We're in the paper! The Aggie posted this article today: Prop 8 supporters face sign theft, vandalism

Prop 8 supporters face sign theft, vandalism

Freedom of speech is at stake, supporters say

Written by AARON BRUNER

Published October 29, 2008

In a community that values free speech and open debate, recent political sign thefts have outraged some community members.

The controversy over Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to allow marriage between only a man and a woman, has spilled over into petty theft and vandalism of lawn signs.

Yes on 8 supporters say they've been hit especially hard in Davis, where a large number of signs have been defaced or stolen.

Davis resident Jo Lynn Meirovitz had Yes on 8 signs stolen from her front yard last week.

"People preach tolerance but they are very intolerant of other people," Meirovitz said. "They see us protecting marriage as full of hate, bigots … and are appalled that we would want to help Prop 8 pass. I'm sure the more signs they see the more frustrated they get."

Having left the house for only an hour and a half and not expecting her signs to be taken during the middle of the day, Meirovitz found two lawn signs missing upon her return, she said.

"We believe in freedom of speech for everybody, not just one side of this proposition," Meirovitz said. "Everybody should be able to voice their opinion."

Davis resident and Cedric Papa is involved in Yes on 8 sign distribution and says voters are calling in daily to report that their signs have been stolen.

Papa, who has had 14 signs taken, estimates that 200 or more may have been taken or vandalized in Davis alone.

"I will follow the law, no matter what happens, so I'd like to get my voice out now," Papa said. "We are just trying to keep our individual rights and keep the government out of our lives."

Papa said one group of people went so far as to pretend to support Prop 8 and took 100 signs and dumped them.

Yolo County Republican Party chair Mark Pruner said it has been common in this and previous elections for political signs to be stolen.

"We spend so much money replacing signs, you almost feel violated," he said.

In addition to sign theft in Davis, there have been several incidences of vandalism and theft in Sacramento, and video of at least two incidences have been posted on YouTube, Pruner said.

"Let's face it, stealing of political signs is something that always happens," he said. "We have to budget for paying for more signs."

There is little legal recourse for people who have had their signs stolen or vandalized, and many don't bother to report the crimes. The Davis and Sacramento Police Departments and the Yolo County Sheriff all say no police reports regarding stolen or damaged signs have been filed in their jurisdictions.

Among other incidents in Davis are keyed cars displaying Yes on 8 bumper stickers, while last week the Yes on 8 table located on the Quad was hit with water balloons by a group of students yelling "you teach hate," according to UC Davis graduate student Casey Meirovitz, who is married to Jo Lynn Meirovitz.

"I think yelling 'you teach hate' and exhibiting hate isn't the coolest thing in the world, especially at a university," he said. "People feel very passionately about Prop 8 and they are letting it get the best of them. Unfortunately they're weakening the stance of their argument by acting hypocritically."

Meirovitz and wife Jo Lynn have since replaced their Yes on 8 signs with a homemade sign made of plywood, attached to a tree in their front yard with a bike lock, a sign that they will not forfeit their right to free speech anytime soon.

Representatives from the No on 8 campaign did not respond to requests for information regarding sign theft or vandalism on their side.

AARON BRUNER can be reached at city@californiaaggie.com.

Rally for 8 at the state capitol

The Radio Clip of Cedric from the Rally

Here is the link to listen to the clip:



http://www.kfbk.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=172730&article=4488711

Police Arrest 3 for Stealing Political Signs

As reported on KFBK at 4:10 this afternoon:
Roseville Police officers arrested three young people on suspicion of stealing political signs from yards throughout Roseville. At 12:32 a.m. Tuesday morning, October 28, a resident of the 200 block of Sierra Boulevard called police to report seeing suspects taking a political sign from his neighbor's yard. The resident provided police with a description of the suspects and their vehicle, a green four-door sedan.

Minutes before the call was dispatched, a Roseville Police officer on routine patrol spotted a sedan parked in the 700 block of Shasta Street. The vehicle had all doors and its trunk opened. As the officer watched, two people walked to the vehicle, put something in the trunk, and drove away. Suspicious, the officer began to follow the vehicle, and then heard the report of the stolen political sign being dispatched. The officer stopped the vehicle and contacted the occupants. A search of the vehicle produced 53 "Yes on 8" signs.

