Perry v Schwarzenegger: Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

Photo: Norman Rockwell–Freedom of Worship

Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

The endless parade has come to a halt.  Painfully, yet colorfully, we’ve all watched the emotional train wreck unfold over these last several weeks.  Here and there bits of sanity reigned, but by and large raw, pity driven emotion ran the day.

Thankfully all binge parties must have an end and this one is no exception.  Finally, Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom theatrics and baldface shenanigans  have come to a close.  All that remains are 30 days of preparation, the final arguments and the ruling.

No matter which way Judge Walker rules, his feckless reign will not ultimately hold sway.  The fate of proposition 8 will end up in the hands of the United States Supreme Court; a judicial body, I might add, in which I have infinitely more faith.

Is there any question how Judge Walker will rule?  He’s made his bias clear every chance he got.  The better question is, what will the Supreme Court think of his antics?  Somehow I don’t imagine they will look kindly on the abuse and mockery Judge Walker has made of the judicial system, thumbing his nose at basic freedoms, federal judicial practice and common decency.  He may have won small points with the Oprah crowd, but the Supreme Court is not populated by Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. These are men and women who know the constitution, and the  intent of its creators to protect the rights and liberties of all men with regard to personal belief:

That religion, and the duty which we owe to our CREATOR,  and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.”  –James Madison, Virginia Declaration

The bottom line is no one has the right to put religion, family or democracy on trial.  These are freedoms and rights that are truly inalienable.  All men are equal.  No spurious claim to special rights can supersede the rights we all share in common.

—Beetle Blogger

See this from Ron Prentice, the executive director of protectmarriage.com.

The live testimony in the federal trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic court battle over the definition of marriage, finally came to a close yesterday afternoon.
Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us.
For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony was broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast. Even though the US Supreme Court later overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case, it was too late.
The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on our team of defense attorneys to find other ways to get our critical evidence into the record. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, our attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the other side’s witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy. Thankfully, our legal team was extremely successful in this regard.
After weeks of 20+ hour days, our attorneys finally were able to get a good night’s rest. We appreciate your prayers for them and your words of encouragement. Starting today, they will be working for the next 30 days to submit additional briefings to the judge. They will also start preparing to go back before Judge Walker sometime in March to present final closing arguments. And then we will await the court’s ruling.
No matter how Judge Walker rules, all sides agree that this is just the first stage in a much longer journey that will ultimately end at the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter which side wins this first legal test, the case is surely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually to the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even though the live testimony has ended, we must continue our efforts to secure the resources needed for a strong legal defense of Prop 8. Please help us with your own contribution, and forward this email to your friends and colleagues who themselves might make a donation. Our outstanding legal bills are substantial and the ongoing fight will be expensive.
Every person involved in our legal defense has made tremendous sacrifices. Lead trial counsel Charles Cooper and his team from the Cooper & Kirk law firm have done a spectacular job. Special thanks is also due to the excellent attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund who donated literally thousands of hours of legal work as part of the defense team.
In particular, we are also extremely grateful to our own General Counsel, Andy Pugno, whose wife is due to deliver their third child any day now. Not only has he worked tirelessly for months on end and represented us ably in the courtroom, his entire family has paid a price as Andy has been fighting for the institution of marriage. We owe him, and his family, a debt of gratitude.
Below is a statement Andy released to the media late yesterday about the case. It’s an excellent summary of how this show trial unfolded.
Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.
What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional
marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.
Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a
mother and father. It’s that simple.
The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal
support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.
Thank you for your continued help through prayer, financial support, encouragement, and spreading the word. We – all of us – are responsible for the shape of our society when we hand it off to future generations.
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

protester-police2

Freedom of Religion: More from the “tolerance” crowd

In honor of  Obama’s proclaimed “Religious Freedom Day“, I thought I’d post this quote:

“Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should ‘not tolerate’ any ‘private beliefs,’ including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual ‘equality.’” —CNS News

Combine that sentiment from a self described “radical” with this from the Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco last week, and you see even more clearly the pervasive depth to which this intolerant sentiment has spread, especially in the activist gay community:

