Tuesday, November 11, 2008
I’m so happy to be a citizen of this country where I have the right to freely exercise my religion, freely voice my opinions, peaceably assemble with others, and, when necessary, petition my government when I have a grievance.
Over these past many months we have seen the wonderful exercise of our democratic rights expressed through the various media and the ballot box. We have seen people on both sides of issues and political parties make their claims and woo the voters. And last Tuesday (Nov. 4) the people spoke and made their choices.
Now, we see candidates and political foes shaking hands and speaking magnanimously about each other. We see one administration graciously offering a hand of cooperation as it welcomes the transition to a new administration. Regardless of who got the fewest votes we all “win” when we accept the outcome and work together for the common good. And, this is how it has always been in our history and always should be.
Yet, sadly, we also see others who are not happy with the outcome of their particular issue marching in the streets, disrupting traffic, impeding travel and commerce, flashing finger epithets, picketing and threatening, yelling unprintable words of anger, bigotry, and hateful intolerance. They do all this while standing in front of houses of worship harassing parishioners as they enter to exercise their faith. And, they’re the ones holding the “Stop the Hate” signs!
Whatever your particular opinion is about the outcome of Proposition 8 (and this paper's opinion is well known!), the harassment of worshipers at churches and the threats against religious institutions, specifically the Mormon Church, is unacceptable and unworthy of a democratic people. This should be condemned! As an Evangelical Christian I do not share much common theological ground with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but, I do share our common love of natural marriage and traditional family. On this issue they are my Brothers and Sisters! The Mormons paid a hefty price disproportionate to their size for the passage of Proposition 8 both before and now after the vote. I commend them for their sacrifice and efforts. Yet, as significant as their part was they were only part of a coalition of millions of Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and other Christians and non-Christians alike. As well as Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisans, and ethnic groups of every color and hue who believe that only marriage between one man and one woman should be valid and recognized in California and is the most beneficial family structure for our children and our society.
On this issue I will stand with my Mormon brethren and other colleagues and friends and defend their right to petition their government, freely express their opinions, worship according to their conscience, and be free and protected from harassment and bigotry. For their right is my right, too! I call upon this paper to abandon its bias for a moment and do the same. Pastor Jim Ortiz, PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial AllianceSenior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God.
Pastor Jim Ortiz,
PresidentWhittier Evangelical Ministerial Alliance
Senior Pastor, My Friend’s House, Assembly of God
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Orange County Register reports it as well.
After watching the political signs in his Fountain Valley neighborhood slashed and their replacements disappear, Jeff Carr knew what he had to do.
A contractor by profession, Carr built a two-by-four frame box around the flimsy plastic sign that reads "Yes on Prop 8." The box, with plexiglass and low-voltage lighting, has legs sunk two feet into the ground.
"You can kick this thing or try to cut it. It's indestructible unless you drive over it," Carr said. "It's my First Amendment right to have a sign in my front yard, for God's sake."
In downtown Huntington Beach, Kui Gomez held a late-night stakeout and unsuccessfully ran after someone who'd stolen his "Yes on 8" sign before jumping into a van.
He said nine to 11 signs on his neighbors' front yards have also been ripped up or slashed.
"We have signs galore," Gomez said. "I'll put out the same I had plus two."
The Irvine Police Department has reported the most Prop 8 sign vandalism by far. Since Oct. 8, eight Yes on Prop. 8 signs have been stolen or spray painted. Two of those incidents ended in citizen's arrests for petty theft, Lt. Rick Handfield said.
Shu-Chih Yuen, an Irvine resident, said she's resorted to displaying her "Yes on 8" sign on the window after one was stolen and two tagged with "no" over the "yes."
"Irvine has been rated as the safest city and I never thought this would be happening in the city," Yuen said. "Not just is my property being violated but my right to speak is being violated. It's kind of scary, you feel like people are attacking us almost."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
My son has the right attitude. About the scratches, he says, "Mom, that is just a small price to pay for trying to get the right message out". How wise he is.
