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

{ 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 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 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, 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.


{ Spain: big pro-family rally in Madrid }

I have always wanted to go to Spain. It always seemed cultured and interesting, and during all of my college Spanish classes, Spain was the “it” place for the Spanish language in it’s most proper form. But whether you’re in Spain or in the US, it seems people who are pro-family and traditional marriage, even the Pope, aren’t far from the usual gay activist criticism. They’ll hunt us down anywhere.

The AP reports of a Sunday Mass in Spain, attended by hundreds of thousands of people (pretty impressive turnout, even SF couldn’t top that I don’t think),

designed to promote traditional family values in a predominantly Roman Catholic country that has legalized gay marriage and made it easier for people to divorce.

Pope Benedict XVI started the service with a message urging Spanish Catholics, “to keep their families strong.”

“Dear families, do not let love, openness to life and the incomparable links that join your homes weaken,” he said in Madrid.

The archbishop of Madrid, Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, added: “the future of humanity depends on the family, the Christian family.”

Plaza del Colon, Madrid, Spain, Family Rally 2007

Plaza del Colon, Madrid, Spain, Family Rally 2007. Photo courtesy of

Despite the chilly overcast weather, hundreds of thousands of faithful people packed downtown Plaza de Colon and spilled out into streets running off from it in four directions.

Spain’s Socialist government has angered the church by legalizing gay marriage, making it easy for people to divorce and instituting a public school course in which children learn about homosexuality and same-sex marriages. It is also considering easing Spain’s restrictive abortion law.

Rouco Varela called abortion one of the worst “scourges” of modern times.

A similar mass and rally were held at the same time last year in the same square.


The Rebuttal: What pro-family/traditional marriage rally would be complete with out some backlash from the throngs of gay rights activists, and traditional marriage haters? The Sunday Mass and rally in Madrid, Spain is apparently no different. BBC News reports that gay groups and activists have reacted angrily after Pope Benedict XVI said that,

mankind needed to be saved from a destructive blurring of gender.

I understand that no one likes to be told they are wrong, or destructive, but it seems  as though the opposition is encountering these terms quite a lot as of late, and they especially didn’t like the Pope’s comments.

Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.

So gay activists, angered by this, obviously think that, we, as in all of us who care about and believe in traditional marriage and family,  should actually care more about global warming, that we should all drop our beemers and drive hideous hybrids (not going to happen in my family), and that we should let them voice their opinions exclusively, let them behave as leeches on our society’s moral fiber and we should all run, hide and let them take over…..well I’ll say it again….not going to happen in my family. The UK’s Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement called the Pope’s comments, “irresponsible and unacceptable.” It’s always fine for them to rip apart comments that don’t condone their behavior, but when we call them out on their stuff, they are all to quick to say that we’re bigots, biased, and trying to keep them from exercising their definition of civil rights. I’m glad we have traditional marriage allies in Europe; the opposition is everywhere.

LGCM head Rev Sharon Ferguson said the Pope’s remarks justified “gay bashing” and bullying.

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.

Earlier this month, the Vatican said that a proposed United Nations resolution decriminalizing homosexuality went too far.

“Unjust discrimination” against gay people should be avoided, but the use of wording such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in the text would “create serious uncertainty in the law”, it said.

Sources: Associated Press, BBC News

{ 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 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!

{ Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien }

Super cute couple...Is allowing interracial marriage the same thing as allowing same-sex marriage? I think not. The Iowa Supreme Court now has to decide...

Super cute couple... Is allowing interracial marriage the same thing as allowing same-sex marriage? I think not; we're talking man and woman here. The Iowa Supreme Court now has to decide...

Justice David S. Wiggins pointed out that society’s notion of what was acceptable in marriage had evolved over time. “Thirty years ago you couldn’t have interracial marriage — I mean things are just changing, is marriage, as you call it, a static relationship?”

The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Varnum v. Brien on Tuesday 12/9.

Watch the proceedings in the video at the bottom of the page here.

At the core of this case is the question of whether or not Iowa’s 10 year-old definition of a valid marriage as only “between a male and female” violates the Iowa Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment and due process.

It looks like activists judges rear their ugly heads in Iowa too.  Six same-sex couples  financed and represented by the national gay and lesbian rights group Lambda Legal, sued the Polk County Recorder and Registrar Timothy Brien in 2005, after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples in a ruling last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling on the matter.

“The law is extremely over-inclusive in its attempt to strengthen heterosexual marriage and procreation by preventing an entire distinct group of individuals — homosexuals — from marrying,” Judge Hanson wrote.

A trial court judge ruled last year that the law was unconstitutional and that a dozen gay men and lesbians had been wrongly denied marriage licenses in Polk County, which includes the state capital, Des Moines.

