Prop 8 Attorneys Make Case for Democratic Rights//

Proposition 8 Trial Continues . . .  U.S. Supreme Court set to make final ruling Wednesday on trial broadcast

The trial continues and Attorneys for Proposition 8– the measure that upheld traditional marriage in California– are focusing on democratic rights. I agree with that angle. I’m not an attorney, yet, but from my point of view, as a voter, that’s where the problem is. Legal counsel for the opposition to Prop 8 are trying to invalidate our votes and our rights as Californians to change our State Constitution.

“Clearly the big issue on this case is going to be the role of the courts and the rights of the people ultimately to make decisions in the democratic process and to be able to have their votes counted,” explained attorney Andre Pugno.

Prop 8 attorneys say they’re concerned about hatred against traditional marriage supporters.During the campaign against gay marriage, church vandalism was witnessed and some Prop 8 supporters received death threats, including Pastor Jim Franklin in Fresno, Calif.

“I’ve had threats before and you don’t know how seriously to take them,” Franklin recalled. “The chief of police called me back in about two minutes and said ‘Yes, we’re taking it very seriously because of the nature of it.'”

That kind of intimidation is why Prop 8 supporters oppose broadcasting the trial and posting it on YouTube. They fear for the safety of witnesses.

Opponents, however, say Americans should be able to view the debate for themselves.

The U.S. Supreme Court will make a final decision on the issue Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the California trial against Prop 8 is expected to last two to three weeks. No matter the outcome, the case is expected to be appealed to the high court.

source: CBN.com

Advertisements

Supreme Court Blocks YouTube From California’s Prop 8 Trial

source: the liberal oc.com

A small victory today for the Pro Prop 8 side.

The Supreme Court has blocked youtube streaming of the trial,

at least for now.

The U. S. Supreme Court has put a halt, at least temporarily, on plans to let Google’s (GOOG) video site stream coverage of the “Proposition 8″ trial, which kicked off today in a San Francisco courtroom.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker was going to allow the trial to be covered, on a tape-delayed basis, on the world’s biggest video site.

The Supreme Court has granted a temporary order overturning Walker’s ruling to allow tape-delayed youtube videos to be uploaded to the site by Court staff.

The court didn’t explain its reasoning, according to the Los Angeles Times, but perhaps we’ll hear more down the road–the ruling is only supposed to remain in effect until Wednesday.

Prop. 8 trial Day 1: Live coverage from the courtroom

If you want up-to-date trial info, the San Jose Mercury News is covering the trial from the Court room, and you can read their updates here.

Sources: TorrentBomb News All Things Digital

Share this blog or post with your friends.  Click the button below:

Federal Prop 8 trial set to begin Monday//

Proposition 8 goes to trial – Federal lawsuit begins on Monday

The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The LGBT legal teams is set to try and convince the Federal court that the voting rights of Californians should be ignored and that what they (we) have passed into law for our state shouldn’t matter.

What about a child’s equal protection under the law and their right to grow up in a traditional family? The original arguments of Prop 8 proponents are still valid.

. . .the federal lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban against same-sex marriage, set to begin Monday, January 11, could have sweeping impacts on whether gays and lesbians can legally marry in the Golden State..

I guess that’s a no for In Session, formerly known as CourtTV, when U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker rejected their offer to broadcast the trial. However he announced Wednesday that he will give the public access to the trial via tapped sessions that will be uploaded to youtube.com daily, via court staff, as he wants the process to be completely under the Court’s control.

The decision not to allow the media to broadcast the court proceedings live is somewhat of a setback for LGBT activists who had urged Walker to televise the proceedings. The judge issued his ruling after hearing arguments from both sides in the case Wednesday morning.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, must sign off on the video plan. The court only recently decided to allow judges to have discretion over whether to televise proceedings in the courtrooms or not.

Walker’s decision is a partial win for the attorneys for the groups backing Prop 8, who warned the court that opening up the procedures to television cameras could result in their witnesses being harassed. The judge said he would turn off one of three cameras set to be used during testimony if witnesses ask not to be videotaped.

