both failed to directly address, let alone refute, Dr. Spitzer’s findings.

  15. Ross said,

    July 13, 2009 at 11:21 am

    Beetlebabee, actually, in a few states a relationship between two men IS marriage.

    And nice dodging too…we weren’t talking about marriage. Look at all the previous comments by you, me, hiacynth, and frisco ….where is marriage mentioned in any of that? An attack on the behavior/lifestyle/whateveryouwanttocallit in hopes of proving it inferior or “abnormal”? Sure. Talking about marriage? Nope.

  16. Ross said,

    July 13, 2009 at 11:26 am

    Hiacynth, I did address the findings. I repeat: just about every behavior in a person’s life is muteable through motivation. I’m agreeing with you. We disagree on whether or not a person’s sexuality SHOULD be changed… seem to want every gay person to go straight. Am I wrong in that assumption?

    I would also argue that there are tons of heterosexuals out there who are unhappy with their lifestyle as well. Whether it’s because they have STDs, are promiscuous, or knocked up their highschool girlfriend on prom night.

    Bottom line is, if you’re unhappy with your lifestyle: change it. If you love your life, why change it? I’m not arguing with Spitzer’s findings, I’m arguing with your interpretation of the findings.

  17. Emissary said,

    July 13, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    I think the underlying concept here is the strength of the legal minority classification. If you look at most strict scrutiny groups, they are based on immutable characteristics — like race, national origin, etc. The big exception is religion; but so far that’s been the only behavioral group protected in that manner.

    Defining sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic gives it greater strength in terms of the argument that it should fall under strict scrutiny. If, on the other hand, it is a behavioral class, the protection should probably not be so strong.

  18. beetlebabee said,

    July 13, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Ross, please. Having a few judges or a few renegade charlatans in the state legislature declaring two men married to each other doesn’t make it marriage either. If you want male/male relationships to be considered equal to marriage, then you have to be able to show on the face that they are, by merit, equal. Unfortunately for those pushing the myth, the vast majority of male/male relationships are short lived, careless affairs. Hardly the stuff of stability or family.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    July 13, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Emissary. You nailed it. People are equal, not choices.

  20. Ross said,

    July 13, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Beetlebabee, I dont follow your thinking..same sex marriage has been legal in Massachussettes for years. That hasn’t changed no matter what opposition is brought up. It’s a law. In that state. To say that two men aren’t married there is ridiculous. It’s like you’re saying the sky isnt blue, it’s azure.

    You are foolishly thinking of marriage as an “idea” or idealogy..basically it’s not concrete. In the real world, where I live, marriage is an idea but is made concrete by the laws of the state that restrict who and who doesn’t get married. For the longest time in that state only one man and one woman could get married. That has changed…whether you want to believe in your make-believe world that a gay couple with a marriage license isn’t married. To them they are married. To the state they are married. They check the married box on their tax forms. You really think that just because in your mind YOU think they arent that mean’s they aren’t? So the whole state is crazy and youre the sane one? Please.

    And I would argue for the record that most female/male relationships are short lived as well. How often do people marry the first people they date? Just because male/male relationships without marriage are short lived does not mean male/male marriages are as well (since they are inheritently different) I think it’s far too soon (gay marriage has been legal for less than a decade!) to be jumping to conclusions about the longevity of the couples who took a vow. Unless you have some sort of fortune telling profession I don’t know about.

  21. Ross said,

    July 13, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    Emissary says: “Defining sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic gives it greater strength in terms of the argument that it should fall under strict scrutiny. If, on the other hand, it is a behavioral class, the protection should probably not be so strong.”

    I can get what you’re saying, Emissary, but it works both ways. The fact that it is a behavior class means it shouldn’t have to be protected in the first place. Example: African Americans being forced to drink out of a different water fountain than caucasians. Race is immutable, therefore the person has no choice in the matter. Therefore, they should not be “blamed” or segarated for being against the pre-conconceived norm of society.

    Second example: People who are left handed are forced to drink out of a different water fountain than people who are right handedness. Lefthandedness is mutable, should this person therefore be given the choice of drinking out of the left handed fountain, or changing to drink out of the right handed one with the vast majority. Although it is a behavior, it is merely an aspect of a human being, much as sexual preference. Should people who prefer to use their left hand be not allowed to marry other people who are left handed? Should people who prefer to be optimistic be prevented from marrying other optimists?

