|
Top
6 Reasons
to Vote YES on Prop. 8:
1.
All Californians have a right to live as they choose;
4 judges don’t have a right to
redefine marriage for the
rest of us.
2.
Marriage is a union of husband and wife; this law will restore
marriage to that
meaning.
3. The
people of California do not want the government
teaching our children that
our deeply
cherished ideas
of marriage are just bigotry or like racism.
4.
Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have
* Put
Kids First
* Every child has a mother and a father, and a right to
associate with
those parents.
5.
Twenty-seven other states, including Oregon, Wisconsin and
Michigan, have
already passed marriage
amendments to their state
constitutions.
6. We need a marriage
amendment to settle the gay marriage
issue
once and for
all, so it does not confront us
over and over through
the years.
|
Why
Preserve Traditional Marriage?
- There is agreement that children need both a
mother and a father.
- Same-sex "marriage" causes gender confusion and hurts
children.
- Mothers and fathers are not perfectly
interchangeable.
- We shouldn't pretend that it is good for any child to
have no father or no mother.
- Genderless "marriage" tends to
marginalize men from the family.
- Genderless "marriage" tends to
marginalize men from the family.
- Canadian birth certificates now include mother's
information,
and "other parent" information (check the box for 'father' or 'mother')
- Man/Woman marriage is socially
far superior to genderless marriage.
- Our culture is not likely to produce individuals who live
altruistically, with expectations of personal sacrifice, domestic
order, lifelong-fidelity, patience, inward security, modesty, and
sobriety if the traditional order of marriage disappears in the
course of a few generations.
- Men and women think and feel differently, which
allows them to bring unique, complementary and irreplaceable
contributions to their unions and their families.
- Same-sex marriage cannot possibly include the
expectations
and growth potential of traditional marriage, because those
expectations and potential arise solely from the fundamental and
complementary differences between man and woman.
- This debate is about marriage. Societal
acceptance of those who define themselves primarily in terms of their
"sexual orientation" (a brand new concept) may be desirable, but the
institution of marriage should not be sacrificed to this agenda.
|
|
Why Is A
Constitutional Amendment Necessary?
-
In 2000, 61% of California voters (4,618,673
of them)
approved Prop.
22, making it California law that: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in California."
- Thus, the only legal avenue to preserve traditional
marriage in California is to amend the constitution by a vote of the
people to explicitly state the same thing as Prop. 22.
- In Nov. 2008, California voters
can do this by voting
'Yes' on Prop. 8.
- Poll
by SurveyUSA, finds 47% Yes, 42% No.
- The LA Times said Californians "narrowly
reject" gay marriage, when the poll being reported actually said
that the support for Prop. 8 was 54% (only
35% against).
|
- Same-sex marriage is
already leading to the persecution
of civil society, including
the following attacks on religious liberty:
- Boston: Catholic adoption
program closed because the state of
Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must
allow same-sex couples to adopt.
- New Jersey:
Methodist organization lost part of its tax-exempt status because it
refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility
for a civil union ceremony
- Quebec:
Mennonite school was informed
that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which
includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
- New Mexico:
Private wedding
photographer faces a hearing with the state's Human
Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian
couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.
- Arguments for genderless
marriage are premised on incorrect facts.
The successful constitutional and moral arguments advanced in support
of man/woman marriage succeed because they are ultimately premised on
the factually accurate institutional description of the marriage
institution that produces valuable social goods.
- Man/Woman Marriage Transcends
Politics; Genderless Marriage Is Inherently Political and Requires
State Intervention
- For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes
parentage:
- Marriage between men and women is a
pre-political, naturally emerging social institution because Men and
women come
together to create children, independently of any government.
- The duty of
caring for those children exists even without a political order.
- Because marriage is an organic part
of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal
assistance from the state.
- The state must create
parentage for
the same-sex couple.
- Same-sex couples cannot have
children; someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic
material
to create a child.
- The state must detach the parental rights of the
opposite-sex
parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the
same-sex
couple.
- The California Supreme Court's
Decision was Legally Incorrect (See p. 128 et seq.)
- Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels
the
majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of
marriage—an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law —is
no longer valid.
- The decision violated the separation of powers by
directly overruling a law based on a mere pretext in the constitution:
classic judicial activism (see The
Tempting of America).
- The
majority relied heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive
civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional
right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gave the
Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to
amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative (Prop. 22).
|
- Children have the right,
insofar as society can make
it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought
them into this world, with adoption available for those whose
natural parents cannot care for them. (Blankenhorn
Article)
- The foundational human rights document in the
world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N.
Convention on the Rights
of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right.
(See, e.g., Article
7)
- Every single child being raised by gay or lesbian couples
will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him.