The lawsuit, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger , has drawn wide media coverage since it was first filed in late May 2009, particularly for the odd legal pairing of lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies. The two notably argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore U.S. Supreme Court case of 2000, which was won by Olson and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

The attorneys agreed to argue the Prop 8 case on behalf of two couples – Berkeley residents Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Burbank residents Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo – who were denied the right to marry by the passage of Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling upholding the constitutional amendment. The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The parties involved are expecting this case to be rather lengthy and complex. The No on Prop 8-ers and the couples who brought the suit are hoping that by the time this case gets to the Supreme Court (which apparently they are planning on happening) that the Court will be very different from what it is today, more liberal and apt to rule in their favor.  They are also hoping that the country will be more accepting and sympathetic to their plight.

{Click here to continue reading. . .}

California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8//

marriage

The voters, and now the California Supreme Court, have spoken.

Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman. That’s it!!!!!

Today, the California Supreme Court announced their decision to uphold Proposition 8, and the will of the voters, in a 6 to 1 decision!!! Only 1 dissenting vote. Marriage in California is now legally defined in our Constitution as only between 1 man and 1 woman. I totally agree with my blogger friend Pearl, when she said:

I am immensely relieved that this state’s judiciary was inspired to reaffirm the right of the people of California to amend our own Constitution as we see fit.

Society, families and children will benefit from this  preservation of marriage! As for the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married last year during a small window when it was legal, the court has ruled that they will remain valid. I find it interesting though, that these folks think they are married, in a state where our constitution clearly says their marriages aren’t “valid or recognized.” Married or not, homosexual couples retain the same rights under California’s domestic partnership laws,  so hopefully they will learn to be happy with that. They aren’t being deprived of any civil rights like they try to convince everyone they are. I’m just happy that the court didn’t let them hijack real marriage.

The Supreme Court’s website is most likely overloaded, so I haven’t been able to read the justices’ opinions yet. I’ll post more info later! Prop 8 made history today for a 2nd time. I hope that now all of the other states will follow suit…it seems like a lot of them have been willy-nilly passing pro SSM laws lately, but since we know that the nation watches, and often follows, California, hopefully today’s decision will have a positive influence when it comes to preserving marriage in other states.

{p.s.} Pearl, I stole tags from your post! They was awesome! Thanks!!!!


Attacks on Miss California reveal intolerance of gay-rights activists//

miss-california-gay-marriage-controversy1

[Carrie] Prejean hardly is alone in her conventional view of marriage. Polls show that most Americans share that view and voters in 29 states, including California, have approved state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Yet Prejean did something most Americans who oppose gay marriage no longer dare to do: She voiced her beliefs in the public square. And when pressured to recant, she refused.

I haven’t read a ton about the pagent debaucle, but what I do know is that this lady is a class act. She stood up there, in front of our entire country and told everyone what she believes,

“I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

That took courage and guts and I’m impressed. She probably knew that her no-on-gay-marriage answer would not be popular, she probably even knew that it would cost her the crown (Miss CA is almost always in the finals and has a chance of winning) but she answered the question honestly. And I think it’s great that Carrie Prejean has gotten even more press then the actual winner of the Miss USA pageant. I even watched the very end and I can’t remember who it is. People say there’s no such thing as bad press!

With that mild answer to a beauty-pageant query earlier this month, Miss California Carrie Prejean was catapulted to the center of an international controversy resulting in vicious attacks on her character, intelligence and religious beliefs.

I’m just a blogger and I sometimes get nasty hate messages because of my personal views, that of course I don’t approve to be posted in my blog comments, but this poor girl… a national scandal all because she doesn’t agree with the gay community… No one seems to have launched a national nasty campaign on anyone who believes in gay marriage. Isn’t that interesting????

With the personal assault on Miss CA being lead by blogger Perez Hilton, {click here to read about what a bang-up job Mr. Hilton did as a judge in this contest. I came across this blog post: “This Is What Happens When You Let Bloggers Judge Beauty Contests,” By graneyandthepig. I do not support the picture of a passed out girl in a thong in the blog’s header, but this post  makes some great points and seems to support Miss CA. If you want to get the 411 on Perez’s judging gig, check it out}.

Incensed by Prejean’s failure to endorse his views on gay marriage, Hilton took to the airwaves and Internet to call Prejean a string of unprintable names.