My husband put up 2 "Yes on 8" signs on our property on Sunday Oct. 5th. He had gotten them from someone on the Life Chain in San Jose. Last Saturday, Oct. 11th both signs were still in place. Sunday morning, Oct 12th, the sign by the street was gone, but the one by our palm trees was still there.
On Tuesday, Oct. 14th I was driving down El Camino Real to go shopping. When I came out of the store, I had 2 small hand-made scratches, about 3 inches long in my passenger side door that were not there the night before. I have Yes on 8 bumper stickers on several sides of my van.
Again on Tuesday, Oct. 14th, I was driving the same stretch of El Camino, delighted to find several Yes on 8 signs had been put up in the median and along the road. By the time I came home 3 1/2 hours later, they were all gone. Other signs remained.
On Wednesday, Oct. 15th Joe obtained 2 more Yes on 8 signs. We replaced the one stolen, but put it closer to our house with a light on it. I planned to put the other one inside our house in the window. Sometime Thursday morning, Oct. 16th BOTH signs on our yard were stolen. To steal these signs someone HAD to walk up on our property and take them. Thank God I had not put up the other sign yet. I then put up our other sign (the only one we had left of 4 of them), in the window in our dining room. I asked 2 of our priests today to pray that no one throws rocks at our window!
And the opponent calls us intolerant!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
“They preach tolerance but give none”
Prop 8 campaigners run into more trouble, this time in Berkeley
News from the Trenches
(Editor’s Note: Last week, John Ritchie, who writes the Marriage Campaign Blog for the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), was kind enough to allow California Catholic Daily to reprint an item about an assault in Santa Rosa on TFP members touring California to show support for Proposition 8. Today, another report from Mr. Ritchie, this time from Berkeley.)
Sept. 8, 2008 Sather Gate, University of California – Berkeley
He looked at the flier and froze like a statue for a few long seconds. "Are you sure you know where you are?" asked the student. "Yes, of course," I answered as I passed out more fliers defending traditional marriage near Sather Gate. But he insisted: "No. You don't understand... Do you really, really know where you are? This is Berkeley! You are at UC Berkeley! I can't believe it."
Many other students repeated the same line in utter disbelief: "Do you really know where you are right now?"
So there we were on the middle of campus with our tall TFP banner fluttering majestically in the wind, very visible to all. And just in case the banner was missed, you could hear the bagpipes echoing off the buildings loud and clear. Yes, we knew where we were and we did not intend to leave before finishing the task at hand, to promote the truth and sanctity of traditional marriage.
Californians call Berkeley "Berserkly." That is no understatement. I was informed that suicides occur on campus at least once a month and US Marine Corps recruiters run higher risks there than they would facing terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan. They deal with "Code Pink" protesters and hecklers on a daily basis.
Maybe that is why pro-family Californians' eyes would get big when we told them we planned to visit Berkeley. However, every single TFP volunteer embraced the challenge and looked forward to the campaign at this historically liberal bastion.
Read the rest of the article here.
http://www.ivotevalues.org/ (Check out the gay agenda one.)
More resources: http://www.protectmarriageca.com/protectmarriage/other_resources
This Thursday, October 2nd, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse will be in Los Angeles for the Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. Dr. J will testify on why California's Same Sex Marriage ruling needs to be overturned. She'll be at the Ronald Reagan Building auditorium, 300 South Spring St. in downtown Los Angeles from 10AM to 12:30 PM.
Southern Californians, here's your chance to stand up and be counted--for marriage! Civics classes, homeschool families, come for a real world look at the political process. We need you there!
Posted by Betsy
Monday, September 22, 2008
Protecting marriage to protect children
By David Blankenhorn
September 19, 2008
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.
But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
Read the rest of the article here.
Posted by Betsy
Thursday, September 18, 2008
But at any rate, the San Diego Union Tribune was kind and rare enough to print this two-sided debate on the issue. Thank you for having the nerve to print our side of the argument, Union Tribune! You can find it here. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was one of the three proponents for Prop 8, against four opposed. Even though they weren't evenly matched in numbers, the rationale for those favoring marriage, real marriage, was stellar. Check it out.
Posted by Betsy
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Leonard Sax, an M.D. and an expert on sex differences, points out that boys and girls are really different, contrary to what "political correctness" has taught for several decades (Other Views, p. 13A, Aug. 20). I would add that men and women really are different as well. California voters should keep these facts in mind when they go to the polls this November to approve or disapprove the concept of gender-neutral marriage. Moms and dads bring complementary strengths and weaknesses to the parenting project, and we should establish in law that the normal and best child-raising team is two married biological parents.
Once again the Editorial Board has erroneously stated that our State Constitution now confers the right to marry on same-sex couples (August 17). Actually, the Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage, and the Family Code still states that only marriage between a woman and a man is valid or recognized in California. What has changed is that last May a narrow majority of the Supreme Court, using convoluted reasoning, created the right in defiance of the will of the voters as expressed in 2000. In Justice Baxter's dissenting opinion at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme, he refers to the majority's move as "legal jujitsu."
In opposing Prop. 9, a reader (Letters, Aug. 12) states that "legislating social policy is always a bad idea." If this statement were prefaced by the word "Courts," I would agree. The May 15 decision ordering a change in the definition of marriage was a prime example of the Supreme illegitimately legislating social policy, in violation of the separation of powers as mandated in Article 3, Section 3 of the State Constitution. As Justice Baxter said in his dissent, "But a bare majority of the court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves."
A reader lists some threats to the institution of marriage, such as substance abuse, lack of commitment, and emotional immaturity (Letters, Aug. 9). An even bigger threat has been the spreading belief that marriage exists primarily for the personal fulfillment of the individual spouses. If it ceases to perform this function, either spouse may end the marriage unilaterally. This arrangement hurts children who must endure the long-lasting pain of a broken home. A little over one hundred years ago, the U. S. Supreme Court referred to marriage as a "holy estate" and a "sacred obligation." For the sake of the children who depend on solid marriages for a good upbringing, we need to work to restore marriage to a privileged place amount society's institutions.
According to Barbara Langworthy (Letters, Aug. 1), proponents of Prop. 8 claim that its language is inflammatory. This strange statement confuses the actual text of the proposition ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California") with the heading that has been assigned to the proposition by the Attorney General's office ("Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry"). I think that the Attorney General's phrasing is poor and is not likely to help the electorate to think clearly about the issue. The fight that is speaks of does not appear explicitly in any California state. Instead, the right was recently declared in a controversial 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court. It is up to the electorate to decide in November whether that decision was correct.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, our very own San Diego Union Tribune published a whole series of letters supporting Douglas Manchester and criticizing the Retirement Board that had decided to move its conference out of the Manchester Grand Hyatt. This particular letter summarizes the issues well:
As a retired county employee, I was outraged at the action of the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association to move its October conference out of the downtown Hyatt because Doug Manchester contributed $125,000 to gather signatures to place Proposition 8 on the November ballot so the question of same-sex marriage could be put to a vote of the people. The sole purpose of this board is to oversee the management of the retirement funds for county employees, not become involved in local politics, even if one of the board members has an agenda.
I would like to see the Retired Employees of San Diego County (an association that represents retired county employees) poll its membership and see how many, if any, support this action by the retirement board. I suppose now that the board is going political, there will be forthcoming an endorsement for one of the presidential candidates. Hmmm.
This is significant because:
1. A whole series of letters appeared, saying essentially the same thing. This suggests to me that a bunch of the retirees got together (could it have been their association?) and decided to push back.
2. Their push-back got results: the paper could not ignore all of them. Of course, I have no idea how many letters they actually sent.
3. People are getting sick of the bullying tactics of the gay lobby.
The moral of the story is: Don't give up!
Send more letters!
Monday, August 25, 2008
1. To let frustrated letter-writers see their words in print, and
2. To embarrass some of the big city dailys into publishing at least a few of our letters!
Please send me letters you have sent to the editors of your local newspapers. We will publish your letters here, whether or not your local editor will! Do please let me know if your letter does get published. We can give credit where it is due, if a paper is kind enough to publish our ideas.