- Moreover, losing that
right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us
view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected
pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around.
On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of
those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children,
that something wonderful has happened!
- Research purporting to show that children are not harmed by
same sex "parents" is shown
to be highly flawed.
- Of ~100 studies, excluding
those that did not include a control group and those that were based on
the parents' evaluations of their own children (rather than impartial
observation), only 9 remained.
- Of the 9, none included more
than 50 children.
- Each of the 9 had other
problems, for example:
- self-selected sample,
instead of random sampling
- children in the study also
lived in traditional
family setting--during the same period of study!
- cognitive
development measured using IQ tests, which are specifically
designed to be unaffected by
social, cultural, and family environment
- Same-gender marriage is nothing like interracial
marriage
- David Blankenhorn
argues as follows in the question and answer session of this lecture (see also
his article
in the LA times).
- The
institution of marriage says it is normal and encouraged for one man
and one woman to join as social and legal parents of children.
- Opponents
of interracial
marriage attacked this institution by trying to prevent some men and
women from coming together in marriage, thus advancing an agenda of
racism.
- Proponents of
same-gender
marriage also attack
the institution of marriage.
- In both cases, the attempt
is to weaken
the social institution that says it is normal and encouraged for one
man and one woman to come together and become the social and legal
parents of children.
- Dennis
Prager makes this same point.
- Prager: Is
Gay the New Black?
- Dr. Jim Garlow: Comparison between the Civil Rights
and Homosexual Movements
- Stewart and Duncan: Law
Review Article
|
Websites,
Resources
|
Articles,
Speeches
|
J. Bell: From
CA, With Love (federal
implications of Prp 8, 'full faith & credit' clause)
McCormack: California's
Gift To McCain?
Recent Poll
showing that nation wide, 58% of likely voters are more likely to
support a presidential candidate that favors state marriage protection
amendments. 29% would be less likely to support such a candidate.
|
Recent
poll
showing young voters support Prop. 8
Maggie
Gallagher gives reasons
for Federal Marriage Protection Amendment
M. Bell: Marriage
Matters (includes good links, resources)
|
|
Justices Baxter
and Chin - Excerpts from the Dissent
“Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority
announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to
consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution,
express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that
the age-old understanding of marriage—an understanding recently
confirmed by an initiative law—is no longer valid.”
“California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them
all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to
be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of
marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic
means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and,
in doing so, oversteps its authority.”
“The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down
to this: Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted
through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex
partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of
opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the
California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and
universal
tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express
national policy, they reserve the label “marriage” for opposite-sex
legal unions? I must conclude that the answer is no.”
“.....a bare majority of this 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. Undeterred by the strong weight of
state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new
constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative
consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly
demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless
of the popular will.”
“The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have
the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as
virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own
contemporary notions of equality and justice.”
|
Justice
Corrigan - Excerpts from the Dissent
“But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of
Californians hold a different view,
and have explicitly said so by
their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if
the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not.
Therefore, I must dissent.”
“It is important to be clear. Under California law, domestic partners
have ‘virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and
privileges’ available to traditional spouses. I believe the
Constitution requires this as a matter of equal protection.
However, the single question in this
case is whether domestic partners have a
constitutional right to the name of ‘marriage.’ Proposition 22 was
enacted only eight years ago. By a substantial majority the people
voted to recognize, as ‘marriage’ only those unions between a man and a
woman. (Fam. Code, § 308.5.) The majority concludes that the
voters’
decision to retain the traditional definition of marriage is
unconstitutional. I disagree.”
“Domestic partnerships and marriages have the same legal standing,
granting to both heterosexual and homosexual couples a societal
recognition of their lifelong commitment. This parity does not violate
the Constitution, it is in keeping with it. Requiring the same
substantive legal rights is, in my view, a matter of equal protection.
But this does not mean the traditional definition of marriage is
unconstitutional.”
“The legitimate purpose of the statutes defining marriage is to
preserve the traditional understanding of the institution. For that
purpose, plaintiffs are not similarly situated with spouses. While
their unions are of equal legal dignity, they are different because
they join partners of the same gender. Plaintiffs are in the process of
founding a new tradition, unfettered by the boundaries of the old one.”
“The majority ignores the fact that plaintiffs already have those
rights and privileges under the Domestic Partnership Act. The majority
aptly articulates how domestic partnerships and marriages are the same.
But it fails to recognize that this case involves only the names of
those unions. The fact that plaintiffs enjoy equal substantive rights
does not situate them similarly with married couples in terms of the
traditional designation of marriage.” |
Ballot Argument
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the
same 14
words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California
voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.”
Because four activist judges in San
Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this
measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF
MARRIAGE as a man and a woman.
