Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 ‘Un-American’

photo courtesy of

photo courtesy of

Tom Hanks says he’s sorry he told that Mormons who supported California’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage were “un-American.”

“Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as ‘un-American,'” the actor said in a statement through his publicist. “I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.”

“But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American,” the statement continues. “To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are ‘un-American’ creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use ‘un- American’ lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.”

The “Big Love” producer made his original remarks at the Los Angeles premiere of the HBO series last week.

“The truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now.”


Labor Unions// ick. . . talk about throwing your weight around, I mean money

More CA labor unions are throwing their weight around

More CA labor unions are throwing their weight around

Big Labor, the most powerful lobby in all of California is urging the court to overturn proposition 8. Again, we ask, just like the CTA, why is it any business of a labor union to support or not support a Constitutional Amendment that has nothing to do with labor? These labor unions feel it is a slippery slope that could lead to other rights being revoked, but Proposition 8 didn’t revoke any rights. Gays didn’t have the right to marry before Prop 8 and they don’t have the right now. What is a right, however, is the right of California voters to “define” the word marriage in their State Constitution.

A coalition of more than 50 labor organizations representing more than two million Californians filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

They are arguing the same tired old argument that Jerry Brown is arguing, and that the gay people who filed the law suits are arguing. . . that any change to the Constitution that takes away fundamental rights or divides citizens into a suspect class, has to be done by a revision and not by a mere amendment. They are apparently bent out of shape that California voters have exercised their political rights and voted, and that in this country, majority rules.

“If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another,” the brief states.

Yeah, they have a point, but so what. That is what the Founding Father’s of this country wrote into our Constitution, and that most states have written into theirs. People may not like it, but that doesn’t mean the rules of this country should all just change because gays want to up and get married and adopt children all of a sudden.

“We believe Prop. 8 is improper and it’s immoral and it’s also legally invalid,” Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, told reporters Tuesday. “We have an interest not only in defending the rights of our members, but we have an interest in defending the constitution of California.”

So  Big Labor is so concerned with the morality of California voters who are for Prop 8, but they are not, however, concerned with the moral character, or lack there of, of the people they purport to be defending. Interesting.

It doesn’t matter that most rank-and-file union members voted in favor of Proposition 8, according to exit polls. More than 50 of the biggest unions in the state joined to essentially support gay marriage. In a political sense, it figures: Unions, Democrats and gay leaders are traditional allies in California – the views of their members be damned.

I guess they fit the union profile. The CTA didn’t care how their members voted on Prop 8 either. They used their union dues for personal interests and supported No on 8 anyway.

UHW-West President Sal Rosselli is worried that wealthy, bigoted people could organize the votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights. This is an interesting statement coming from the opposition. Doesn’t it appear that they are trying to do the same thing, well, in a running-after-the-bus kind of way. They couldn’t organize their voters and get Prop 8 passed, so they are going to the CA Supreme court to tattle on the unfair Prop 8 voters. sniff. . . sniff. . .

Equality California executive director Geoff Kors said he believes “the leadership of labor in this brief is going to have a tremendous impact.” Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal senior counsel and Marriage Project director, said the brief “is putting a special emphasis on how high the stakes are here for everybody in California.”

They have a point, the stakes are high for everyone in California, but not for the reasons they think. If traditional marriage isn’t protected in this state, and in the country, there will be a dangerous fall out.

The California Supreme Court has set a fast-tracked briefing schedule, which should be completed this month, with oral arguments heard as soon as March.

The info from this post came from a tip from the DNA. If you want to blog, write, comment in defense of traditional marriage, then click the DNA badge in the side bar or visit and sign up. Check out their site for more information. I’m proud to be a part of this great army and to work with other like-minded individuals in this great marriage fight! We are always looking for more people to join our team!

Sources: Marcos Breton: Prop 8 is personal for union leader Big labor urges court to invalidate Prop 8

{ 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 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. 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

{ Digital Network (DNA) Website Debuts Today!!! }

DNA Website Logo

Truthfilled. Respectful. Relentless. We Can Make The Difference.