“A chilling moment came when San Francisco city attorney Therese Stewart had Professor Chauncey read official doctrinal statements from the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church that both generally restated what the Bible says about the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Professor Chauncey said those doctrinal statements reflect historic bias against those who engage in homosexual behavior. It’s not hard to figure out what is so frightening about an attempt in federal court to attack and delegitimize the views of the two largest Christian denominations in America. This is further proof that this case, and the very definition of marriage, is about much more than the personal relationships and the inner feelings of people who choose same-sex relationships. It is about imposing a different and intolerant “morality” on America and eradicating opposing ideas.” —ADF

The activist gay movement is first and foremost about the “eradication” of opposing ideas.  They openly advocate intolerance for others with whom they happen to disagree.  Proposition 8 was passed in a large part because of the repeated intolerance this group shows, and because of their efforts to legislate this intolerance into California law.

The gay movement says the fight against “equality” is all about hate.  I have to agree.  It’s about hate alright.  Whose hate is it though?  Whose freedoms are really at stake, and whose legal equality?

We all have the right to believe as we choose.

–Beetle Blogger

See this from a children’s primer on the First Amendment:

Freedom of Religion
Did you know that you have two Freedoms
granted by the First Amendment regarding Religion?

Pilgrims were called Separatists back in England because they wanted independence from the established Church of England. In 1620, they sailed the stormy Atlantic for 63 days on the tiny Mayflower, seeking freedom of religion in the New World.

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.

Your rights to Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof means:

  • The Freedom of Religion is an inalienable right.
  • The First Amendment provides for the Freedom of Religion for all Americans.
  • The Free Exercise Clause provides that government will neither control nor prohibit the free exercise of one’s religion.
  • The government will remain neutral.

And Then There Was Maine

prop8_header

ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on Proposition 8


November 05, 2009

Dear friends,

November 3, 2009 was an auspicious day for traditional marriage in America.  The eyes of the nation have watched and waited for the outcome of a ballot initiative to prevent homosexual marriage from becoming law in Maine.  It was the 31st attempt by a state’s popular vote to protect the definition of traditional marriage.  Thirty times it had succeeded before, and the stakes were exceedingly high.  Both sides needed the victory – one, to keep our nation on the course divined by God and the other to use it as an indication that the national tide is turning away from centuries of understanding and practice of this sacred issue.

But the night clearly and decisively belonged to traditional marriage, with 53 percent of Maine voters restoring the definition of marriage to between one man and one woman!

The outcome was particularly gratifying because the win came in the liberal New England region of our country where surrounding states have legalized same-sex marriage, with Maine widely expected by the media, political pundits and the national gay establishment to follow suit.  And our opponents had every advantage: they tapped into vast financial resources of pro-homosexual activists across the country, raising nearly $5 million from all but 10 of our 50 states, claimed a volunteer corps of thousands, and were, of course, the darlings of the media.

Yet the traditional marriage campaign strategically and diligently went about the business of laying bare the experiences in states that have legalized same-sex marriage, sharing with Mainers what legal experts on both sides of the issue agreed would be an onslaught of legal actions against those who chose to exercise their conscience if gay marriage became law.

As a result of what occurred in Maine, we continue to herald that every single time voters have had the chance, they have supported traditional marriage.  Voters are tolerant of homosexual relationships, but they draw the line at the centuries-old institution of marriage because they understand the serious consequences to society – especially children – when traditional marriage is dismantled.

In the end, our efforts – buoyed by God’s blessing and the prayers and hard work of many involved in Prop 8 – carried the day, for which we are deeply grateful.  Yet with the same breath used to concede the race, our opponents clearly let it be known that they will continue the fight to make homosexual marriage the social norm.  And while this particular battle was waged and won in Maine, the message from our opponents in California was equally clear.

Equality California issued a message to their supporters just yesterday urging them to contact President Obama to engage in the Prop 8 legal battle by asking the court to rule it unconstitutional.  Make no mistake that our victory in Maine was a crushing blow to the gay activists who continue to fight us in federal court over Prop 8 and who, at this very minute, are directing their efforts to overturn it through another campaign.