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an
attack on the gay lifestyle.
Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or
lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners
shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married
spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions.
Proposition 8
WILL NOT change this.
YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the
vast majority of California voters already approved and human history
has understood marriage to be.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist
Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public
schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
Proposition
8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While
death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best
situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.
The
narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live
and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as
young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.)
If
the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED
to teach young children there is no difference between gay
marriage and traditional marriage.
We
should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools
teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for
parents to discuss with their children according to their own values
and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.
Some
will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay
domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away
any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the
lifestyle they choose.
However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they
do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.
CALIFORNIANS
HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to
legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot. Instead, they
have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges
in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society.
That is
the wrong approach.
Voting YES on Proposition 8 RESTORES
the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters.
Voting YES overturns the decision of four activist judges. Voting YES protects
our children.
Please vote YES on Proposition 8 to RESTORE the meaning of
marriage.
RON PRENTICE, President
California Family Council
ROSEMARIE "ROSIE" AVILA, Governing Board
Member
Santa Ana Unified School District
BISHOP GEORGE McKINNEY, Director
Coalition of African American Pastors
|
Yes
on Prop 8 = Less Government
- Man/Woman Marriage Transcends
Politics; Genderless Marriage Is Inherently Political and Requires
State Intervention
- For the traditional couple, the state merely recognizes
parentage:
- Marriage between men and women is a
pre-political, naturally emerging social institution because Men and
women come
together to create children, independently of any government.
- The duty of
caring for those children exists even without a political order.
- Because traditional marriage is an organic part
of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal
assistance from the state.
- The state must create
parentage for
the same-sex couple.
- Same-sex couples cannot have
children; someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic
material
to create a child.
- The state must detach the parental rights of the
opposite-sex
parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the
same-sex
couple.
- California Courts have
already
forced a fertility doctor to either violate her conscience or not
practice her profession in California! (full
opinion)
- This trend can be reversed with steps like passage of Prop.
8
Yes
on Prop 8 = Parental Rights
In April
2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the
Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual
"families" in his kindergarten class.
At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back
down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental
notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed,
and put in jail overnight.
The next morning Parker was led handcuffed
into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months
endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district
backed down and decided to drop all charges against him.
In 2007,
Parker's lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed
by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to
enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute.
See also this
news story regarding Parker v. Hurley
Yes
on Prop 8 = Free Speech
Two
Oakland, Calif., employees advertised a meeting of a pro-family
group on a workplace bulletin board already used to promote a variety
of political, sexually oriented, and pro-homosexual causes. A federal
district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled that the "Good News Employee Association" had no right to post
its message.
Yes
on Prop 8 = Religious Freedom
Quotation from this article:
"Now petitions are circulating that call for the LDS church's
tax-exempt status to be revoked."
More Video:
Parker Family Video
Dr. Jim Garlow interviews Maggie Gallagher, Dr.
Jennifer Roback Morse and Glen Stanton
Dr. Jim Garlow: Comparison between the Civil Rights
and Homosexual Movements
TV Specials
Tony Perkins: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts
Maggie Gallagher, Glen Stanton & Jim Garlow: The
Intimidation of the Same Sex Advocates
San Francisco First Grader's School Field Trip to Same
Sex Marriage
Tony Perkins with The Parkers: Impact of Same Sex
Marriage on School Children
The Wirthlins & The Parkers: Parent’s Rights
Trounced Under Same Sex Marriage (article)
The Wirthlins: Same Sex Marriage Forced on School
Children
Jim Garlow with Alan Chambers: Leaving the Homosexual
Lifestyle
|
51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive
sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate
instruction, in any kindergarten to
grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the
appropriate courses.
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive
sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by
school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of
the following criteria:
(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
(2) All factual information presented shall be medically
accurate and objective.
(3) Instruction shall be made available on an equal basis
to a pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing
curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as
otherwise provided in this code.
(4) Instruction and
materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races,
genders, sexual
orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with
disabilities.
(5) Instruction and materials shall be accessible to
pupils with disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision
of a modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative
formats, and auxiliary aids.
(6) Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to
communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality.
(7) Instruction
and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed
relationships.
(8) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall
teach that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way
to prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual
activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted
diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while
also providing medically accurate information on other methods of
preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
(9) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall
provide information about sexually transmitted diseases. This
instruction shall include how sexually transmitted diseases are and are
not transmitted, the effectiveness and safety of all federal Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) approved methods of reducing the risk of
contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and information on local
resources for testing and medical care for sexually transmitted
diseases.