It’s here!!!! And its Time to Take Action! The amazing people over at the Digital Network have launched the new DNA site and are taking new members as we speak. Rush on over there and check it out, and then sign up to join the great fight for traditional marriage. Then email this post, or their link to your friends and family and encourage them to join as well. Anyone who voted YES on Prop 8 should be interested in the ongoing efforts to protect traditional marriage. The website has all of the info you need to familiarize yourself with the DNA effort. We need all the help we can get!

You can do as much or as little as you have time for. It is through the work of hundreds and thousands of us that information is spread and our voices are heard.

The DNA is an incredible, grassroots political movement made up of normal individuals just like you – throughout the US and beyond – who believe that traditional values are worth fighting for!

I joined the DNA back in October, and my first assignment was to start this blog. I’m having so much fun and I love being a part of a group that is so unified in fighting for such a worthy and needed cause. . .protecting traditional marriage!!!

Sign up Today!!!!!

P.S. The DNA also loves submissions of breaking news, stories, editorals, and anything else. If you come across something that the ARMY needs to know about, send it over, and they will get the word out.

{ Update as Promised. . .’Day Without a Gay’ participation spotty…and not surprisingly }

Ok folks, here’ s the latest report on the ‘Day Without a Gay’ that was scheduled to take place today, with all gays, lesbians, bi’s and the like, calling in ‘gay’  an taking the day off work to “volunteer” and not spend any money. They were hoping this protest would show the country how much the gay community contributes to society, and it  “was designed to demonstrate the economic clout of same-sex marriage supporters following the passage of voter-approved gay marriage bans in California, Arizona and Florida last month.”

Although hundreds of thousands of people across the nation had expressed interest in “calling in gay,” the reality of “Day Without a Gay,” an event to protest the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California, proved to be more lackluster than the Facebook event predicted.

Here are a few of the noteworthy gems, as reported by the Asscoiated Press on, and

Kolieboi, the co-founder of Queer People of Color at MU, chose not to participate because he feels that it would be unjust to expect all economic classes to be able to participate in a day off from work.

“I think it’s very, very classist,” Kolieboi said. “Not only because we’re in an economic depression, but not all gay people are able to participate in it.”

Kolieboi added: “It’s not a day without gays, it’s really a day without pay.” He pointed out that two California men of a different socio-economic class than himself started the event, and Kolieboi thinks that the event does not take into account the many ways that people can classify themselves.

“It’s indicative of where the white LGBT community is at,” Kolieboi said. “They’re expecting people to do this just because they’re gay; this is ignoring their other identities.”

I think he makes some great points. Just because people are gay, doesn’t mean they are down for loosing money, alienating their friends and co-workers and participating in an effort that comes from a group with an agenda they may not personally agree with.
Read on for more. . .

{ Signal Hill politician is targeted by Prop. 8 foes }

It appears that “The Day Without a Gay” drama is just heating up. Opponents of Proposition 8 are planning to rally in front of Signal Hill City Hall on Wednesday in and effort to,

rally in support of a possible recall petition of city Treasurer Emerson Fersch. The rally is part of the national “Day Without A Gay” action, in which gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are asked to take off work in opposition to Proposition 8.

Fersch, who is an elected official and is a bishop in the Mormon church, gave $3,285 in support of Proposition 8. That hasn’t gone over well with Long Beach’s or Signal Hill’s gay and lesbian communities.

I am so appalled by this article and the notion that one’s religious beliefs have to be separate from any job they may perform, in public service or otherwise. One might be correct in thinking that this man’s integrity, honesty and moral character is perhaps what the public was drawn to when electing him in the first place, and now, just because gays don’t happen to agree with his position on Prop. 8, is no reason to have him recalled.
Read more here. . .

{ Calling in ’gay’ to work is the latest form of protest }

Hey!! Calling in gay????

Hey!! Calling in gay????