Oh nice. You get to berate and belittle and harass someone just because they don’t agree with you? Since when did the GLBT community get that added to their mile-long Constitutional rights want list? In addition to Hilton, the Miss CA’s barrage of harassers,

ranged from the TV journalists who fretted on air about Prejean’s insensitivity and pageant officials who publicly sided with Hilton to the parade of Hollywood celebrities who denounced Prejean and high-ranking gay British politician Alan Duncan, who called her a “silly [expletive]” and said that if she turns up murdered, “you will know it was me.”

Is this really national news people? Or rather world news, because apparently a British politician wants in on the nastiness too. Real classy huh? I wonder if his constituents are proud that they voted for him?

Prejean did something most Americans who oppose gay marriage no longer dare to do: She voiced her beliefs in the public square. And when pressured to recant, she refused.

I love that part!!!!! How cool is that? What a great example of standing up for your beliefs no matter the cost.

At a time when many politicians and pastors are too intimidated to defend their beliefs about marriage, a beauty queen willing to stand up to a bully is an inspiring sight.

Source: STLtoday.com

Baldwin Brothers Divided By Gay Marriage Issue// stephen is anti-gay marriage

Stephen (left) is Pro Marriage!

Stephen (right) is Pro Marriage!

Much to his older brother’s (Alec) dismay, Stephen Baldwin went public on Howard Stern’s radio show and told the world:

“I don’t believe that gay marriage is in line with God’s word, which is found in the Bible… and the Bible says that gay marriage is not acceptable.”

There’s no way I would ever listen to Howard Stern, talk about liberal, and talk about trash, but I found this story on starpulse.com.

{ First comes marriage, then comes healthy relationships? }

The Journalista Chronicle is back to blogging, barring any other further trips to the hospital like last night. Let’s just say that a horrible migraine, throwing up on the side of the freeway, a trip to the ER in tim-buck-two Tulare, CA, waiting two hours for my turn to see the doctor, a pain killer “shot in the buns” as our 3-year-old says, and driving 5 hours in the car back to LA with 3 kids, is not my idea of a fun New Year’s day, if you get my drift. But good news, my migraine is gone, I slept until three o’clock today, and I now have time to stay up late and write a new post for my blog!!!!

I hope you all had a happy and safe New Year’s! Let’s continue the the fight for traditional marriage in 2009!

“Some believe gay people should focus on relationships before marriage rights”

Some think that gays are putting the cart before the horse when it comes to marriage.

Some think that gays are putting the cart before the horse when it comes to marriage.

I found this article about how unhealthy gay relationships and civil unions  are, and about how they should really work on that before they worry about getting married. Kind of interesting coming from what I can tell to be a pro-gay website, but yeah, great, I’m all for them not worrying about getting married. . . less work for me and my family and friends.  Well, if you are a regular reader of my blog, then you know that I am pro traditional marriage all the way. I’m anti gay-marriage and with that would also come anti gay relationships. I think that the entire situation is detrimental to children, families and our society as a whole, regardless of the form gay associations take. Despite the topic of this article, it makes some great points that I thought I would share with my readers. Take note if you’re still on the fence about gay marriage. . . unhealthy is just the tip of the iceberg.

Here are some key points from the article. You can read the entire piece here.

Ideal heterosexual relationships typically involve some period of courtship, followed by an introduction to friends and family, and eventually the possibility of marriage. An enduring lack of acceptance, safety and rights has denied such rites to many gay and lesbian couples, creating different stages to same-sex relationships.

For Shawne Bowman, his relationships with other men usually begin with flirting, followed shortly by sex and then separation. Bowman believes his more serious relationships follow a course stereotypically attributed to lesbians: date a couple of days, rent a U-haul, then eventually break up.

Sounds like “shack-up city” to me. It doesn’t work for heterosexual couples, and it definitely doesn’t work for homosexual couples either. Bowman goes on to point out that there isn’t much of a dating process in the gay community, however, he would like to see one though.

. . . gay and lesbian people continue to grapple with the difficulty and nuances of developing healthy same-sex relationships.

“It’s very vogue to be for gay marriage, and it’s sort of a no-brainer to be for it, but, honestly, it’s not something I ever think about for my life,” said Matthew Knight, 46. “It doesn’t seem to be what a lot of people are thinking about. I’m sure it’s important for some people, but not many people I know are thinking marriage when they meet a new guy.”