We must not and will not rest on our laurels when we know that the other side is more focused than ever to push their agenda after Tuesday’s results.  Please help us keep the momentum for marriage going strong by contributing to our fight right here in California. As we learned in the Golden State last year and again in Maine this week, every effort by each individual participating in our mission makes the difference in the final outcome.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice
Executive Director

www.protectmarriage.com

Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened

Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke on the rising threat to religious freedom at BYU-Idaho on Tuesday.   We are all guaranteed religious freedom under the U.S Constitution but his condemnation of the recent attacks on that freedom—including gay activists painting swastikas on churches— apparently earned him a spot on Keith Olbermann’s “worst person in the world” list.

??!??  Yes.  It’s true.  What’s all the bruhaha?  Read for yourself what Olbermann’s antics confirm.

—Beetle Blogger

Dallin H. Oaks on Religious Freedom at Risk:

“Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

Silencing Religious Voices in the Public Square

A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”[vi] Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]

Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .

“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”[xiii]

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.”

……..

“It was the Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made possible the formation of the United States Constitution over 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that constitution today. Our constitution’s revolutionary concepts of sovereignty in the people and significant guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has written,

“generated by a people for whom Christianity had been for a century and a half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every person . . . is valued and loved by God.”[xviii]

Professor Dinesh D’Souza reminds us:

“The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.”[xix]

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.”

Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech given at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009.
See entire transcript in the LDS Newsroom.

Facebook’s Yellow Wave in Support of Marriage!

yellow_wave_2009

Stand for Marriage!  Go Yellow!

You may have noticed the impromptu “Yellow Wave” happening on Stand For Marriage Maine’s Facebook page.  Does the enthusiasm look familiar?  If you live in California it just might!  The “Go Yellow” movement has its roots in the California fight for Proposition 8.

As one avid poster explained:

In California, the opposition tried to paint marriage supporters as these fringe wacky people, so families that supported marriage participated in “waves” where they’d all come out on the street with their yellow yard signs and kids and wave to their neighbors to show their support and show voters who it was that really supported marriage.  Some of the waves were ten miles long! Ten miles of happy smiling families in yellow! Old people, young people, all kinds of people standing for marriage.

In Maine we’re so spread out I don’t know if we can really do waves like they did in California to put a personal face on the marriage effort, so I thought of doing it on facebook and twitter with yellow profile pics. With an online wave you can support marriage from anywhere, you don’t have to be in Maine to show solidarity for families.

Others chimed in:

“what a great idea! I like the whole “wave” concept, and with marriage being attacked in so many different states, it doesn’t really matter where we are. Raising awareness helps us all…”

“aha! that’s awesome!”

“You know those profile pics will show up changed all over facebook, like itty bitty yellow billboards. I like it!”

“How’s that for kickin’ it up a notch! Support Marriage this month! It doesn’t matter what state you’re in, go yellow!”

So not only can you sticker your car or post signs in your yard, but you can stand for marriage wherever you’re from through Facebook and Twitter!

Are you interested in participating?  Check out Maine’s Facebook page to find volunteers who will do the photoshop for you!  Go Yellow!

banner
See this from the Proposition 8 “Waves”:

Yellow Coast! From Seal Beach to San Clemente—Turning the PCH Yellow!

happy_yellow_wavers

Proposition 8, which would define marriage in California as being between one man and one woman, has become the hottest topic in Orange County, even eclipsing the race for the White House for some voters.

Last Saturday, hundreds – according to organizer Michael Erickson, more than a thousand participants – rallied along Pacific Coast Highway from Seal Beach to San Clemente in support of Prop. 8.

See this video of the event, WOW.


Prop 8…..Sunshine on a Rainy Day

November 2, 2008 ·from the Seminole Guy

On Saturday, hundreds of Prop 8 Supporters lined a major boulevard in Sacramento. At the major intersections, the sound of horns from drivers supporting them was immense.