I am trying not to laugh as I write this post. Talk about going over board and running down the street naked, screaming “look at me!” I was just watching a bit of O’Reilly when across the bottom of the screen, where Fox puts the latest news, comes scrolling some drama about gays calling in to work….no, not calling in sick…..but calling in GAY! They have got to be kidding! Ok, fine, so what…go ahead, stay home from work. It has no effect on me, or on anyone else fighting to protect traditional marriage. Our society will not crumble, the economy will still function (or whatever it’s currently doing), and the cool Asian lady at Mr. T’s Doughnuts (the best doughnuts in the world) will still make doughnuts on Wednesday. Seriously, I say, go for it. I can’t knock anyone for not going to work. I’m one of those people who thinks that calling in sick can most definitely mean, “I’m sick…sick of work,” and that it totally counts as a legitimate excuse for not showing up. Hey…it got me through 4 years of working at The Home Depot when I was in college. Just call me the return’s desk queen….So, back to this gay anti-work situation…..

I don’t understand why they think anyone cares. First of all, when I screamed out that I couldn’t believe what I was seeing at the bottom of the TV screen, as my Mom just said, “No one thinks they don’t do anything.” That is one of the alleged reasons for this whole deal…to show society how much homosexuals contribute. They do contribute a lot of good, I think many people will agree on that. However, the gay rights agenda and gay-rights activists have done a lot of damage and are working on even more destruction as we speak. So it’s not that people think gays don’t contribute, it’s that we think they contribute too much of the wrong things and have too much of a negative, destructive and to be frank, disgusting, impact on society, marriages, families, children, education, morality, politics and values…just to name a few.

It only took me about 2 seconds to pull up numerous articles about this coming Wednesday’s impending “call-in gay” charade. The opposition is so full of crazy antics, they definitely keep things lively and news reporters in their jobs. Here’s the low-down on the latest gay rights “look at me” project, as reported on Boston

Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to “call in gay” Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it’s wise to encourage skipping work given the nation’s economic distress. Organizers of “Day Without a Gay” — scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants — also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

I think that when and when not to spend money and when and when not to volunteer, is kind of a personal thing, and falls into the I-can-make-my-own-decisions-with-out-gay-rights-activists-telling-me-what-to-do category.  I guess they must assume that all of their supporters like to be told what to do. Not only are they supposed to ditch work, but then they are expected to spend all day volunteering and also not spend any money on say, food, mani’s and pedi’s and other necessities. So all of you who plan to participate, make sure your electric and gay bills are paid before their Wednesday due date, get your Chinese take-out the night before and you have one more day to research where you be most effective donating your volunteer hours that would otherwise be spend at work.  I also find it interesting that the organizers are trying to usurp some sympathy by modeling their protest after those of racial minority groups. Calling in ‘gay’ is hardly the same thing. In addition, gays arent’ supposed to go to work, or spend money because we as heterosexual America are supposed to “wake-up” and recognize the vast and immeasurable contribution they make in the work place and to the financial market, as if they alone will make or break America’s economy? The organizers of this “protest” seem to be way off the mark on this one.

Join The Impact, the online community that launched protests last month over the passage of gay marriage bans in California, Florida and Arizona, has urged people to withdraw $80 from their bank accounts Wednesday to demonstrate gays’ spending power, and to devote the time they might otherwise spend watching TV or surfing the Internet to volunteer work. Witeck-Combs Communications, a public relations firm in Washington that specializes in the gay and lesbian market, published a study this year that estimated that gay and lesbian consumers spend $700 billion annually.

So what the study is saying, is that more gay people spend money, then vote? Proposition 8 passed in California, so the no-voters were the minority, and not all of the no votes were from homosexuals. So of the 48% of no votes, how many were actually from gay voters? Don’t get me wrong, my little editorial piece here, or rather, as it seems to be turning into, a rant, isn’t against gay people, I’m speaking more of the Seth and Aaron, who brainstormed this protest. I’m curious to see how it all pans out on Wednesday. Should my hubby and I sell all of our stocks tomorrow before the gay call-in causes all of the retail corporations to crash on Wednesday? Can gay rights activists really make a significant dent in the current economic situation, enough to make the rest of America stop and take pause to appreciate their social contributions?

