A Historic Election


Proposition 8–Life Lessons Learned

The proposition 8 fight eclipsed everything for me the last few months.  This has been an awesome and powerful movement.  I am just so pleased to have been a part of it.  California, Arizona and Florida all won.  That sends a message to the gay movement in this country.  We are turning the tide.  Shall we go back to sleep now?  You can bet that the opposition won’t be sleeping.  My eyes have been pried wide open the last few weeks and I cannot go back to the place I was in blissful ignorance.  There are those out there willing to destroy the family and the values that this country is founded on, for mere self interest.

There is more to life than self interest.

Were I to only worry about myself, I would not fight for the rights of my children or my community, I would just go on my merry way.  I can easily do that, it’s my nature to find things to fill my life that are pleasant and good.  Fighting is hard.  Who wants to be called names and get into uncomfortable arguments?  This fight took me WAY out of my comfort zone, but we accomplished something and the exhilaration of that moment was great.  Knowing my children will have a better world made it worth it.

If we don’t fight, if we choose instead to go back to sleep and peace and ignorance, we will be mere pawns of those who choose to act around us.  I can’t be that pawn any longer.  I choose to act.  At this point, I’m not sure where to direct my energy for change, but I will be looking for that opportunity.

One thing I learned from this historic election is that every voice makes a difference.

I’ll keep fighting, and I’ll teach my children to stand up and fight, to make their voices heard in positive ways, to stand up for what they believe in and make a difference in their worlds for good.  One voice raised is worth a thousand silent voices.

Record the efforts we’ve made here, teach your children what happened in California, tell them how we made a difference and show them that they too can make a difference.  Tell your children.  Tell your grandchildren.  Our generations are so precious.  We’ve seen the face of the opposition and it will not rest.

Neither can we.

Whether You Like It Or Not–My needs above yours

Whether You Like It Or Not

My needs above yours…at any cost.

In my post, “It’s Not Just About Love” I brought up the idea that there are more intentions, more drives at play with the same sex marriage debate than just love.  There is more at stake as well, but for a moment I want to focus on the intentions, the goals of the gay movement.  They say it’s just about love, but I think it’s about affirmation and acceptance, about domination of ideas, my needs above yours at any cost.

Our friends in the gay community ask us to accept changing the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, because their heart’s desires are excluded.  Are we unfair?  Biased?  Bigoted?  Homophobic?  No.  The idea that desires sometimes go unmet for the greater good is part of life for responsible adults.  Gay marriage at the expense of our children’s development, and our social stability is not a responsible path.  If my heart’s desire is to two partners, I am free to act on that desire, but I am not free to call it marriage, no matter how much I may want it and feel lost without it.  The consequences for society are too great.

It seems that there is a need in the gay community for affirmation, for society to stop “looking down” on the gay lifestyle.  There is a tendency to blame all the misery they feel, and the harm they do to themselves and others on society because their lifestyle choices are not morally accepted in society.  Somehow everything is supposed to change, people will be happy,  once they’re accepted.  How does changing the definition of marriage all of a sudden bring the light of happiness into a same sex couple’s life like we’re being told it will?  It doesn’t.

I’ve made enough mistakes in my life to know, that just because someone says what I’m doing is ok, it doesn’t make the guilt I feel go away.  People have no effect on God’s laws.  If it’s wrong now, it will still be wrong even if all the courts in the land say it’s not.  Morality is not peer driven.  Does the gay community believe their misery will be lifted if we’re all affirming their lifestyle by inclusion?  The guilt will not go away, it will just spread as we include our children in the sphere of exposure.  If you’re not happy now, changing the definition of marriage won’t make you happy either.

Here’s an article that was amazing to read because of it’s source.

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

by Al Rantel

“…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. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall. While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. 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. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone…”

Juxtapose that with the following statement by Mayor Newsom in his now famous video clip about the doors being wide open, whether we like it or not… and the point is really brought home for me, that this truly is about more than love.  It’s about a lot of things, primarily putting the needs of a few above the good of the whole….Whether you like it or not.

The Activist’s Agenda


The Homosexual Agenda

Author: Alan Sears, Craig Osten

Q. Craig, with the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and an expected decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that could create gay “marriage” on American shores, the whole idea of same-sex marriage has come front-and-center in American life. But isn’t same-sex “marriage” just one part of the homosexual agenda?

A. Yes it is. The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called “After the Ball,” where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.

Q. Now, wait a minute. We hear all the time from gay activists that “there is no such thing” as a gay agenda. They snicker at the very idea.

A. But there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.” That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.

2. “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” That’s why they exploited things like the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard. It was a tragic murder, yet they have used that and spun that to demonize people like Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.

3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.” That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.

4. “Make gays look good.” That’s what they’ve done through media campaigns, through television programs, like “Will and Grace” and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.

5. “Make the victimizers look bad.” They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to “muddy the moral waters” by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.

6. “Get funds from corporate America.” In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how they have done that. It’s based on fudging the truth — and outright lies.

By the way, the authors of “After the Ball” admit that the use of lies is perfectly fine in their struggle. Their main thing is to get people to believe them. That is all that is important.

What’s interesting is that gay activists go to corporations and say, “We are an aggrieved class; we are discriminated against.” Then, on the other hand, they go to corporate America and say, “Look how much money we have. We make double what a traditional family makes. We are a market that you want to advertise to and cater to.”

Corporate America signs on — whether for domestic partner benefits, or whatever — because they don’t want to alienate that market.

Q. You mentioned lies. Isn’t one of the lies that homosexuals really want marriage?

A. That’s one of the biggest lies. Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don’t want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage. Basically, once they get marriage, they want to redefine it — they call the concept “monogamy without fidelity.” In other words, marriage would mean that you could be with a person but say, “I can go ahead and have sex with anybody else I want, but my spouse and I live together.”

One homosexual activist said, “We can now dethrone the (traditional) family based on blood relationships, in favor of the families that we choose.”

This article can be found in entirety here.

Proposition 8: Who’s Really Lying?

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct 16, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Public Records Show Proposition 8 Opponents Want Gay Marriage To Be Taught In Public Schools – ‘The earlier the better.’

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 http://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 8) 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.’

This article is hot off the press from the Wall Street Journal.

Brutalized and Censored by the Opposition

Love?  Tolerance?  Acceptance?

These words are the war cry and mantra of our opposition.  But who exactly is showing love and tolerance? There are many (not all) who are against Prop 8 who have forgotten to follow their own war cry, evidenced by several new incidents of hatred, vandalism, theft, and even violent intolerance against those supporting Proposition 8.

Example 1:  The Prop 8 Sign Guy Gets Smashed in the Face

A Proposition 8 supporter was violently attacked for distributing lawn signs this week.  The story came out in the Los Angeles Examiner yesterday, http://www.examiner.com/p-242262~Prop__8_Supporter_Violently_Attacked_for_Distributing_Lawn_Signs.html but was removed from the examiner’s website that afternoon.  Prop 8 people got a copy of it and put it on the protectmarriage.com website before it was erased.  If this had been a gay man who’d been attacked, we’d have seen it all over the national news.  Since it’s our guy, they squashed the story.  I searched their whole website, even the pictures were taken down from their archives.  You can see a copy of the story (without pictures) here:  Prop 8 Supporter Violently Attacked for Distributing Lawn Signs.  The LA Times is likewise silent on this story.  Not a peep from any major news outlet in California.  This is an outrageous example of the hate on the other side.  This man was attacked and brutalized for his beliefs, and this example doesn’t stand alone.

Example 2:  A Mother and her children verbally abused, Property Destroyed.

It is more than the woman who stopped her car at a busy intersection to curse at a woman and her children holding prop 8 signs at a demonstration.  She was so engrossed in her ranting tirade that she missed the green light and held up traffic for another few choice words.  It’s more than people giving us the one finger wave, that sort of stuff just shows bad character, but that’s not the extent of it.  The opposition in our area went to work last night in a big way. Signs were stolen, property vandalized, and supporter’s tires were slashed in my neighborhood by those against proposition 8.  This is a free country.  To our opposition I say, look around.  Tolerance is a two way street.  Fight ideas with ideas, not with violence.  To the good guys, Keep fighting! It’s a cause worth fighting for.

You can destroy our signs, we’ll just make more!  AND BIGGER ones too!

Families Working Together to Protect Families!

Support Prop 8!

Same Sex Marriage—Cliff Notes for Kids

Feeling lost on SS Marriage?  My kids really appreciated this video.  They’re too young for the full debate, but this goes to just their level.  This video makes a complicated issue totally clear.  It’s kind of like the cliff notes version of the debate, with both sides fairly presented.

What is the Harm? Look to our Children.