So let’s think about this for a sec. Kind of sounds like the majority of gay rights marriage activists aren’t even gay. I know this is a gross generalization, but it’s true, not many gay people actually want to get married, sounds like the dating debacle is tough enough. This gentleman points to the bandwagon theory to explain why people are rooting for gay marriage. It’s the “in” thing to do.

Domestic partnerships were all the rage at the turn of the century, and Bowman entered into such a union with the man he thought would be his life partner in 2000 – seven months after the couple met and six months after they moved in together.

“We primarily moved ahead in that process for shared benefits — both of our jobs offered domestic partnership benefits and we both wanted to share the benefits of our careers with each other.”

But less than a year after their relationship was formalized, Bowman filed to nullify the domestic partnership.

Bowman goes on to explain that they did not build a foundation for their relationship. They went from “step zero to step three.” They met and  within a month we were cohabiting, within another seven months they went to the notary and got a domestic partnership.” I had no idea that a notary is all it takes for a domestic partnership.

With legal recognition of same-sex couples growing, some people fear that more gay men and lesbians will enter into “shotgun” unions before doing the necessary groundwork to make their relationship last. And some critics believe the gay rights movement itself may be playing shotgun politics — shooting for same-sex marriage before promoting healthy, enduring same-sex relationships.

I don’t think that healthy gay relationships will ever make gay marriage ok, but if it gets them to step back and take a look at their lifestyles and decisions and the impact of homosexuality on society, then that’s a good idea.

“It seems the furor over the right to marry has the cart before the horse,” Rev. Rick Elliott, author of “Faith Journeys of the Heart,” recently wrote on The Bilerico Project, a gay blog. “More basic than a right to marry is the willingness and ability to sustain a relationship in the first place.”

In addition the the immorality factor, there are many other huge huge problems with homosexuality, such as the promiscuity, STD’s, lack of commitment within the relationship, and the lack of an ability to have a healthy relationship. With all of the trouble homosexuals have in sustaining relationships, the author then explores the question, “Would Marriage Help?”

Well, apparently there is a problem of where homosexuals can even meet other homosexuals outside of a bar setting. (Well, if you’re following the marriage saga, then you should be aware that eHarmony.com is creating a special place for gays to meet online, courtesy of a 3-year law suit they found themselves in for discrimination against gays. Gay Rights Activists Infultrate eHarmony.com. The Journalista Chronicle Nov. 19th 2008 ).

As discriminatory as same-sex marriage bans are, the hard truth is that legalized gay marriage won’t be a magic wand that makes same-sex relationships more successful.

“I don’t think I have ever heard a couple, from the thousands of couples that I’ve worked with, come into a counseling session and zero-in on the legality of same-sex marriage [as the source of their problems],” O’Mara said.

I find it absolutely incredible that unwed gay couples are going to counseling. Wow. . . I’m speechless on this one. Readers care to comment?

There is the problem of infidelity within gay relationships and civil unions.

Brian James agreed that Georgia’s same-sex marriage ban is not currently disenfranchising his relationships. “I don’t think gay marriage would help me at all if it were legal,” said James, 21. “It’s the boys that are my problem – everybody just wants sex or the next-best-thing. I would be scared to marry a man right now because marriage isn’t going to stop him from going online and doing what he wants to do.”

The central role of the internet in gay dating also makes it difficult to establish meaningful romantic relationships, Bowman said. “The internet has given sort of an instant gratification that has taken away some of the social and building aspects [of a relationship] that allow it to progress to something long-term,” Bowman said.

So, some gay people wanted to sue eHarmony.com, but really it is just exacerbating their dating woes. Having an all-gay-all-the-time dating site will not ensure meaningful, faithful relationships. Sorry folks. So if gay’s can’t find meaningful relationships, then they ought not be worried about marriage.

“I do think it is too small of a targeted issue that doesn’t affect the masses,” said Bowman, who added that gay organizations should focus more on anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws. “Those impact more people in the gay community than the issue of gay marriage.”