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters’ passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year’s state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women’s Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple’s Web site.

Just because some food banks have responded to some offers for volunteers, doesn’t in any way mean that the Methodist church in Fresno is supporting the gay agenda now. I can’t speak for them, but generally, people who need volunteers aren’t all that picky. Volunteer organizations usually accept help whenever they can get it, and especially a church collection food for the homeless at Christmas…..of course they need help. I will be waiting to see just how my band-wagon theory turns out on Wednesday. Read the rest here…

{ Lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8 may face uphill battle… }

CA Supreme Court Building

CA Supreme Court Building

…So says the O.C. Register. I’m glad to see that they are finally getting in the mood to report on the battle to protect traditional marriage. Here are a few great points made in their article on the Supreme Court Battle to un-protect traditional marriage, discussing equal protection and historical precedent. Although I don’t agree with the Supreme Court even hearing these frivolous cases in the first place, at least they had enough sense to let the democratic process play out before trying to exert their usurped law-making authority,

Gay-marriage advocates tried to challenge the legality of the measure in June, immediately after it qualified for the ballot. Courts ruled that the matter would not be considered until voters approved it.

Power definitely plays a huge role in the homosexual agenda and right now they happen to be seeking power over marriage.

“Anything that really goes to the heart of power, like term limits, or social issues, like gay marriage, frequently gets targeted,” said John Eastman, dean of Chapman University’s School of Law.

“It’s unusual for the court to throw out something entirely, particularly a constitutional amendment,” said Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies.

Although no hearing is expected before March, there is some good news on the traditional marriage front,

Proposition 8, which won by a 4-percent spread, amends the constitution. In doing so, it makes it more difficult for courts to invalidate as unconstitutional. While gay-marriage advocates are eager for the state Supreme Court to take up the matter, the Yes on 8 campaign is confident it will prevail – so much so that it too urged the high court hear the legal challenges promptly and make a determination.

The article presents some insight into the argument over ‘equal protection’

The six Prop. 8 lawsuits all hinge on whether the measure qualifies as a “revision” or an “amendment” to the state constitution. Prop. 8 was approved as an amendment, but petitioners say it makes such a fundamental change to the constitution that it needs to be passed as a revision to be valid.

The difference is so important that it provides the basis to overturn a vote of the people.

The California Constitution specifies that amendments can be put on the ballot through a petition drive, which was the approach used for Prop. 8. But revisions can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature or by a rarely used constitutional convention.

The article then points out that the Constitution explains these procedures, but does NOT distinguish when they should be used.

That question was left to the courts, which have ruled over the years that major changes are made through revisions while minor ones are made with amendments.

“The key distinction,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, “is that a revision (changes) the underlying principles or structure (of the constitution) while an amendment is consistent with the underlying principles and structure.”

The suits argue that Prop. 8 represents a major change because it alters the constitution’s core principle of “equal protection.”

Prop. 8 supporters say the measure trumps “equal protection” clause when it comes to wedlock by providing a simple definition that marriage can take place only between a man and a woman. They say it otherwise does not change the constitutional protections of minorities or the underlying principles of the constitution.

A little history on ‘historical precedent’

Yes on 8 attorneys cite a 1972 state initiative as precedent. After the state Supreme Court banned the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment,” voters approved a measure – Prop. 17 – that amended the constitution to say, in effect, the death penalty was not cruel and unusual punishment and could be used.

Prop. 17 opponents sued unsuccessfully, and the voters’ definition of the death penalty overrode the court’s prior interpretation of the constitution.

Yes on 8 attorney Andrew Pugno says his measure is like Prop. 17 because it’s tightly focused and “doesn’t change how government functions.” Because of that, it is a valid constitutional amendment and doesn’t necessitate a constitutional revision, Pugno says.