Neither wind, nor rain, nor opposition stops Prop 8!

can_steal_signs_not_votes

Gut and Amend: SB 54—Unconstitutional End-run on Proposition 8

california_vote_stomped

Gut and Amend–The Legislature’s Latest Con to Thwart the Constitution and the Twice Stated Will of the The People

SB 54 started out as a health care coverage bill, introduced by Senator Mark Leno and sponsored by Equality California.  It passed through the necessary bill process and then was summarily gutted top to bottom.  Why?  What did they replace the contents of the already vetted bill with?

This bill, still called SB 54, is no longer a health care bill by design.  In line with Equality California’s gay agenda for California, it now says that a same-sex marriages from out of state, MUST be recognized in California!

This outrage circumvents both Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Court decision upholding the people’s right to amend the California constitution.

“SB 54 requires the state of California to validate and recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state of California prior to November 5, 2008.  The bill specifically violates Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution which states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”—California Family Council

The People spoke by the millions during the Proposition 8 election last year and by millions before during Proposition 22.  Twice by vote and now by Constitutional amendment, the Constitution of California recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman.

The gutting and amending of SB 54 allowed this controversial bill to pass to a full floor vote after going through only one committee hearing.  It’s wrong for such a controversial bill to not go through the whole legislative process with maximum public input.

Each year as the Legislature approaches its year-end adjournment, legislators attempt to push through controversial or contentious legislation.  Fight the gay agenda being pushed in California.  Stand up for our Constitution and the proper process that gives full vetting to proposed legislation.  This bill cannot go through!

Cutting out public discourse on legislation? Is this how democracy works in a government with too much power?  Our government needs to work for the people.  Not against them.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has until October 11 to either sign or veto this bill.  Call the Governor to Veto!

—Beetle Blogger

Capitol_Resource_Institute

Action Alert— Encourage Vetoes of SB 54 and SB 572

Gov. Schwarzenegger has until October 11 to either sign or veto the following bills.  Please continue to contact his office and encourage him to veto SB 54 and SB 572:

SB 54-End-run on Proposition 8
The bill states that all marriages performed prior to Proposition 8′s passage last November must be recognized by the state government. If they are performed after Proposition 8′s passage, the marriages will have all the legal rights and benefits of marriage, just not the legal term “marriage.” SB 54 was recently “gutted and amended,” going through only one committee hearing. It’s wrong for such a controversial bill to not go through the whole legislative process with maximum public input.

Read SB 54
Senate Votes for SB 54
Assembly Votes for SB 54

SB 572-Harvey Milk Day
Senator Mark Leno’s bill will declare every May 22 Harvey Milk Day in California. Milk was a San Francisco county supervisor and homosexual activists. According to SB 572, school children will learn about and honor Milk at school every May 22.

SB 572 is designed to insert sexual politics into all California classrooms. The bill language actually states that on Harvey Milk Day, schools are “encouraged” to conduct “exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state.” Such vague language means there are no clear guidelines for what students will do to “commemorate” the life of Harvey Milk and his controversial political activities advancing homosexuality.

Read SB 572
Senate Votes for SB 572
Assembly Votes for SB 572

Contact Governor Schwarzenegger and encourage him to VETO SB 54 and SB 572

Sacramento Office (916) 445-2841
Fresno Office (559) 477-1804
Los Angeles Office (213) 897-0322
Riverside Office  (951) 680-6860
San Diego Office (619) 525-4641
San Francisco Office (415) 703-2218

Outrageous Proposition 8 “Legal Analyst” Bob Massi Spouts Disinformation and Propaganda

Photo: Bob Massi

Dear FOX,

Is Bob Massi a Fox News Legal Analyst???  What kind of commentary is this?  With months of preparation wasted, FOX News’ Bob Massey, on live television mangled easily obtained facts and instead spouted gay activist propaganda:

“this movement, prop 8 was very much funded , millions of dollars, much by the Mormon Church as you know, they spent, they were organized, they went out .. what’s going to happen now? The bottom line is they lost….