Kacey Elizabeth Flieder, 18, of Sacramento, Brian Joseph Greene, 18, of Roseville, and a 17-year-old girl from Roseville were arrested on suspicion of possession of stolen property, conspiracy, and petty theft. The two 18-year-olds were also charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Flieder was booked into the Roseville Police Department Jail and released on a $5,000 bail bond. Green remains in custody in the RPD jail on $5,000 bail. The 17-year-old was cited and released to her parents.

We're working hard to catch the Davis thieves as well.

If your sign was stolen or vandalized report the crime right away at: https://www2.ci.davis.ca.us/police/crimereporting/

Powerful Rally- 1 week to go!

Rally at the Capital October 28, 2008

From a scholar and physician who grew up in Davis.

Why I Support Proposition 8

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court discovered a “right” to gay marriage in the state constitution that its founders never intended or imagined. Proposition 8, which appears on the November ballot, seeks to reverse the court’s decision by specifying in the state constitution that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Opponents of Proposition 8, under the appealing slogan “equality for all,” characterize the measure as an attempt to limit the rights of gays, rather than what it really is--a stand on principle to defend and preserve an institution vital to society.
Traditional marriage, once the hallmark of society, has already undergone serious decline as too many of us have allowed other interests to take precedence over our family responsibilities. We have divorced too much. We have made our sexual unions more important than our family obligations. We have become cavalier about bearing children out of wedlock. We have too often left the rearing of our children to others. The consequences, both for children and for society, have been disastrous.
The legalization of same-sex marriage deals another crucial blow to marriage as an institution, the consequences of which will certainly be more profound than most Californians realize. What are the harms? This is hard to predict, but the following results seem certain to occur:
1. The indoctrination of our kids. This is already happening to a degree, but now has gained a new and important legal basis. The legalization of same-sex marriage will require the school curriculum to become “gender neutral” where marriage is concerned, placing the schools increasingly in conflict with parents trying to maintain the traditional family ideal. Claims that legalized gay marriage will have little effect on the school curriculum are either naive or deceptive. As well-publicized incidents in both California and Massachusetts illustrate, it already has.
2. The limiting of our freedoms. The establishment of a “right” to gay marriage brings the legal powers of government in conflict with truly constitutional freedoms, such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. This has already begun to occur--on the basis of this new-found “right” physicians, church adoption agencies, and even wedding photographers have already found themselves in legal jeopardy for declining to perform services, readily available elsewhere in the community, which run contrary to their religious or personal beliefs. Employees in public workplaces must be increasingly cautious in expressing their views for fear of being accused of “hate speech.”
This is only the beginning. The legal forces are already poised, and if Proposition 8 fails, we can expect a flood of litigation challenging virtually every institution, religious or otherwise, which chooses on moral grounds not to adopt this radical new definition of what constitutes a marriage and family. The results are yet to be seen, but in California courts, it seems clear that in the rush to uphold a trendy new “right” to gay marriage, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not likely to fare well in the courts. The powers of government will increasingly be brought to bear on what we as citizens may openly believe, do, or say.
3. Most importantly, the traditional family itself is dealt a crippling blow, by altering the very institution on which it is based. Once a “right” to same-sex marriage is established, equality requires the law to treat heterosexual couples and homosexual ones the same, despite the obvious biological differences. In effect, our effort to extend marriage to gays will ultimately reduce the legal institution of marriage itself to no more than a domestic partnership. This change will profoundly affect the rising generation’s perception of what a marriage and family are, and the traditional family will continue to lose ground.
The fact is that our collective experience and social research have consistently shown that children reared in traditional families as a whole fare better, contribute more, and fail less, than those who are not. Indeed, the traditional family, once the hallmark of society, still seems its only real hope. Amid a flood of social decay, young couples can still turn to the traditional institution of marriage as a foundation for their adult lives, with the confidence that if they adhere to its expectations, they will reap its benefits. This institution is now in jeopardy.
Legalized same-sex marriage does not just provide an alternative to the traditional family, it strikes at the heart of the institution upon which the traditional family is based. Indeed, for all our rhetoric about gay rights, it is not the gay lifestyle that is endangered in our society, but the traditional family itself.
Proposition 8 has never been about bigotry versus equal rights for gays--such rights, in California especially, have and will continue to be abundantly protected with or without the passage of Prop. 8. Instead, it is a measure to restore and defend our most vital public institution, the American family.
I urge a “yes” vote on Proposition 8.

Author:
John Bringhurst
Profession: Physician.
Residence: Woodland, CA.

The interracial marriage comparison?

