Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Prop. 8 Supporters Harassed

“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.

Vote Yes on Prop 8 Videos

Here's a good collection of well-made videos in support of Prop 8. Check them out, pass them around, and comment!



http://www.ivotevalues.org/ (Check out the gay agenda one.)

More resources: http://www.protectmarriageca.com/protectmarriage/other_resources

Southern Californians, Come Support Marriage!

Time for the Grassroots to Hit the Pavement

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

Liberal Democrat Supports Prop 8

And this was actually published in the New York Times!

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

Brad Pitt Smad Pitt

So in the news yesterday was the fact that our Hollywood "hero" Brad Pitt has donated $100,000 to oppose Prop. 8. Don't these people have anything better to do with their loads of cash? The economy is failing and he chooses to drop 100K on this! Surely the new family man who says he wants to raise 10 kids while he's still young must have had enough exposure to fatherhood by now to see that kids need both a mommy and a daddy. Same-sex marriage, which leads to same-sex adoption, is by no means a way to raise healthy well-adjusted children.

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

Unpublished Letters

I am a long-time letter-writer to the San Jose Mercury News. Over the years, I have averaged about 1 letter published for every 8 submitted. Since May 15, I have sent 25 letters opposing same-sex marriage and have had only 1 published. During that same period there has been only one opinion piece critical of same-sex marriage published (and it focused only on the Supreme Court decision, not on same-sex marriage itself). Needless to say, many letters, news stories, and at least one editorial have been published casting same-sex marriage in a favorable light. I am posting several of my recent unpublished letters below in the hope that they will give some ideas to other letter-writers. I will post the rest later if anyone is interested.

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.