(10) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials
shall provide information about the effectiveness and safety of all
FDA-approved contraceptive methods in preventing pregnancy, including,
but not limited to, emergency contraception.
(11) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials
shall provide pupils with skills for making and implementing
responsible decisions about sexuality.
(12) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials
shall provide pupils with information on the law on surrendering
physical custody of a minor child 72 hours or younger, pursuant to
Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 271.5 of the
Penal Code.
(c) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive
sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a) earlier than grade
7 may provide age appropriate and medically accurate information on any
of the general topics contained in paragraphs (8) to (12), inclusive,
of subdivision (b).
(d) If a school district elects to offer comprehensive
sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by
school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district
shall comply with the following:
(1) Instruction
and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.
(2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote
bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by
Section 220.
Section 220
220. No person shall
be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual
orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in
the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal
Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution
that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls
pupils who receive state student financial aid.
|
The
California Teachers Association has come out against
Prop. 8.
It seems evident,
therefore, that if the law allowed
it, the majority of California teachers would begin to exploit the
loopholes in the California Education Code (§§ 51890, 51933)
to 'teach'
school children all about gay marriage. I've bolded the
loop-holes to let the reader judge independently how these are likely
to be interpreted for teaching in public shools, if Prop. 8 fails and it remains the law that marriage
in California is between any two adults.
51890. (a) For the
purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs"
are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and
grades 1 to
12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and
out-of-class
activities designed to ensure that:
(1) Pupils will
receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of
personal,
family, and community health, to include the following subjects:
(A) The use of
health care services and products.
(B) Mental and
emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and
misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and alcohol.
(D) Family health
and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and
responsibilities of marriage
and parenthood.
(E) Oral health,
vision, and hearing.
(F) Nutrition,
which may include related topics such as obesity and diabetes.
(G) Exercise, rest,
and posture.
(H) Diseases and
disorders, including sickle cell anemia and related genetic diseases
and
disorders.
(I) Environmental
health and safety.
(J) Community
health.
(2) To the maximum
extent possible, the instruction in health is structured to provide comprehensive
education in health that includes all the
subjects in paragraph
(1).
(3) The community
actively participates in the teaching of health including classroom
participation by practicing professional health and safety personnel in
the
community.
(4) Pupils gain
appreciation for the importance and value of lifelong health and the
need for
each individual to take responsibility for his or her own health.
(5) School
districts may voluntarily provide pupils with instruction on
preventative
health care, including obesity and diabetes prevention through
nutrition
education.
(b)
Health care professionals, health care service plans, health care
providers,
and other entities participating in a voluntary initiative with a
school
district may not market their services when undertaking activities
related to
the initiative. ...
* * *
It is
interesting that parents, if they decide to 'opt-out' as permitted by
the following, actually have to send a written request, which will
likely be rare. So the system's default is anti-religious (see
bolded section to the left). Also note that in practice, teachers
or administrators can exercise discretion in allowing this 'opt out,'
even if the law doesn't seem to allow that on its face.
51240. (a) If any part of a school’s instruction in health conflicts
with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian of a
pupil, the pupil, upon written
request of the parent or guardian, shall
be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the
religious training and beliefs.
(b) For purposes of this section, “religious training and beliefs”
includes personal moral convictions.
|
|
Excerpt from Redefining
Marriage Will Affect All Americans
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled (In re
Marriage Cases)
that the male-female definition of marriage, made explicit by both a
1977 state statute and the state electorate's approval of Proposition
22 in 2000, was unconstitutional. The Court asserted that legal
distinctions based on sexual orientation would be subject to
"strict scrutiny" - in the same way classifications based on "gender,
race, and religion" are.
In point of fact, few laws, regulations, or
state actions that distinguish among persons or groups in any way can
survive the intensity of "strict scrutiny" legal review. As the
majority noted, laws subject to this standard "must establish
(1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential
treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling
state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not
only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that
compelling state interest."
Under this ruling, except in the rarest circumstances, California
statutes that are
challenged for drawing lines even implicitly based on sexual
orientation would have been struck down.
|
Excerpt from Gallagher: What
Marriage For: Children Need Mothers AND Fathers
"THE PROBLEM with endorsing gay marriage is not that it would
allow
a
handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would
require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions
about family in order to accommodate a few adults' desires. ...
Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that
the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of
children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval
to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately
chosen "good." It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children
had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be
deemed just fine.
Same-sex marriage advocates are startlingly clear on this
point. Marriage law, they repeatedly claim, has nothing to do with
babies or procreation or getting mothers and fathers for children. In
forcing the state legislature to create civil unions for gay couples,
the high court of Vermont explicitly ruled that marriage in the state
of Vermont has nothing to do with procreation."
|