When the desires of adults clash with what's best for childhood development- which will we choose on Nov. 4th?

Meaningful Relationship: YES. But if every relationship out there can suddenly be called a marriage- then MARRIAGE loses it's significance.

A civil right? No. Marriage is a sacred privilege to those who conform to what society deems is best for children: A FULLY COMMITTED MOTHER AND FATHER

privilege

The opposition claims it won't affect schools but indoctrinating our young without our consent is one of their key objectives (NCLR website)

Not going to be taught in scholls, huh?

“Coming Out Day”
Coming This Week to California Elementary Schools
City: Hayward, CA
October 22, 2008
Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the
extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in
kindergarten.
The parents were shocked to see a poster announcing that “Coming Out Day”
will be celebrated at the school this coming Thursday, October 23. The school,
Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, chose not to tell parents ahead of time,
but it is in the midst of celebrating “Ally Week,” a pro-homosexual push typically
aimed at high school students. When one mother asked her daughter earlier this
week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied,
“We're learning to be allies.” The mother also learned that her daughter's kindergarten
classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight
Alliance club.
Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have
noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual
families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the
elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On
November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where
students will hear adapted tales such as “Jane and the Beanstalk.”
These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad
Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “Do we need any further
proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only
imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario
most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.”

This is Just the Beginning. We Must Stop It!

When they strike at our freedom of speech they ILLUSTRATE who doesn't believe in TOLERANCE.

Interview with those who have already felt the effects.

Take Courage

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS: We are not alone, sign wavers can be seen in almost every city in CA

FYI

Sacramento – The Campaign Manager of the ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign today urged its supporters to ignore efforts circulating on the Internet encouraging parents and students to boycott class for a day to protest the California Teachers Association contribution of $1 million to the campaign opposing Proposition 8.

“We have no idea where this idea to boycott class attendance for a day came from,” said Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, “but we disavow it and urge our supporters to ignore it. Students belong in class. Taking a child out of class as a political protest is wrong and detrimental to the child. While we understand the anger that some parents may feel toward the teacher’s union for donating to our opponents, the best way to counteract that donation is to urge people to vote yes on Proposition 8. We call on the millions of supporters of traditional marriage to ignore attempts to organize a student “sick in” and instead focus their attention on passing Proposition 8.”

Recalling Undecided Voters

Inspired by Casey and Jo Lynn

The warning atop the steel construction reads:
"

Friendly warning which leaves you without a defense if you touch this:

You are hereby notified that this Prop 8 sign is valued at $413 due to its custom construction. I have also concealed my Owner Applied Number on it to further incriminate you if you vandalize or steal my property. It is a felony to be in possession of stolen property and it is a felony to KNOWINGLY vandalize private property valued over $400. I have a web-cam watching this at all times and the Davis PD on speed-dial- so I suggest that you don’t fuel my campaign by giving me more videos of the “No campaign’s Intolerance.” If you try to take away my freedom of speech I WILL take away your freedom to not pay heavy fines for your intolerance."

Freedom of Speech in Action

ARC students reject recall of Student Council members supporting Prop 8

By Ed Fletcher
efletcher@sacbee.com

Published: Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008

The students of American River College turned back an effort to recall nine campus leaders in response to their support of Proposition 8, the statewide ballot measure banning same-sex marriage. Results of the vote were released by ARC officials this afternoon.
Surviving the recall were Jacob Johnson, Blaze Jeppesen, Viktor Choban, Alex Malash, Jorge Riley, Carolina Burachek, Veronika Vorbyov, Heather Johnson and Vladimir Musovrischi. Individual results differed among the recall targets, but they all cleared the recall by a 200-300 vote margin out of the 3531 votes cast Tuesday and Wednesday.

Yes on 8 Campaign Slams New No Ad with Jack OConnell: O’Connell’s New Ad is only 96% a Lie

Sacramento—Oct. 23—The ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8 campaign today criticized the "No on 8" campaign’s new television ad, released yesterday, which features California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell.

The ad raises a new standard for using a small, cleverly worded kernel of truth to foster the Big Lie.

Specifically, the discussed whether schools are "required" to teach anything about marriage, and states that they are not.

By this logic, presumably, they would argue that no one in California is required to have a drivers’ license, only the people who want to drive cars are.

The real fact, as stated clearly in the "Yes on 8" ads, are that, whether it is technically "required" or not, that virtually all schools in California do teach marriage now, and if gay marriage is legal, they will be REQUIRED to teach about gay marriage as well, because that will be the definition of marriage.