    Sexually, like all other preferences (and I use the word preference, because I believe that people are predisposed to prefer to be romantically attached to one sex over the other..just like a person is predisposed to prefer to use their left hand over their right), are merely an aspect of a person. A character trait. No other law I can think of discriminates against a particular trait (such as personality, handedness, etc) And whether or not you believe in same sex marriage, these people who exist with that particular trait should be able to legally tie themselves a person of their choosing, regardless of sex. Whether that is called civil unions, civil partnerships, or marriage, those people should be given the same rights as everyone else…its a rights issue more than it is an issue of using the word “marriage”. For me at least, I can’t speak for everyone else.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    July 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    There are several problems with your train of thought Ross. One is that same sex couples can provide for society everything that monogamous, dedicated for life man/woman relationships can. Another is assuming that the short term nature of male/male relationships is simply because there is no “marriage” available. That simply isn’t so. In looking at data from other countries, it’s easily seen how interested those in male/male relationships are in maintaining long term relationships. Even where it is available, most choose not to marry. Even when they do marry, male/male relationships don’t even last half as long as the worst possible male/female statistics available worldwide.

    The evidence is ample, homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle, either physically or emotionally, and does not provide the same stability that is inherent in committed man/woman marriage.

    As for what a relationship is called, that is up to you, whether or not God and society accept those terms is not up to you.

  23. Chairm said,

    July 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Ross, your comment about the law in Massachusetts is misinformed. Please cite the part of the marriage statute in which two men are eligible to marry.

    You can’t because the marriage law is “the law. In that state.”

    Your view depends on the arbitrary use of governmental power in the name of asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics over the marriage law, rather than in support of the marriage law.

  24. Chairm said,

    July 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Ross is also playing a mug’s game when he says it is foolish to think of marriage as an idea. What is SSM except some highly abstract idea which fails to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage relationship types and living arrangements? It is so abstract that I bet that Ross cannot distinguish marriage from nonmarriage — given his insistence on avoiding foolishness we can expect that he won’t resort to the assertion that the law is the law. Afterall, the SSM campaign is about changing the law, changing the culture, and imposing an idea of marriage that destroys the distinctions between marriage and nonmarriage. And, my bet is also based on anticipating that he will deny that the imposition of SSM is an abitrary use of power in the name of identity politics. He will plant one foot, and pivot in a circle, and despite his protestations, he will demonstrate that for him SSM is just an idea and is based on nothing more than an idealogy.

    Go ahead, Ross, clarify what you mean by “SSM” in the law of Massachusetts. What are the definitive legal requirements that distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category; or that distinguish marriage from nonmarriage in Massachusetts. If you say — the license — then we won’t need a fortune telling process to show that your comments are self-defeating.

  25. Euripides said,

    July 23, 2009 at 8:56 am

    Some of the more colorful comments keep slipping by and into my mailbox. I’m impressed with how utterly inane some people are trying to tear down what you are building up here bb.


  26. hiacynth said,

    July 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    This fight for “marriage” rights waged against our whole society by gay activists is reminiscent of their fight against the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970’s. The APA, under extreme political pressure (including incidents of violence and intimidation) from within (at least one of the top APA memers was homosexual) and from the outside, removed homosexulity from the list of mental disorders.

    That switch from mental condition to no condition was done without ANY clinical basis (was not based on a single study) and, according to several members of the APA, was pure politics. The truth is that homosexuality is a mental illness, often treatable in highly motivated individuals (see Dr. Rober Spitzer’s study at Columbia University).

    What is frightning is that we see the same thing happening again. Now, however, it is done with more vigor and arrogance because gays are currently, according to the APA, “not mentally ill”. Gay activists are making bogus legal claims, buying politicians and judges, exerting political pressure, intimidation and violence to advance their “marriage” agenda.

    That “marriage” agenda is about nothing more than forcing all of US to agree that homosexuals are “normal”. They are NOT normal, they are mentally ill. Considering them not mentally ill hurts homosexuals themselves and hurts our society. Just like schizophrenics are mentally ill, and cannot be labeled normal people with wonderfully vivid imagination. Doing so would hurt the patients and all of us. With homosexuals, however, the APA has already done significant damage. It has hurt homosexuals by removing the incentive to get help, and the society by helping mainstream abnormal and destructive sexual behavior(consider the AIDS/HIV epidemic and other STD epidemics).

    I will quote what Dr. Socarides (member of the APA at the time of the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders) had to say about the dangerous effects politics has on science. Today, this can be applied to the effects of homosexual “marriage” politics on legal principles and absolute moral truths.

    “To some American psychiatrists, this action remains
    a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not
    fought for, they can be lost—a disillusioning warning
    that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are
    subject to the snares of political factionalism and the
    propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed
    public, to the rest of the medical profession,
    and to the behavioral sciences.”

  27. Brock Neeley said,

    August 5, 2009 at 8:46 am

    For those who think we in the LGBTQ community should call our marriages something else remember it is an issue of “KINSHIP”.
    There are only 3 legal ways to establish Kinship: by Marriage, Blood (birth) or adoption. Until the legal definition of Kinship is changed the only way to acquire the rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples is through Marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: