Friday, October 17, 2008

The Truth About Losing our Parental Rights to teach our children

This is a copy of an email I received from the website. It states exactly how we know that gay marriage will be taught in public schools without the option for parents to remove their children from those lessons.

Dear Friend,

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003. Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.

“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”

Lying…who’s really lying?

The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.” This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at 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.’

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

How Prop 8 Affects Us All

This is a link to a video about a Massachusetts couple who did not want their 5 year old son to learn in his kindergarten class that homosexuality is morally acceptable. They asked for parental notification of when it would be taught and the right to opt out of it. The school told them it was not a parental notification issue because it is legal in Massachusetts for same-sex couples to be married. The school would not even grant them an option to decide whether or not they wanted their son to learn about homosexual marriage at the young and impressionable age of 5.

So...yes, it will affect us! It will affect our rights as parents. It will affect our children. Please do not sit back and let our rights as parents to choose moral teachings. We cannot leave moral choices up to our school districts.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Teaching Homosexuality Acceptance in our Schools

This is a forwarded email I received from a friend. I called Gov. Schwarzenegger's office and this is real. PLEASE PLEASE let your opinion be known. Thank you!

Dear Friends,
This is a time for immediate action. While we are working to protect marriage, our legislature has moved forward with more Gay Rights legislation. Presently AB 2567 sits on the Governor's desk, awaiting his signature. This bill would make it mandatory for every Public School to set aside May 22 as Harvey Milk Day where it will be mandatory to explain Gay Rights and the accomplishments of Harvey Milk to bring about this agenda.

Here is further information about the bill if you would like to read it:

Already on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk is a very bad bill that will push
even more homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual indoctrination upon children
as young as kindergarten. AB 2567 would designate every May 22 as
'Harvey Milk Day' in California's government school system.

Harvey Milk was a homosexual activist who was a San Francisco supervisor
until he was killed in 1978. Milk championed homosexual experimentation,
sexual activism, and the abolishment of sexual boundaries. He also regarded
organized religion as dangerous.

The text of AB 2567 states that 'On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering
the life of Harvey Milk and
recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this
state' should be conducted; specifically, 'all public schools and
educational institutions are encouraged to observe...and conduct
suitable commemorative exercises.' In other words, anything and everything
Harvey Milk believed in or is now purported to believe in will be inculcated
into children's impressionable minds.

If signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger, every May 22, AB 2567 will
positively portray to children homosexual experimentation, homosexual
'marriages,' sex-change operations, and anything else that is 'in the
closet.' There are no limits on the 'suitable commemorative exercises' that
can be conducted. Obviously, AB 2567 has nothing to do with academic

It is important that calls are made today and tomorrow (Thur and Fri).

AB 2567.
Dial 916-445-2841
1 for English
2 To speak with a staff member (It's painless and just takes a minute.)Tell
the staffer that you are strongly opposed to AB 2567 Harvey Milk Day, and
urge the Governor to Veto AB 2567.
or if you get a recording...follow the instructions to voice oppinion:
Would like to express opinion on AB 2567 press 1 then
Press 2 to oppose bill
They will ask for your first name and what City you are calling from, only if you get a staff member, the recording just records your vote.
Please, Please call it takes about 1 minute!
Thank you for your prompt action!

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Religious Liberties argument AGAIN

Some people are comparing this Prop 8 situation to segregation between blacks and whites and people not allowing blacks in their places of business. We are not talking about racial equality here. We are not talking about denying a meal or drink to someone because of the color of their skin. We are talking about a PRACTICE that some people believe is morally wrong and are being forced to participate in it (even though they are fully morally opposed to it) under the names of discrimination and hate crimes. People are being forced to use their skills and occupations to PARTICIPATE in something that goes against what they stand for.

For every person who tries to argue that this will not affect our religious liberties, just know that the scholars on who believe that same-sex marriage should be legal agree wholeheartedly that religious liberties will be profoundly affected. PLEASE read the link to the article by Maggie Gallagher on the Becket Fund Conference. Every scholar on every side agrees openly that religious liberties will be affected. That is not what is being argued here.

Some people keep commenting that the religious liberties are not going to be affected, that the "Yes on Prop 8" group is making this all up to scare people into voting yes. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read that article and understand that the question here is: religious liberties or sexual liberties? Which should trump the other?

The link is a few posts down. Maggie Gallagher. Becket Fund Conference. Look it up. Please see for yourselves. In fact, I'll just copy and paste just part of what the scholars are saying directly in this article. If you'd like to read the rest, go ahead and click on the link a few posts below.

Here is a section of that article talking about religious liberties. The first quote is from a scholar on religious liberties named Chai Feldblum who is in favor of same-sex marriages being legalized.

"But the bottom line for Feldblum is: "Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner."

The Litigator

Marc Stern has known Chai Feldblum since she was eight years old. "Vivacious, really extraordinary," he says as he smiles, shaking his head at the memories of the little girl whose father he knew well. "Chai is among the most reasonable [gay rights advocates]," he says. "If she's having trouble coming up with cases in which religious liberty should win, we're in trouble."

As general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern knows religious liberty law from the inside out. Like Anthony Picarello, he sees the coming conflicts as pervasive. The problem is not that clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages or prevented from preaching their beliefs. Look past those big red herrings: "No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable," he writes in his Becket Fund paper.

Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern's big worries right now is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he tells me, "then religious schools are out of business." Or at least the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful.

Stern agrees with Feldblum that public accommodation laws can and should force truly commercial enterprises to serve all comers. But, he asks, what of other places, such as religious camps, retreats, and homeless shelters? Will they be considered by courts to be places of public accommodation, too? Could a religious summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships?

"Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, and the like," Stern wrote last December--well before the Boston Catholic Charities story broke.

Think about that for a moment. Of all the experts gathered to forecast the impact of gay marriage on religious organizations, no one, not even Stern, brought up adoption licenses.

"Government is so pervasive, it's hard to know where the next battle will be," he tells me. "I thought I had a comprehensive catalog, but the adoption license issue didn't occur to me." "

Thursday, August 28, 2008

part of an email from

"Advocates of Same-Sex Marriage Continue to Force Compliance Against the Will of Californians

The Proposition 8 Campaign reacted strongly to the California Supreme Court’s ruling that California doctors who have religious objections to artificially inseminating same-sex couples can no longer refuse to treat them. The Court’s decision overturns a previous state Appeals Court decision which ruled in favor of the doctors in 2005.

“This latest ruling proves that advocates of same-sex marriage are not simply seeking tolerance, but rather are pushing for compliance in every corner of California society. They will stop at nothing to chip away at the free speech rights and the rights of conscience of Californians everywhere, forcing individuals to accept their lifestyle even against a person’s personal or religious beliefs. It is a slippery slope against the individual rights of Californians,” stated Ron Prentice, on behalf of the Campaign.

The Supreme Court rejected a San Diego County fertility clinic’s right to refuse performing a procedure. North Coast Women’s Care in Vista declined to perform an intrauterine insemination for an individual, and referred the individual to another facility. The ruling is the first of its kind in the nation and stresses the importance of standing up to protect marriage.

Knights of Columbus Catholic Organization Donates $1 Million to Prop. 8

Just this last week, the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic family fraternal service organization, donated $1 million to Proposition 8. Throughout its history, the Knights of Columbus has been an effective advocate and defender of civil and religious rights for all. The organization has also contributed billions of dollars and millions of hours of volunteer service to charity. Knights of Columbus spokesman Patrick Korten said that the million dollar donation from the Knights “is both an indication of how important we believe this referendum to be, and an encouragement to other groups and individuals of all faiths to lend their support as well.” He went on to stress that the importance of, “preserving marriage as the indispensable institution in which children are conceived, born and raised to adulthood by a loving father and mother is vital to a healthy society. It is also the most favorable environment in which to protect the rights and best interests of children.”
This generous donation from the Knights of Columbus shows the broad-based support that Proposition 8 is receiving from a variety of faith-based organizations. Now is the time to join the Knights of Columbus in protecting marriage!"

People need to know how this will affect our rights if we do not vote to pass Prop 8. Please tell your friends and family about these rulings before it comes time to vote on November 4th!!!

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Why I Am Voting Yes on Prop 8

In countries and states where same-sex marriage has been legalized, divorce rates climb and marriage rates recede. Marriage in this country is definitely not as strong as it used to be, but that does not mean we will or can just step aside and let what is left of marriage be taken away now.

Under civil unions, partners DO have the rights to living will and to insurance benefits together. If they are denied from any hospital room of their partner, it is illegal and should be addressed to that specific hospital or doctor's office. Life and death situations are definitely the right of the partner. Anyone who is violating that is breaking the law.

Scholars on both sides of the argument agree on one thing: legalizing same-sex marriages would be devastating for religious liberties. It is a fact. Research "Beckett Fund Conference" for more details on that. The disagreement is that people in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples believe that giving up our religious liberties is WORTH THE PRICE for furthering the gay rights movement. So the question is not "Will we lose religious liberties?" The answer is yes. BOTH sides agree on that. One side just thinks it's worth it for a very small group to have some "dignity."

I am sorry that things have to come down to this, but I'm not willing to give up my religious freedoms and those of my children and future grandchildren because some people feel bad that they can't be called "married." If it was trying to take away their rights to living will or domestic partnership or financial benefits, I would be on the other side. I really would. Because those are rights that everyone should have, regardless of their gender preference. But to fight for a title at the huge expense of others' freedoms is just not acceptable to me. That is why I'm voting yes on Prop 8.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

12 Talking Points

1. Men and women are different, and the union of a man and a woman is different than the union of two men or two women.
Throughout history marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for powerful reasons relating to the complementary differences between men and women. The differences combine to create a unique and essential social relationship. Marriage channels human sexuality into responsible, and socially valuable functions, namely adult complementary sexual union that results in the procreation, nurturing, and training of the next generation. It gives couples and society a future. The combination of the opposite sexes creates a distinctive integrative union and social relationship. No two men together or two women together can do this. Just as the combination of the different chemical elements Na (sodium) + Cl (chlorine) together make salt, but Na + Na or Cl + Cl do not.

2. Tolerance opposes same-sex marriage.
The law categorizes and treats relationships in three ways: some are barred and prohibited; others are tolerated and permitted; and some others are preferred and privileged. Historically, same-sex relationships were prohibited, but in recent decades they have become tolerated and permitted in the United States and many other countries. But tolerance is quite different from preference. Conjugal marriage always has been the most preferred and privileged social relationship because it is the foundation of society. The claim for same-sex “marriage” abandons tolerance and seeks special preference; it actually removes the preferential treatment of conjugal marriage, rather than elevating same-sex couples. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is restricted. Freedom of religion is undermined, and freedom of speech is curtailed. Children in public schools are taught not true tolerance but the moral relativism of equivalency, i.e. that different forms of human sexuality are no more than matters of personal preference. Disagreement with this “principle” is not tolerated.

3. Equality does not require treating different relationships the same.
Same-sex marriage advocates purport to desire “equal treatment” with heterosexual couples, but it is inequality to give full marital status to relationships that are so markedly different in lifestyle and social impact. Same-sex marriage really means the near-term elimination of actual marriage. As a matter of nature it cannot fulfill the same functions as traditional marriage, and the effect is to pull traditional marriage down to the lowest common denominator and soon render it meaningless. Our society cannot accept this outcome.

4. Marriage is a pre-existing social institution, not a mere legal creation or social construct.
Marriage between male and female is a uniquely ubiquitous social institution, found in all civilized human societies. Finding marriage already in existence, the law has recognized the importance of marriage by regulating and thereby protecting it. The law does not create marriage any more than it creates parents, land or water, but the law regulates those resources -- marriage, parenting, land, and water -- in the public interest.

5. The legal definition of marriage signals important social functions.
The way the law defines and treats marriage sends powerful social signals to all members of society about marriage roles and what is expected of married persons. By diluting the meaning of marriage, reducing it to a mere romantic relationship between any two persons, it dilutes the meaning of marriage itself and ignores and denigrates the integral responsibilities of marriage and marital parenthood. Conjugal marriage reinforces the taking of responsibility for the natural outcome of the sexual act: children; same-sex marriage weakens that tie.

6. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms families and makes more vulnerable those who invest their lives, and sacrifice their careers, for their marriages and families.
In states and nations where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the public commitment to families and conjugal marriage and families is significantly weakened. Adoption has been impaired. Mothers are marginalized, and social support for them weakens. Sexualization of society increases. Public support for marital parenting wanes. Marital childbearing and childrearing drop, and public education becomes more propagandistic. Churches and religion are harassed.

7. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms children by depriving them of a mother or father, and removing the clear legal signal that marriage connects parents to children and parental responsibility.
All children need and deserve to be raised by a mother and a father; they are deprived of that by same-sex marriage. Two moms are not the same things as a mom and a dad. Legalization of same-sex marriage is false advertizing to children; it teaches them that same-sex coupling and parenting is fully equivalent to dual gender marriage and parenting. It deprives some children of a parental connection with half of their biological heritage and family. Parental authority is diminished.

8. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms society by the transformative power of inclusion and by weakening the basic infrastructure of society.
Conjugal marriage historically has “scripted” responsible living and civic virtue. Gay and lesbian lifestyles do not. By redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, the social meaning of marriage is transformed by the power of inclusion; the culture of infidelity, promiscuity and polyamory that characterizes gay and lesbian sexual relations will redefine what marriage means in a way that will undermine that social institution and bring suffering to many families. Society should not engage in “consumer fraud” by sending the message that there is no difference between conjugal marriage and same-sex unions.

9. Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests.
Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement. The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs, not just to bind boyfriends and girlfriends and other romantic interests.

10. The radical redefinition of marriage is a matter for the people, not the courts, to decide.
In a democracy, the power to decide fundamental questions about basic social institutions is reserved to the people. It is not a judicial function. By a vote of 4-3, four California justices simply imposed their personally political preference under the pretext of interpreting the state constitution. That is why even strong supporters of same-sex marriage, such as the Washington Post, criticized the California Supreme Court decision for mandating same-sex marriage by judicial decree. It seriously violated separation of powers and undermined the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.

11. Many constitutional amendments have been adopted to protect threatened basic institutions and rights.
That is how America got the “Bill of Rights.” That is why our nation passed the Civil War amendments – to correct a terrible decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why voters in 27 American states recently have adopted constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That is why thirty-seven (37) nations around the world also have adopted constitutional provisions protecting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. When cherished rights and relationships are threatened, people pass constitutional amendments to protect them. That is why Proposition 8 has been proposed.

12. Proposition 8 is about marriage, it is not about homosexuality.
The issue is whether the basic social institution of marriage should be radically redefined. The issue is not about homosexual relations, which have long existed without needing (or wanting) to be called “marriages.” It is not about homosexuality, or the nature-vs-nurture debate about the cause of homosexuality. (It is not whether homosexuality is biologically hard-wire-determined, or predisposed, or environmentally caused, or experientially influenced, or a matter of choice. It is not about homosexuality; it is simply about the institution of marriage. Today, tragically, many marriages fail, but legalizing same-sex marriage will not solve that problem. Rather, by reducing the meaning of marriage, and applying the “marriage” label to gay and lesbian relations, which have an even higher rate of instability than heterosexual couples, it will only worsen the problem.