Stern is among those who counter by pointing to 1964’s Prop. 14, an initiative to eliminate the state’s housing discrimination law. But while Stern says that’s an example of the equal-protection clause trumping an initiative, he’s not so sure the court will see Prop. 8 in the same light.

“My guess is that the court will find it a valid constitutional amendment,” he said.

Eastman, co-author of a letter to the court on behalf of Prop. 8 proponents, thinks the issue is cut-and-dried to uphold the ban on gay marriage. However, Eastman worries that the court showed with the Prop. 22 ruling that it supports gay marriage – and that sentiment may influence its interpretation of the current lawsuit.

“Unfortunately, our courts are looking for the outcome they want,” he said.

The article also points out that, “legal challenges of propositions are common.” So it looks like gay rights activists aren’t the only so-called “minority” group to be bitter that their “cause” was voted down by the majority, and they certainly aren’t the only group that has ever been sue-happy.  The article points out some other, “notable state propositions that have been challenged in court:”

Source: “Lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8 may face uphill battle”

{ Hot Off the Press… Beetle Blogger Interviews the DNA Captain… }

If you’ve read this blog before then you might already be familiar with the Digital Network Army– aka the DNA! Beetle Blogger just interviewed the DNA Captain and has shared with us the latest DNA info, via her blog. Read on her for the interview, or check out Beetle’s Blog for the whole scoop. You can join by clicking on the DNA Badge in our sidebars. We hope you’ll join us. We as many people who want to get involved as possible. It’s a worthy cause and doesn’t take much time at all. It’s a work at your own pace kind of thing, and a great way to stay informed about the latest traditional marriage and family issues.

“I was able to get in contact with the DNA Team Captain and in my first exclusive interview, he was able to answer a few questions for me.

Beetle Blogger: So, what is the DNA exactly?  What do you do?  What is your “Mission”?

DNA Captain: The DNA is an organization of regular people, who are dedicated to preserving traditional family values.  The purpose of the DNA is to organize, or focus the voice of the people so it can be heard.  Alone one voice can get lost in the fray, but many voices speaking out on family issues in a focused way makes them more powerful.  We believe it’s important that the voice of the people be heard by policy makers and voters.

Beetle Blogger:
And you’re not really particularly religious or political are you?

DNA Captain:
Right, we’ve got members from all walks of life, all political persuasions, college alumni, concerned mothers, lawyers, famous people, regular joes, plumbers, people with money, people without money….just basically people who are alarmed about the changes they see happening in the social fabric of the country and want to make a difference.  We have a small army of writers, strategists, thinkers and philosophers.  The common thread is that they’re all people who believe in traditional morals and family and who are willing to get out and do rather than watch.  That’s our power.

Beetle Blogger:
I know you have an email network and you basically email chain news and information around the network, but how effective is that?

DNA Captain:
Well, it’s very effective.  They call the internet the new media because it takes power away from the traditional media and allows the common people to band together for causes.  We don’t have to wait to be spoon fed the opinion of the editors at CNN or FOX if we don’t want to.  We can go look it up on Drudge or many other places that are popping up.

We’ve got four areas we really focus on:

1. We disseminate news stories–This is our main focus, we are like a homespun version of the Associated Press.  When there are stories out there like the Scott Eckern story, or the El Coyote story that are not getting widespread press from the mainstream media, we need to have means to push those stories into the local media outlets, and from there the big guys may pick it up by force of pressure.  Our group heard about Scott Eckern being pressured to resign even before he resigned.  The DNA helped further a letter campaign in the 12 hours before his actual resignation, and after the resignation we published the information far and wide, submitting news tips to every major media outlet and even local media outlets.  Drudge got tips from several of our members and what started out as a very small story is now widely known.  Had it been a gay man forced to resign, the media would have spread it and made it national news by themselves, but when a story doesn’t fit their templates, the stories just don’t get reported.   We’re helping to change that.