I agree with Bowman here. Gay’s shouldn’t be discriminated against, (although I don’t believe that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is discrimination). I also agree that they should focus on more productive issues. He makes a great point about how many gay people the marriage issue does NOT impact. I don’t however agree with this statement,

Societal opposition to same-sex unions means many gay men and lesbians have to clear “the huge hurdle of is it OK for me to pursue even dating someone of the same sex,” O’Mara said. “If we had the legal right to marry, there would be more societal confidence in the validity and visibility of our relationships,” said O’Mara, who added that securing same-sex marriage is about “the right to fail or succeed in relationships.”

I think that this attitude is so typical of groups and individuals who don’t get what they want, and want to blame everyone else for their problems. This article is saying, ” If we had marriage, then I could have a healthy and happy relationship.” Marriage is not the answer to the problems in the gay community. If you want to date someone, date someone. That would be like a sweet girl saying that, “well I am in love with my soldier guy, but we can’t be together because he has to go to war soon. If the US Army was disbanded, then I could date and be with my love!” These things are not mutually exclusive. Often times one has to make a decisions about life and relationships regardless of external factors. I for one don’t feel any pressure to change my position on gay marriage, just because this O’Mara lady says gays would feel more comfortable dating if I did.

I believe that everyone has their free agency and can make their own choices in life. But if you choose to be gay and choose to date within that community, don’t blame the reason you don’t have committed, successful relationships on the fact that you can’t marry.

Source: SouthernVoice.com

{ Voted for Prop 8? You’re fired }

The backlash continues . . . It’s not only coming from the outspoken gay rights activists, No on 8 campaigners, rally-ers and sign holders, vandalize-ers and property thrashers….but now it just may be coming from your employer . . . getting back at people for voting Yes on Proposition 8.  Not just getting back at them, but firing them from their job.

the Pacific Justice Institute reports a growing number of cases where those opposed to the ballot measure have taken out their anger more quietly: by harassing – and even firing – employees who voted for it.

Is this fair? Is it legal? It’s definitely not ethical, or very kind . . . some way to boost employee morale huh? Firing your employees for having political opinions that differ from your “company’s.” That is called discrimination, and some employers are discriminating against employees who voted yes on 8.  The Pacific Justice Institute is supported by Dr. Laura and Bill O’Reilly, and

[It is ] a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need.

I was thinking about this earlier, about companies who supported or didn’t support Proposition 8. A company is an entity folks. It is not capable of having a position on anything. The CEO, the CFO, the board, any person can have an opinion, and state their opinion on behalf of their company, but the company itself doe not have an opinion. I just think that’s strange when spokespeople say that. It would have to imply that everyone in the company felt the same way. I just wondered why the execs couldn’t just say that something is their opinion, instead of trying to pass it off as the “company’s.”

PJI claims to be representing a SF woman, along with other individuals, who were fired from their jobs for voting for Proposition 8. The woman’s name remains confidential to protect her privacy and legal case. I thought that voting was supposed to also be confidential. No one’s employer is entitled to know how they voted.

“Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists who have ousted several individuals from their jobs and livelihoods based solely on their support for traditional marriage,” states Brad Dacus, president of PJI, on the group’s website. “These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable.”

“Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated case,” asserts a recent PJI statement.

It just seems like when people know they are right (like us supporters of traditional marriage and Prop 8 ) they don’t have to be nasty and vindictive in their approach to defending their position.  Gay rights activists and proponents of same-sex marriage appear to still be    grasping at straws, behaving like tantrum throwing 2-year olds and rude, disrespectful teenagers. For some reason they can’t seem to be classy and mature about the issue. They have filed their law suits and they need to just sit tight until their hearings, rather then continue to wreak havoc in the lives of people who don’t agree with them. As far as I’m concerned, they need to be grateful that the traditional marriage supporters haven’t been treating them like they have been treating many of us. Its as if they feel justified in any action as long as they keep associating their cause with terms like “civil rights,”  “fairness” or “bigotry.”

So it seems like employers are firing yes on 8 voters because they feel the proposition discriminates against gays, and therefore their employees are guilty of discrimination, but then they themselves are turning right around and discriminating against their own employees for the way they voted. This is ridiculous logic. World News Daily.com sites the following incidents:

Kevin Snider, chief counsel for PJI, told WND of a worker at a financial company who was asked before the November election how he would vote on the issue of homosexual marriage. The employee gave an evasive answer. Following the election, the employee was asked repeatedly how he voted.