There is a lot to be learned by this….  they got out charged, money wise.   They got out organized.  You and I have covered these kind of cases… its all about money.  If you have the amount of money to go out and try to raise the kind of support you want, and to pay the people and the volunteers to get out there, those are the ones that usually win.”

—Bob Massi, Fox News Legal Analyst

Would you like a point by point rebuttal of this awful “legal” analyzing?  I’m just a regular Joe and even I know the true facts about the Proposition 8 campaign.  Send me a check!  I know more than your “Legal Analyst” does!

The Mormon Church gave no money.  They only gave in-kind donations amounting to an insignificant fraction of the donations recieved in the Proposition 8 fight.  As a prop 8 supporter I can tell you that I was not paid, and neither were any of the thousands of volunteers who worked tirelessly for marriage. We worked for Proposition 8 because it was right, not for money.

Proposition 8 supporters were out fundraised and outspent by far, not the other way around.

Fire the “Legal Analyst”.

—Beetle Blogger

California Supreme Court: Proposition 8 Upheld

Gay Marriage

In a huge victory for the supporters of marriage and the voters of California, Proposition 8 has been upheld by the California Supreme Court 6-1.

The people have spoken, and the courts affirm:  Marriage in California remains between a man and a woman.

—Beetle Blogger

Success! Defenders Holding the Line against Same-Sex “Marriage”—Activists Discouraged By Week’s Events

marriagesupporter10x10_apparel

News from the Trenches Good as Citizens Rally Against Nationwide Assault on Marriage:

The gay activists’ stated “6 by 12″ strategy has hit major roadblocks this week as citizens rallied nationwide to protect marriage.  In state after state, efforts to marginalize marriage lost steam and in some states, the issue seems to have reached critical mass.  Thank you to the People!

Vermont: Same-sex “Marriage” Legislation (S.115) faces Veto:

Governor Jim Douglas (R) has said he would veto any ssm bills that come to his desk.  Opposition to the anti-marriage legislation has been stiff and proponents are no longer sure they have the votes to override the promised veto.  Thank You Jim!

New Hampshire: Same-sex “Marriage” Legislation (HB 436) faces Veto:

In New Hampshire, Democrat leaders were shocked by the degree and intensity of public outcry.  Their slam dunk has turned into a hard-fought battle such that the Democratic governor of the state, John Lynch, has promised to veto the bill, and along with Vermont’s governor is urging legislators to get back to the people’s business.

Maine: Same-sex “Marriage” Legislation Coming Up:

In Maine, a bill to legalize gay marriage has nearly 60 co-sponsors in the Legislature. Gov. John Baldacci, who opposes gay marriage, says he hasn’t taken a position on the measure.

Hawaii: Civil Union Law (HB 444) Stalled Indefinitely:

The bill that threatened to legalize civil unions in Hawaii is stuck in the Senate Committee and appears to be dead after committee members voted this week against sending it to the Senate floor for a vote.  After weeks of protests and outcry from the citizens of Hawaii in support of traditional marriage, the votes in the legislature dwindled and supporters of the bill say there is not enough momentum for it to pass. Read the story here.

Iowa: Waiting for the State Supreme Court:

Iowans are anxiously awaiting the decision of their State Supreme Court on the marriage issue.  Stay tuned on this one.  The decision could come any day.

California: Opposition Taking Aim at Prop 8:

As Californians wait for the official decision of the State Supreme Court on the constitutionality of proposition 8,  two proposed amendments have been filed to try to overturn Prop 8.  One proposes to actually abolish marriage itself. Meanwhile TWO California polls show increasing support for proposition 8 and traditional marriage.  Gay activists have vilified, persecuted, and threatened marriage supporters, and the newest polls are reflecting the public’s response:

Pestered Prop 8 Donors File Suit
Washington Times
March 23, 2009

“Anybody who’s in California knows that it’s very widespread,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the biggest contributors to Proposition 8 and a joint plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Every donor has a story. I talked to a $100 donor the other day who had a note in his mailbox that said, ‘I know where you live and you’re going to pay.’