2. We help get the message out so people can be educated on the core issues–with proposition 8, there was a major push by the opposition to conceal the arguments and issues, behind names like bigotry and hatred.  Our effort is to be solidly informed on both sides of the marriage issue and then to get the message out. Now that proposition 8 is over, it’s becoming clear that the battle has merely moved from one state to the others.  This information needs to be spread throughout the country.  If you watch the mainstream media, you get the impression that the only reason to oppose the redefinition of family is based on bigotry, ignorance and hate.  That is an untruth that does the entire country a disservice, yet the media continues to put that idea forward and unless people scratch the surface of the issue themselves, they might never know the true issues at stake here.  Many of our members are actively involved in writing letters to editors, publishing blog articles and spreading news stories on the fight for marriage and family that illustrate the consequences happening in our community from the attack on marriage and family.

3. We help people to coordinate their voices: because we’re all networked together, we can coordinate our efforts to make sure that newspapers and local news outlets have access to our voices.  Our army writes editorials and opinion pieces to keep our pro-family agenda in the public eye.

4. We are able to contact the army quickly!  We remain closely connected via email so the instant something happens, the information goes out immediately.

Beetle Blogger: Were you behind the CTA Tuesday sick-out/letter writing campaign?

DNA Captain: Well, not really, but we contributed our part by relaying the information through the network, we didn’t start the idea for the actual sick-out.  We spread the information that the California Teacher’s Association was using teacher funds to attack the family and that information went out like wildfire especially through parent circles.  A lot of teachers had no idea that their union had voted to spend millions of dollars to fight proposition 8 and 4, both family friendly issues, and the reaction instantly created a furor among both teachers and parents.  The backlash of that furor manifested itself in the sick-out effort and the letter writing campaign.  The idea was that if the schools became hostile to families and traditional values, the families would be forced to move their children to private or home school situations, which would take money from the school system.  The frustration out there was from the image of the schools fighting families.  The details on the sick-out came from the grass roots somewhere, but once one of our members picked it up and blasted it through the DNA network, it went like wildfire.  In the course of 24 hours news of the sick-out had made it to families all across the state.   It is an example of the power these types of networks can have.  We don’t have exact numbers, but we know of hundreds of students and parents who wrote letters to their teachers in protest of the CTA’s effort to undermine the family.

Beetle Blogger: So I guess that leads into my next question, how big is the DNA?

DNA Captain: We started out with just a handful of dedicated people, but within the first two months we’d grown to 400 members.  Now the membership has extended beyond the borders of California and we’re aiming at becoming a national organization. We decided after the election to initially end the DNA project, but watching the news and seeing the havoc and outrage out there, we realized that it had become a national issue and that there was a need for an organization like this out in the heartland.  So, we restructured, added some additional leadership and now we’re back with force and continuing to spread.

You know, the tide is turning out there against gay marriage, but the message has to get out.  If you watch the old media you don’t get a clear picture of the detrimental influence the re-definition of marriage can have on families and society.  Basic freedoms are at stake when you talk about creating a gay protected class because it crosses the morality line.  If people acting immorally is taught as moral and equal, that has a lot of consequences.  Now the DNA is not only about marriage, education and freedom, but it is the main focus right now of our organization.  As California goes, so goes the nation and so goes the world.  We can’t afford to let misinformation color the voters of this nation with ignorance.

That’s basically the message and the purpose of the DNA, to get the message out there so people can see both sides of the issues and make an informed choice.

Beetle Blogger: Now, your name isn’t really DNA Captain right?  Who are you really?

DNA Captain: I actually think that’s one of the genius aspects of this network, we encourage anonymity to protect individuals who may be subject to intimidation or danger.  No one has to give out names or personal information if they don’t want to, in fact many of our members create new email addresses completely separate from their normal family addresses in order to participate. This is a heated issue and we each want the ability to act and speak freely without worrying about our safety.  We’ve seen what the other side does to supporters of traditional marriage, so we set ourselves up this way for protection. The reason I don’t personally identify myself is first for privacy concerns, and second to add stability to the group.  We actually have several people who have served in the DNA Captain capacity, so it’s easier to have a title associated with the DNA rather than a specific name.