When it was learned the employee had voted in favor of Proposition 8, he was written up for discrimination, Snider reports, and fired within a couple of days.

WND reported earlier of a pair of radio hosts who were fired, they believe, because they questioned on air a local politician’s call to boycott businesses that supported Prop. 8.

“I voiced my opinion,” radio host Marshall Gilbert told WND. “I voted yes on Prop. 8, and I was fired over that.”

There have also been incidents of harassment for individuals’ support of Prop 8.

The Los Angeles Times reported the story of El Coyote, a coffee shop that became a target of protest after the manager’s name was put on a blacklist for giving $100 to support Proposition 8. Mobs of protesters harassed El Coyote’s customers, shouting “shame on you,” until police in riot gear settled the crowd.

The customers, the Times reports, abandoned the once-thriving business, and now El Coyote’s 89 employees, some of them openly homosexual, have had their hours cut and face layoffs if the customers don’t return soon.

Antigayblacklist.com has also appeared online, courtesy of homosexual marriage advocates, as a way to broadcast the donations individuals, churches and business made to the Yes on 8 campaign, and to urge sympathizers not to patronize those on the list.

“I think there’s certain types of jobs where there’s more hostility than other places,” Snider told WND. “I’ve had several college professors report harassment by their colleagues.”

In one instance, Snider said, a professor took copies of nasty emails from his colleagues over his support of Prop. 8 to the lawyers in the college’s human resources department. The professor alleged the emails clearly constituted hate speech, but his appeal was ignored.

Snider also told WND of Proposition 8 supporters who have suffered vandalism, physical violence and even attacks against family pets.

One report included a University of California student whose car was vandalized and who was beaten over her support of Prop. 8.

“It’s inappropriate behavior, and really criminal behavior,” Snider advised, “to do this sort of thing.”

Attorney Karen Milam, full-time director of PJI’s Southern California office, commented on the organization’s website by saying, “We will continue to reach out to Prop. 8 supporters to ensure that threats and bullying do not undermine the democratic process.”

The democratic process and our civil rights (yes, our civil rights . . . gay’s dont’ have an exclusive on those) continue to be distorted by the homosexual agenda. Thanks to the PJI for providing legal services to individuals caught in the nasty aftermath of Prop 8. If you or anyone you know is in need of their legal services, you can find their contact info on their website here.

Source: World Net Daily.com

{ The New York Times…Letters to the Editor }

You're Kidding Right?

You're Kidding Right?

I came across these letters to the editor in my never-to-be-favorite-newspaper, The NY Times, when I was finally checking up on the latest happenings in the fight to protect traditional marriage. I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I just can’t believe how delusional some people can be when it comes to certain things. . .mainly the facts surrounding homosexual marriage (like gays are not the Japanese in internment camps, they are not black people fighting for civil rights and they are not mistreated Mexican migrant farm workers, althought they would like us to think they are), and the horrific damaging effects of it; (besides my hubby’s ex. . . I totally believe how delusional she can be. . . can you say craaazzzzyyyy…. and I mean that in the nicest possible way too. . . Why is it that all exes are crazy?….sorry, off track. . . the ex is my other rant, when it slips, oops. . . and today she’s  in rare form)  The original Editorial entitled Separate and Not Equal can be read here.  The editorial says the same old mantra about gay marriage…bla..bla…bla… equal rights. ..bla…bla…bla… fairness …bla..bla. . . you get the picture.  So, I just wanted to comment on these letters to the editor that fall under the heading “Let New Jersey’s Couples Marry, All of Them” . . .Headlines like that are sure to get reactions!

These people have got to be kidding??? Check them out for yourself, roll your eyes, shake your head, and then tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Our first Letter to the Editor submission is from a gay woman, who has a child, and is irritated about her relationship and immoral choices not being validated and condoned by all of society. Too bad. But at least she has cohorts, since she is not the only gay person who thinks that homosexuality should be integrated into society like it’s perfectly ok. She writes:

Bravo for calling on New Jersey’s governor, Jon S. Corzine, to honor his promise to grant same-sex couples the right to marry.

It is beyond frustrating for me, as a lesbian, a taxpayer and a contributing member of our state and society, to know each and every day that my relationship is unequal to a heterosexual couple’s relationship.

