Fox News Prop 8 “Legal Analyst” Bob Massi’s Commentary Way Off the Beam//


Photo: Bob Massi

So if you were watching Fox News on Tuesday, right after they announced the California Supreme Court decision, then you probably saw the insane commentary from legal analyst Bob Massi. Check out this analysis from my brilliant friend beetle blogger, sent in an email after the decision was announced. She’s right on as always.

I think we should all apply for analyst jobs at fox. I don’t have any news experience, but obviously it doesn’t matter, I apparently won’t need facts either…

Fox News Legal Analyst???  What kind of comment is this?  On live news, incorrect propaganda is being spouted:

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

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

—Bob Massi, Fox News Legal Analyst
Would you like a point by point rebuttal of this awful legal analyzing?  I’m just a regular joe and I know more than your legal analyst does!
The Mormon Church gave no money.  Only in-kind donations amounting to an insignificant fraction of the donations received in the Proposition 8 fight.  As a prop 8 supporter I can tell you that I was not paid, and neither were any of the thousands of volunteers who worked tirelessly for marriage. We worked for Proposition 8 because it was right, not for money.
Proposition 8 supporters were out fund-raised and outspent by far, not the other way around.
Fire the “Legal Analyst”.
Massi goes on to say that gays a “class” of people, now divided…
We really have now… two classes of people within the same class… There is a sense of reverence. They want to be able to introduce their partner as their spouse. They want to say “this is my husband,” “this is my wife,” not “this is my partner.” And as a result, the reverence and the depth of that that you and I take for granted, they want that back. This will back very soon I’m sure in the next four years.
If you want to let Fox know how you feel about Massi’s rah-rah,gay marriage rally, write to Fox News here:

Digg, delicious, facebook, twitter…it’s all there!

Check out Bob’s video:

California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8//


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!!!!

{ Gay marriage issues arise in Sioux City, Iowa and Maine }

To a State, Courhouse or Legislature near you. . .

To a State, Courthouse or Legislature near you. . .

Here’s a recap of the same-sex marriage wars that are raging across the country. I’m going to post info as I try to bring myself and my readers up to speed on the issues of the last few days.

Fight over gay marriage looms in Main Legislature. . . Residents and law makers of Maine are facing the same issues, problems and debates that Californians did, over the rights of gays to marry. Residents can be found on both sides of the issue claiming the same rational that was used in California.

Maine religious leaders and activists are mobilizing for a legislative battle next year over the politically charged issue of gay marriage.

Newly formed Maine Marriage Alliance is pushing for an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Proposed Amendment to the Maine Constitution

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Here’s the 411 on how Maine can amend it’s state constitution:

The Maine Constitution is amended by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate and then ratified by the voters. The Maine Legislature could also call a Constitutional Convention. Either way, only the legislature can initiate a Maine Constitutional Amendment.

You may have heard of the current referendums in California and Florida to amend their state constitutions. Their constitutions were written differently allowing for citizen-initiated amendments.

You may also be confused with a current Maine referendum to tighten existing definition of marriage law. This referendum can initiate change in the law but not the State Constitution.

The question remains...Who will be getting married?. . .

The question remains...Who will be getting married?. . .

It looks like Californians had it a bit easier, or did we?. . .
Read More Here. . .

{ Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View }

Check out this article for statistics on the traditional marriage fight in CA and across the nation. It looks like CA isn’t the only state to have to fight to protect traditional marriage, but thankfully 29 out of 30 states have won that battle so far. This is very promising as those of us in California fight to pass Prop 8.

This article is long, but totally worth the read. Definitely read this article if you are undecided about how to vote on Prop 8. This should make it pretty clear why we, and our society need to amend our CA constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Rather then a slanted and biased media article, this one was written by a psychologist, where she provides a social science view to homosexual marriage. Dr. Laura A. Haynes points out in her paper that, “A same sex couple is inherently deficient in ability to prepare a child for the future heterosexual married life that the vast majority of children will aspire to as adults. Two parents of the same sex cannot teach a child how to relate deeply to both sexes in the same way that growing up with married parents—one of each sex—can.” Children deserve the example and influence of both a Father and a Mother.

In case you don’t have time or don’t want to read the entire article by Dr. Haynes, here are some of the great points she makes: (p. 7-8)

“Research has not made the case that same sex lifestyle and relationships are as healthy for adults and young people or as healthy for raising children. Is it a social good to encourage more young people to experiment with going down a path that includes higher rates of disease, early death, drug abuse or dependency, partner battering, violence from sex with strangers, never having children or having children who will be motherless or fatherless and who will be at higher risk of going down the same path, never having a long term relationship or having one only with anguish and heartache over infidelity or with more dependency that can become life-threatening, many relationship breakups, or suicidality? How should we, as members of our society, direct our compassion? Wouldn’t preventative measures be in order? Shouldn’t we warn against, not enable experimenting with, taking this path?
At present, California curriculum includes units about families, beginning in kindergarten. The legalization of same-sex marriage opens the door for children from kindergarten on up to be taught that the state of California validates that marrying someone of the same sex is as legal and acceptable an option for them as marrying someone of the opposite sex. How would this impact required curriculum units such as family, health, values, child development, sex education, and history? Based on present research showing that the liberal sexual attitudes in colleges not only allow but actually elicit homosexuality, we should expect that extending education about liberal sexual attitudes down through kindergarten will elicit many more of our children to go down the path of homosexuality. Some parents who have raised their children in traditional sexual values have been shocked at how much those values have changed when their children went to public high school or
college. The same effect will begin in kindergarten if same-sex marriage is allowed to stand in California, and the strong precedent in California will be used to extend the changes across the U.S.
Marriage cannot fix disordered relationships. Is it good for children to be placed at higher risk of growing up with such conditions and behaviors in their parents? Does it improve mental health to tell society that these kinds of relationships are equal, approved, or healthy? Is it a social good to bring
relationships with these qualities at higher rates into the mainstream of society?”

Source: Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View, By Dr. Laura A. Haynes