"O’Connell’s cleverly worded denials try to trick voters into thinking schools do not teach about marriage," said Chip White, press secretary for Yes on 8. "But for the 96% of public schools that teach sex education, state law requires them to teach about marriage."

The California Department of Education’s own website says that 96 % of public schools provide instruction under the Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act (Educ. Code Sec. 51930, et seq.) and every school that provides instruction under that Act must provide instruction and materials that teach about marriage. Additionally, the Department of Education’s own checklist for instruction under the Act confirms that instruction about marriage is required for the school district to be in compliance with state law.

"There is no foundation for O’Connell’s untruthful statements that nothing in California law requires teaching about marriage," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Yes on 8. "The voters deserve to hear the truth. While O’Connell may personally favor gay marriage, as a public official it is his obligation to tell the truth about California’s education laws."

The Yes on 8 campaign sent a letter to O’Connell yesterday demanding that he retract his misstatements. The letter, which is attached, identifies Education Code sections that demonstrate public schools do teach about marriage, at a rate of 96%.

"Perhaps if O’Connell spent less time making false statements in TV ads," said White, "he’d have more time to read his own website."

Opponents claim this has nothing to do with schools and education, yet look what keeps happening ever since 4 judges overturned Prop 22:

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners

Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.

One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.

The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."

The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.

The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."

Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting tomorrow's "Coming Out Day." When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar."

When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said the Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.

Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.

"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."

Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by calling (510) 889-7399 or e-mailing Principal Gurbakhash Bittikofer. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.

A teacher's point of view

From a teacher in Davis:
I would like to share my personal experience on this issue from here in Davis. When I taught at North Davis Elementary, the principal Judy Davis showed a video to the staff at a staff meeting and asked our opinion of it. I felt it portrayed homosexual families in a way that was equal and the same to marriage and was pushing for broader acceptance. I expressed strongly that I would not want my children to be shown this video, that it was teaching morality that I disagreed with, etc. Judy apparently only wanted to hear consent or silence. She privately threatened my job, called me all kinds of negative names, and used her position as principal to make my professional life miserable until I transferred from the school.

Because of my experience I now support vouchers for private school. People should not have to allow their children to be programmed with the agenda that is invading our schools.

Current Poll at http://www.kcra.com/index.html

What do you think Proposition 8 will do for California?
Choice	Votes	Percentage of 7166 Votes
protect marriage	4753	66%
promote discrimination	1200	17%
promote family values	732	10%
end equality for all	481	7%

Wanna' see who is stealing your signs, just set up a camera or web cam like this group did.

Let's all go post "what little signs we have left" and then record the opposition's intolerance of our free speech or watch your sign and call the police. Of the 145 reported cases in Davis, most thieves seemed to be on foot or bike and would be easily apprehended. In Dixon, calls come in daily about stolen Prop 8 signs. The local police finally caught one major perpetrator and returned 150+ signs to our campaign. Those who would take away our free speech, are usually easy to catch- let's wait up for them or record them.

A respectful discussion between Casey and someone in support of No on Prop 8

Respectfully, there are a couple points where you are incorrect.

1) A religious leader or otherwise who is authorized by the state of California to perform marriages is recognized by the state to perform marriage period. As far as the state is concerned that person is the same as a state clerk concerning the marriage. They are allowed to sign the paper. If it comes down to laws, the state can actually force the authorized person to perform marriages (not necessarily religious ones) or lose the right to perform marriages in California if the law disagrees with how it is being used. Therefore, if my Bishop is sued because he would not perform the marriage, he would lose by law (because there can be no designation between gay or straight marriage, marriage would be marriage) and he would lose his recognition by the state. Then all our marriages would have to be done in the courthouse first. That is a loss.
In addition, if a religious organization is found to be acting against the laws of the land the state can remove that church's tax exempt status. It is against my religion and conscience to marry two gay people. If I, acting for the church refuse to perform that marriage and the couple sues, our church would lose that tax exempt status. There is an amazing amount of good done with the monies of the church that would be lost to the government, all because the law would force us to act outside our consciences.

2) The case law I am citing is California case law. The law suits have been directed at fertility specialists mainly in our state who refused in vitro fertilization to lesbian couples due to religious beliefs. In one case the specialist explained why and then told the couple he was referring them to his partner who would perform the procedure. The couple sued and the specialist lost. The Judge in that case went so far as to tell the specialist maybe he is in the wrong field. A list of these cases was published by National Public Radio as "When Gay and Religious Rights Conflict".