“These are just hardworking people who believe marriage is a union of a man and a woman and who never expected to be threatened in their homes,” Mr. Brown said. Read More >>

Marriage is a unique bond between a husband and wife. No politician or judge should try to interfere in that union, and no intimidation tactics will sway us.  Our children, grandchildren and families depend on the stability of Marriage.  This is the fight of our generation.

The outlook is looking up this week thanks to the voices of thousands who called their reps, phoned, blogged, wrote letters and rallied in their states!  Thank you all!  The outpouring has been tremendous.  There are still many battles coming up, including the fight to protect the DOMA, a national law supporting families that Obama has said he will try to repeal.

I read recently on a popular opposition blog that they just can’t understand where we got all the support so quickly……

Where Did Everybody Go?
Pam’s House Blend
March 21, 2009

We’re holding our third Action Fair tomorrow, the first in Central Jersey. The turnout for the first two was respectable. Having at least 50 participants at the second gathering, this early in the game, I considered a “success”. Yet after receiving updates on Maggie Gallagher’s efforts from the National Organization for Marriage headquartered in Princeton, it appears that the opposition, once again, is more organized and has recently motivated their supporters to call their legislators every day.
Read More >>

We’re out there and we’re making a difference!  Keep up the good fight! Don’t forget to support the groups who are out there fighting the good fight in the states under siege.  Pro-Family groups will be running ads in the hardest hit states this next week to support marriage and continue the momentum.  Every little bit helps! They can’t do it without us!

—Beetle Blogger

Get the Government Out of Marriage! King Solomon’s Baby Dilemma

solomon1

The Quest for Marriage Equality Takes a Familiar Twist

Remember Biblical King Solomon who tried to figure out which of two women a baby belonged to?  One woman’s baby had died in the night and both women claimed the living child as their own.  He offered to cut the baby in half to give each party an equitable share in what they wanted.   One mother said yes, half a baby was better than no baby, but the other offered to give the baby away rather than see it be killed.   Solomon knew who the real mother was by her true love for the child regardless of her own personal desires.

What does it say about proponents of “gay” marriage that they’d rather see the entire institution of marriage be destroyed than be content with domestic partnership?  Isn’t this offer to “get the government” out of marriage akin to cutting the baby in half?

See this editorial from the L.A. Times:

A way out of Prop. 8

If the state licensed civil unions, couples could choose a religious group for their marriage vows.

What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?

These were the questions Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.

The subject has come up repeatedly in blogs and conversations, but this was the first official, public forum to give it voice, and it shouldn’t be the last. The argument frequently raised against same-sex marriage is that marriage represents a special bond, traditionally and biblically reserved for a man and woman. But under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.  See the rest of this editorial here.

Isn’t this ignoring the reason society protects and promotes marriage?  Statistically, no other group of adults is as effective in raising children as a man and a woman joined in marriage and committed to each other for life.   No other group is as effective.  That is a strong statement.

That is why societies promote gold standard marriage, and no other coupling.

The idea that “If I can’t have marriage, no one should!” is the product of self centered rhetoric that robs marriage of it’s connection to children and family in order to achieve seeming equality with homosexual unions.

Marriage is more than sex and self gratification.  It is more than social acceptance and a societal stamp of approval on sexual behavior.  Marriage is the glue of society.  It is the nursery of our future generations and men and women who enter into marriage, promise to each other, God, society and their posterity that they will provide a stable loving environment for their children.  Only marriage as defined provides the stability necessary for civilization’s values and societal mores to be passed from one generation to the next.

That this “half a baby” “scorched earth” idea can be taken seriously as public policy by gay advocates is laughable.  It shows their lack of interest in marriage as an institution and illustrates activists’ perfect willingness to see the marriage institution destroyed if it furthers their own personal ambitions.

Whether society scraps marriage altogether or whether it promotes gay unions and marriages equally, the net result is the same.  Marriage as an institution is destroyed.

—Beetle Blogger

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.