The state, i.e. the Polk County attorney’s office appealed the lower-court ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court on the grounds that,

[Judge] Hanson erred in his 2007 ruling and that the county had followed the “clear, unambiguous language” of state law.

In a case that could make Iowa the first Midwestern state to legalize same-sex marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court pressed lawyers for both sides with sharp questions on topics like the 4,000-year-old history of marriage and whether a ruling favoring gay couples would open the door to polygamy. [Several justices challenged the attorneys on this issue].

I say that any ruling allowing the marriage of same-sex couples would most definitely be geared towards the further disintegration of the already tattered moral fiber of American society. Dennis Johnson, a Des Moines lawyer, criticized Polk County’s arguments about possible long-term damage to marriage as “highly speculative,” and cast the law as an intrusion on equal rights.  I don’t understand how this guy could classify the potential for damage as “highly speculative.” Studies on the issue abound, and the facts and statistics of the long term effects of same-sex marriage are horrifically present. Johnson should be very clear on this, but apparently chooses to “speculate” despite the information that is available.

Many questions arose during oral arguments, and issues such as the following will have to be sorted out:

“Where was the line, they asked, between religious and governmental interests in definitions of marriage? How did the state’s defense of the law defining marriage differ from the way it might have once defended now-defunct laws barring interracial marriage? Would allowing same-sex marriage encourage more gay couples to adopt, and was there anything wrong with that?”

An assistant attorney for Polk County, Roger J. Kuhle, said the core of marriage, historically, was about children and creating stable systems for procreation.

“The essential factor of marriage, which is procreation, which is raising children, which is replenishing society, has never changed,” Mr. Kuhle told the court.


Attorneys conclude Supreme Court arguments in gay marriage case

Iowa Justices Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case

{ 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. . .

{ Gays have a different idea of marriage… }

I love this post on Left Coast Conservative. Cruise on over and check it out.  He talks about the drastic and eye-opening differences between faithful men and women devoted to their marriages and their spouses, and gay couples and their sexually-open, uncommitted and adulterous “partnerships.” I don’t even understand how these gay, lesbian and who-knows-what-kind of couples, are confused about the fight to protect traditional marriage. It is all very clear that they haven’t a clue what MARRIAGE really is. They just want to snatch a word that so obviously means NOTHING to them, and parade around with their rainbow flags flung in our faces like this is a “real” issue for them. They certainly don’t portray even the slightest semblance that they are interested in having a real marriage if it’s defined by terms like monogamy, fidelity, and providing children an environment in which they can thrive; providing them what they need, a father and a mother. And the reason they are so determined to snatch “marriage” is, not because they are fighting for civil rights or equality under the law, but because of the gay agenda to throw everything homosexual in the face of the world, and the fact that ” traditional marriage” means so much to those of us fighting to protect it.

Left Coast Voter points out in his post that,

“…many gay couples are quite open about their mutually approved “adultery.”…” (gross)

“…Even gays and lesbians in monogamous relationships tend to see nothing wrong with consensual adultery, even when a couple has children. …” (that’s right, let’s not forget, they aren’t too keen on the needs of children.)

Left Coast Voter points out that 75% of homosexual couples have mutually agreed upon “open” relationships. Check out his post sources for more info.

So, what do you think about this? One of Left Coaster’s commenters said that because heterosexual couples do the “swingers” thing, that we should basically not point any fingers at gays…..let them steal marriage and make an even bigger mockery of it then the swingers do, I don’t think so…..Comment away, I’m curious what my readers think about this….

{ 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.

{ 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”

{ The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sponsors NY Times Ad! }

Salt Lake Temple & Christmas Lights in Temple Square

Salt Lake Temple & Christmas Lights in Temple Square

Scholars, dignitaries and religious leaders from a variety of faiths signed their names to an ad that ran on Friday Dec. 5th in the NY Times. The ad was sponsored by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and states,  “the violence and intimidation being directed at the LDS or “Mormon” Church, and other religious organizations – and even against individual believers – simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage and must stop.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed appreciation today for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times that decries the “violence and intimidation” directed toward the Church because of its support of Proposition 8.

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times. This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation.”

I think its wonderful that so many religions have come together, formed friendships and alliances, and worked together and supported each other in their efforts to protect traditional marriage. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has done a very kind thing by sponsoring this ad!

The statement by the group also called for others to add their names to the letter and concluded with a declaration of unified support:

“Therefore, despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship — Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever — from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve.”

Read the entire ad here. Just click on the page to enlarge the print.

Source:, “Prop 8 Backlash Is “An Ourtrage That Must Stop,” Group Says in Support of Church