3) We would be nuts to ignore the one state in our union who has already passed this law.

4) On the point of a death of a spouse. First, any child born in the state of California is required to have the mother's and father's name on the birth certificate. So if the a child is granted by in vitro, and the actual gay birth-mother passes, the child would go to the blood father. If the gay birth-father passes, the child would go to its mother. California law allows any parent to relinquish parental rights, so if the rightful parent did not want the child, it would be up for adoption, possibly to the partner of the person who passed away. Under adoption you are correct, but the law can be changed to allow both partners names on the adoption certificate. Marriage is not necessary to allow this. I will vote in favor of allowing it, because you are right, if we are to allow gay couples to adopt, both people involved should be allowed to be adoptive parents by law.

5) No, we should not get rid of divorce, but divorce law has changed a great deal over the last 50 years making divorce much easier. This has been a mistake! We should be, and are, working to strengthen families who may be headed in the direction of divorce. Many marriages can be saved, and should be, while some must be allowed to break. But just because we have made mistakes that have weakened marriage does not mean we should make further mistakes.

6) You are wrong in thinking this is a matter of civil rights. The civil rights movements through the 18 and 1900's has been to give certain inalienable rights to those who are of another race. No bias due to race or physical handicap. Homosexuality is neither a physical attribute or a disability, nor is it a public affair. Black men and women were oppressed because of the color of their skin, which they could not control or hide. You and I are able to control who we sleep with and who we tell about my sexual preferences. And to say that it is inborn and cannot be controlled, there are many who are formerly gay. I am not sure how they were able to overcome gay tendencies, but they have. In all honesty I have a lot of respect for gay people (both friends and family of mine) because they have been given an extremely difficult place in our society. I cannot imagine how difficult it is to be gay in a straight society. But marriage is not a right!

Our government has determined that marriage is between a man and a women, as God ordained, and as a free-speaking, voting citizen I will vote to uphold my belief in that. I do not think any different of you for voting the opposite and I hope no matter how the vote goes we will be united in saying that the homosexual community should be granted certain rights and work together to get them. We simply disagree on this one.

Casey

Top African American Religious Leaders Join Apostle Frederick K.C. Price In Endorsing YES on Prop 8

Crenshaw Christian Center, Los Angeles – One of the highest ranking African American religious leaders in California and in the country has endorsed YES on Prop 8.
Apostle Frederick K.C. Price of the influential Crenshaw Christian Center in Los Angeles hosted and led off a press conference with dozens of local African American religious leaders yesterday saying that “we shouldn’t do anything to jeopardize the future of our family and our children.” The press conference opened with 50 African American and Latino pastors from greater Los Angeles, all standing up individually to express their support for YES on Proposition 8.

Joining Dr. Price in supporting YES on Prop 8 was Dr. Beverly “Vam” Crawford, Senior Pastor of Bible Enrichment Fellowship Int’l Church, and Bishop Frank Stewart of the Zoe Christian Fellowship in Los Angeles. Dr. Crawford reminded the two hundred supporters gathered for the event that “we must do what is right and stand for our children. We cannot afford to let this affect our babies in our schools.”

Each of the ministers spoke to the key issues concerning California parents on Proposition Eight. Bishop Frank Stewart from Zoe Christian Fellowship of Los Angeles spoke candidly about claims of civil rights violations from gay advocates and reminded reporters that, “children also have civil rights that deserve to be respected and not violated, and so do I as a parent and a grandparent.”

In total, well over a thousand individual congregations in Greater Los Angeles were represented in the respected group which stood in solidarity for YES on Prop 8. The ministers gathered, represented both African American and Latino congregations throughout Southern California, and the support of 3 million faithful followers.

protectmarriage.com

Don't miss any of these!

California Proposition 8, 2008

I support Proposition 8. I know there are a great many good, intelligent people who disagree with me, but I also know that I am far from alone in wanting to protect marriage from redefinition.

I recently read a comment someone wrote on a Yes on 8 YouTube video. The comment said,

"I think marriage means being officially committed .Because they should be
treated equally as everyone else, so they should get the right to
marry!"

But that is exactly the issue at stake here! I believe marriage to be so much more than that.