It is outrageous to claim that same sex marriage will have no effect on our society, on our children and the generations that come after us.  I read a sign recently in a news article that read, “How does my same sex marriage harm yours?”   What is the harm to our children, to our rights, to our freedoms?  What is the harm to our nation, our families, if same sex marriage as a currently defined “civil right” continues to move forward?  The gay marriage lobby contends that it won’t hurt, won’t harm, won’t change anything for the majority of society, but the evidence is mounting, demonstrating that not only will things change, but they will change in a major way.  In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, “We’re here.  We’re queer.  And we’re coming after your children.” Is that just some fringe quote?  Or is it indicative of a widely held innate desire to be accepted by society at all costs?

What are are we teaching our children? What effect will this have on their social development? on their children? (Kids watch at their teacher's same sex wedding--SF Chronicle.)

If we don’t win this fight to pass proposition 8 and other like minded legislation, changes will come like dominoes across the nation.  Massachusetts, California, Connecticut….if we’re going to stand up, now is the time.  Marriage is the fundamental building block of our society, changes to it’s definition will create ripples of change reaching every corner of our lives over time.  This is not a small issue.

Just last Friday, a class of first graders–6 and 7 year old children–was taken on a field trip to see a same sex wedding as part of the curriculum!

Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day

Saturday, October 11, 2008

“The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated.

“….there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.  “It really is what we call a teachable moment,” Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues.  “I think I’m well within the parameters.”

How can same sex marriage proponents argue that it will not be taught in schools?  It’s not just being taught, it’s being advocated, and it’s happening before our eyes.

See the teacher’s comment’s on her class attending and what she hopes all of our children will be able to experience: First Grade Teacher’s Interview

An Objective View– by Jane Galt www.janegalt.net

For more examples of the ripples see www.whatistheharm.org.

Political Slactivism

A word about online petitions…now, I have to admit that I actually signed this one before I looked into it, so count me among the penitent, but if you want to see the blisters on my feet acquired since then, I’ve got the goods to prove my sincerity.

A while back I got this petition in the email, “please sign!  forward to all your friends!”  ok, so I go to the site at Focus Petitions:

The Petition

As a California resident, I am signing this Citizen Petition opposing Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) open advocacy of homosexual marriage and opposition of Prop. 8. As a utility that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and is commissioned to serve all Californians within its jurisdiction, PG&E should not take sides in such hotly contested cultural and political debates….

Now I agree with that wording 110%, a public company has no business taking sides in political or moral issues….so click the box right?  NO!   Well, actually, it doesn’t matter what you do with the box.

As far as I can tell from what I’ve read, online petitions have no teeth because they can’t verify signatures.  It looks like a feel good sort of thing that gets lots of new hits to the focus on the family organization that runs the petition site.  They get money from advertising.  It’s a cynical view, but it’s a crazy world.  It’s all just pretty, dressed up, slactivism.  Sit in your chair and click a mouse and assuage your guilt in one fell swoop.  You don’t have to get up, don’t have to write a letter, certainly not talk to anyone…that would be scary!  Unfortunately, the amount of effort required is linked to the amount of weight it carries on the other side.

If people really think there is something wrong with what PG&E did, they should write a handwritten letter and sign it!  Better yet, get three people to sign it with you before you put the stamp on, triple the effect for the same cost!  People weigh actual letters far more heavily than a thousand questionable petitioners.

PG&E Update:

October 23, 2008

Dear Brian,

As you know, PG&E has joined homosexual activists in trying to destroy traditional marriage. PG&E donated $250,000 to defeat CA Prop 8. Thousands of pro-marriage customers complained, but PG&E simply laughed. Well, PG&E is not laughing now.

The response to our previous action alert was so overwhelming that alternative gas suppliers were caught off guard. But that problem has been solved. Join with others and send PG&E a real message by switching suppliers. And save money, too!

According to Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute, California law allows residential and non-residential consumers to choose an alternative natural gas provider. Research shows that alternative providers, year over year, have reported saving their customers up to 15% off their natural gas bill compared to PG&E.

“There is no reason why pro-marriage homes, small businesses, corporations, apartment owners, schools or churches should continue to support companies actively opposed to traditional marriage,” said Dacus.

For more information, here’s how to switch from PG&E to another provider. If you are not a PG&E customer, please forward this to your family and friends who may be PG&E customers.



Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association


I’m not Catholic, but wow.  This says it all.