I know it’s a tough concept for this lesbian to grasp, but homosexual relationships are unequal to heterosexual marriages.  When I was young and super protected by my parents, I had a high school boyfriend (not before I was 16 however) and even though I didn’t know a lot about homosexuality, I still remember a comment he made. He said that homosexuality can’t be right because they can’t reproduce.  There is no way for them to reproduce; adoption and raising relatives’ kids and indocterinatin public school chidlren with their gay agenda or whatever, is not the same thing. I don’t believe in the theory of evolution, however even according to that theory, homsexuality doesn’t fly. . . survival of the fittest. Who will be surviving accourding to darwin? Heterosexuals who can reproduce. . . that would be Men and Women ladies and gentlemen!

The practice of homosexuality is immoral and not in accordance with the laws of God regarding morality, procreation, marriage and families. I need to check out some research on how many of  homosexual people would admit to being taught these principles in their youth, but then are now trying to convince themselves and the rest of society that their homosexual practices are OK. Heterosexuals who shack-up, have sex before marriage, have children out of wed-lock also,view pornography and involve themselves in other immoral acts, also violate those laws. Immorality is immorality, whether the couples are gay or straight, but marriage is marriage and is meant for only a man and a woman.

As a parent, I find it extremely difficult to explain to my child why I cannot “get married.”

I can imagine it is for this lady who probably really knows that what she is doing is wrong and unnatural, but yet she still has to try to explain to her child why it’s ok. The explanation is simple!!! “I am gay sweetie, and marriage is only between a man and a woman, not two women, so it is not right for me to get married. However I want you to get married to a wonderful man/woman (sex of the child is unknown) and be happy and have children and I can’t wait to be a grandma!” Something along those lines would be nice. . .this kid needs all the help he can get being raised with out a father and a mother who are married and can teach him.

He does not understand what a “civil union” or “domestic partnership” means. He does not understand how politics work. He does not yet understand bigotry, bias and small-mindedness.

She dug her own grave on this on. Be gay, whatever, but don’t bring a child into this situation and deprive him/her of their right to have a father and a mother, and the influence an teaching of a parents of the opposite sex. It would be nice if “domestic partnership”  and “civil union” didn’t even need a definition. And she wouldn’t have to explain “bigotry,” “bias” and “small-mindedness” either, if she didn’t have a child with a gay mother. It looks like she is having a difficult time telling her child that most of the world doesn’t agree with homosexual marriage and that they are upset that she is depriving him/her of a father, and a real family, and because of this, gay rights activists’ have coined those terms to explain their anger at real marriage, traditional marriage and family values. ” I’m sorry child. I can’t give you these things or even teach you about them.” Maybe she can start with explaining “hypocrite.” Most of us probably know that children learn by example, not by “telling” them what to do. ..This mother will likely have a tough time. Although self-inflicted on the mother’s part, I feel for them and their situation. I am also very saddened by the fact that most gay parents don’t care if their child is gay or not. Why would any parent wish that sort of confusion and inner-tourmoil on their child? Not to mention the struggle to be accepted by their peers, to fit in at school, etc.

So many of us are told to be thankful for the progress we have made — yet it is simply not enough. Our committed relationships are exactly like heterosexual committed relationships, with the same potential for joys, challenges and rewards. They are, indeed, marriages and deserve equal nomenclature along with equal rights.

Elizabeth Schroeder
Montclair, N.J., Dec. 20, 2008

Well, referring to committed homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships in which the dating couple is having sex…then yeah, I guess she has a point, the relationships are exactly alike. . . immoral. But she is wrong and insulting to all of us who have a traditional marriage,  in equating these types of “relationships” with marriage. Let’s just break this down for a sec. . .(I accidentally typed sex..no pun intended 🙂  A girl and a guy, or a man and a woman, who have been dating, even for years on end, do not, in any way, shape, or form, think that they have a “marriage.” A man and a woman who adopt a child together, or raise one parents’ children together, to not think they have a “marriage.” Because heterosexual couples know what a marriage is, they know that if they don’t “get married,” then they don’t have a marrige. And if homosexual couples can’t marry, then they certainly don’t have a marriage either. I don’t really care what they think it is. Back to the delusional theory from the beginning. . . if gay couples want to convince themselves that because they have been with one partner (although studies have shown that even committed gay couples are not sexually exclusive)  for 3 months that they are married, whatever, but legally, marriage can and should be defined as only between a man and a woman.