Beetle Blogger: How do people find out more information or join the DNA?

DNA Captain: We encourage volunteers, professionals, parent groups, friends and family to participate.  Have them go directly to our website located at or email directly to request admission.  Truthfilled. Respectful. Relentless. We can make the difference.”

Source: Beetle Blogger

{ Update to the Supreme Court Battle Over Proposition 8 }

A Traditional woman!

A Traditional woman!

So we all know that the homosexual agenda is to indoctrinate everyone, and use the argument of civil rights as their so-called “get out of jail free card.” I don’t happen to think it works like this.

So get this…’s some good news presented by the NY Times for the Yes on 8 camp. They reported that one of the major challenges for the judges is the slim batch of case law on the topic. There is essentially no precedent on the issue and therefore, the Supreme Court Justices don’t have any previous ruling that will constrict their decision and force them to rule in favor of homosexual marriage. Essentially, they are free to set the precedent that other courts will then have to follow. If they are able, they can start fresh in their decisions, without being bound by previous rulings on same-sex marriage and constitutional amendments. They Court said they would rule on Proposition 8 next year. A huge challenge being the, “slim batch of case law on the topic.”

The CA Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments over same-sex marriage again in December, and some such 18,000 alleged marriages hang in the balance. “And the justices could lose out, too; some are already being threatened with being voted out of office if they rule Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

“This is the whole ballgame,” said Jesse Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. “They earn their salaries in having to decide these things.” They get paid to be fair and impartial in their ruling, all while taking into serious consideration, the will of the voters, the majority of Californians who want the definition of marriage to be defined at “only between a man and a woman.” Only these marriages would be “valid or recognized” in CA. Gay rights activists might look at this lack of legal precedent as a potential slam-dunk for them, however, I think it that it will prove to be a win for traditional marriage and upholding Proposition 8. There’s not much telling the Court that is has to rule in favor of gay marriage or the alleged lack of civil rights the gays constantly complain of.

“The California Supreme Court has never articulated criteria for what makes something an amendment versus a revision,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. “So I don’t think you can predict anything because there is so little law.”

Good news for those of us who voted YES on Proposition 8: “Supporters of the ban say legal history is on their side. “Whenever an amendment or an initiative has been challenged, almost always the court rejects that and upholds the people’s initiative power,” said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for backers of the proposition, citing past state bans on the use of race, sex or ethnicity in college admissions and caps on property taxes. “These are major policy changes that the court has recognized are fine,” he said.”

That is part of the main problem. As I see it, gay rights activists and same-sex marriage proponents are bent out of shape because the YES on 8 campaign used the proper legislative process, took the issue up with the voters, placed the question on the ballot, and let the citizens decide what they wanted in THEIR Consitution, as in a consitution that belongs to ALL of us Californians. Gay rights activists seem to act like OUR constution belongs to ONLY THEM. WRONG!!!!!!! They need to wake up and stop whining that they didn’t get themselves together enough to put their own initiative on the ballot, to define marriage as they wanted to. Now they will just have to be at the mercy of the court. Talk about sour grapes…….

There have been few efforts to overturn same-sex marriage amendments in other states, and as David Masci, a senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington states, “so far non have been successful.”

Along with speculation of what will happen to the same-sex marriages that have already been performed, I wonder why, if this was ssssooooo important to homosexuals, didn’t more people run out and get married! I know gay couples who didn’t bother to do so. It’s almost like the some of them are fighting for something that they don’t really have any intention of using, but then again, many people know it’s not about marriage, it’s about their take-over of society and destruction of morality within it. I really hope the court doesn’t buy in to this mess. With all of the studies about the unhealthy relationships that occur between homosexual couples, it’s not likely many of them would even marry, or if they did, would stay married. Why clog up the courts with more divorce nonsense and more complicated custody battles?????

Source: NY Times- With Same-Sex Marriage, the Court Takes on the People’s Voice.