I was going to comment on all three editorials, but apparently I had a lot to say about this one. Click the link and read the others if you want to, and comment on any and all you feel like it. I don’t mean any disrespect to Elizabeth Schroeder, I respect her right to voice her opinion and to choose for herself how she lives her life. I was simply using her letter to comment on the generalities of the gay lifestyle.

I hope you all had a Merry Christmas! Thanks for reading!

{ California couples hope ads spur gay marriage support }

What do you wanto see here?

What do you want to see here?

“Our family may look different from yours, but we’re not.”

So will say gay couples as they parade their version of ‘families’ across your TV screen prior to the inauguration. We have the gay-owned film studio ‘Power Up’ to thank for the production of said ads, however they are still in the works.

Won’t we all want to be glued to our TVs now? Not only do we have to stomach Obama’s mantra’s, but in the days leading up to his January 20th inauguration, we will have the distinct pleasure of seeing gay right’s activists finally put a face to their name, i.e. cause, in five television spots in support of gay-marriage. I wonder who the lucky families will be? And I mean families in the loosest sense of the word.

As reported today by none other then the Silcon Valley’s own Mercury News,

They’ll target counties where high numbers voted for Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 ballot initiative that stripped gay couples of the right to wed in California.

Keep your guard up out there! Just because the election is over, we need to remember that the dissenting voices have not gone away. We need to keep the reasons why we support traditional marriage in the forefront of our minds, so we can retrieve the info whenever an opportunity arises where we can explain things to a confused friend, i.e. fence-sitter, or as my Dad calls them, “sheeple,” as in people who follow blindly like sheep with out making decisions for themselves. These days in our family we seem to apply the “sheeple” term to people in all sorts of political and social arenas.

It’s time to think hard about where we will stand, what we will stand for, who we will stand next to through the present and future political and social turmoil. Once you’ve made a decision about where that will be, then don’t be passive and complacent, get up, stand, up, work hard and try to make a difference. (And I hope when you are doing all of this standing and working, that you are on the side of protecting traditional marriage, children and families!) 🙂

The group says the idea for the ads came after several gay and lesbian parents realized their personal stories had influenced acquaintances to vote against Proposition 8..

If they are claiming peer pressure, or an influential position in the lives of their friends and family, then so can we. People who care about us, also care to know what we believe in and why. If you can’t explain why, then google up info or read traditional family blog archives (hopefully mine, and my friends’) until you get a reasoned explanation worked out; one that you can vocalize and share with people.

The various reasons people have for voting one way or another are interesting, and usually private, but let me share one recent experience. I was at a YES on 8 sign-holding party with my parents and some people from Church, in the rain the night before the election. We were on the corner of a crazy busy street and this nice guy came along on his bike. He had to stop and wait for the traffic signal to change so I asked him if he was “going to vote yes on Prop 8?” He kind of looked at me funny, then said, “I already voted.” That’s all fine and dandy right? But then I asked, “did you vote yes on prop 8?” Short story shorter, the dude couldn’t remember how he had voted on Proposition 8. Seriously buddy???? I think I said something like, “I hope you voted yes!” Then the conversation turned to my Dad and me talking about how people that like, who “don’t know beans about the issues,” shouldn’t be voting. (The fact that he barely spoke English is a topic for a completely different day and blog. We’re not prejudice here at the Journalista Chronicle, I’ve taken numerous Spanish classes in my day and dated men of various races before I married at 31, (another blog topic), but shouldn’t people have to be “up on things” before they can vote? In all honesty, I would rather have convicts voting then uninformed non-convicts. At least prisoners have plenty of time to read, research the law and keep themselves informed).

So back to the topic…you just never know why people voted the way they did; in fact they might not even know why or how they voted. That’s hard for me to get my head around, but hey, those people are out there. If you can have a positive influence on people who don’t have a clue or think they might not care about traditional marriage, be prepared to start talking about all of the education, psychological, marriage, health, religious, family and other issues that need to be addressed, defended and talked about. Our positive and truthful influence counts too! Don’t let the same-sex marriage activists have a louder voice then ours.

Source: Mercury News