If Prop 8 fails, then the meaning of a sacred word will become vulgar, and the covenants associated with it will be considered as merely "being officially committed" to another person. This video illustrates the problem with misusing a general definition for a specific idea.

-ALEXANDER

Report on the Family and the Rights of Children French National Assembly, Paris, January 25, 2006

After a year of work and travel to various countries, listening to and discussing all points of view, a 30 member multi party commission of the French National Assembly recently submitted its report on the evolution of the family and the need to adapt family law to changes in the family and the rights of children. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State". (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, article 16.) Faced with the desire by individuals to choose their own family structure models, increasing family breakup and new scientific possibilities, the report attempts to protect the basic unit of the family while taking into account these societal changes.
The commission believes that laws should set norms in order to "allow individuals to build their lives around stable, sure and understandable criteria." Laws should not simply validate changing mores. Articles 3, 7, 9, 18, and 21 of the New York U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child
(1989) set out the rights of children. The commission stresses that "to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more." The commission deems it essential to enshrine article 3 -
"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." - into French law to help guide judges, individuals and other institutions.
Children represent the future of society. They "must not suffer from conditions imposed upon them by adults". "The best interests of the child must prevail over adult freedoms... even including the lifestyle choices of parents".
Marriage, adoption and medically assisted reproduction are inseparable. "Countries that have opened up marriage to same sex couples have all authorized adoption by these couples and developed systems to assist procreation, including surrogate motherhood, in order to allow these couples to have children."

(189 of the 195 countries world-wide agree that children's rights to a mother and father are more important than selfish adult "desires and attempts at lifestyle validation")

The Oppostion Will NOT Get Us Down!

Many of the signs we have put up have been stolen or vandalized. Today after leaving my house for only an hour both of our signs were stolen from our front yard in mid day! We decided to make our own sign and Casey drilled a hole in it and now it's locked to the tree in our front yard with a bike lock and we all hope that people have enough respect to leave it there until November 4th!

Prop 8 support Protest in Schools today, October 21

Supporters of Proposition 8 now have a proposition of their own: They're behind an online effort to keep kids home from school Tuesday, October 21. The organizers say for every student who misses school for personal reasons costs the school money, and are banking that high numbers will send a big message.

The e-mail says, "Many California public school students are going to be sick and absent from school on Tuesday, October 21st… Many are puzzled why the professional group hired to educate them is spending so much money to push their own social agenda."

The CTA did not comment on how much they've donated to other California propositions
for this election cycle.



My three children are staying home from school today.
.

First Rally: October 20, 2008

Read What the Teachers Union did in California

Teachers union donates $1 million to oppose Proposition 8
The gift from the California Teachers Assn. comes as an internal poll by opponents of the initiative to ban gay marriage reveals that the campaign has not raised as much as supporters.
By Evelyn Larrubia, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 17, 2008
The California Teachers Assn. donated $1 million this week to defeat a ballot initiative seeking to ban same-sex marriage in California, joining the ranks of wealthy gay rights activists and Hollywood politicos as one of the major donors to the campaign.

"For us, it's a civil rights issue," said the association's President David Sanchez. "We don't believe people should be treated differently."



Tracking the moneyThe gay-marriage battle: Follow the donors
The teachers union also takes issue with advertisements by backers of Proposition 8 suggesting that the measure would stop children from being taught about gay marriage in schools. Union leaders echoed complaints by the No on 8 campaign that the ads are misleading because California law already prohibits teaching any child health issues without parental consent.

But the Yes on 8 campaign responded that the ads show what happened in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal and taught to second graders in public schools after a court battle in which parents lost the right to opt their children out of the lessons.

Until now, the largest donation the No on 8 campaign had received from a labor union was $500,000 from the Service Employees International Union.


"We're incredibly proud of the working men and women in California who are supporting the No on 8 campaign," said spokeswoman Ali Bay.

Supporters of the proposition said the teachers union did not speak for all of its members on the issue of gay marriage.

"I think the California Teachers Assn. is well-known to be a political group, and it's not the first time it has not represented the true voice of its members," said Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California, the measure's backer.

She said she agreed that the issue is civil rights -- not those of gay couples, but rather those of children to be raised by a mother and a father.

The $1-million donation comes on the heels of an internal poll by opponents of Proposition 8 showing that the campaign to defeat the measure was in trouble. The teachers union had already contributed $250,000 to the campaign this summer.

Sanchez said the donations were "a pittance" compared with what religious groups have donated to proponents of the initiative.

Phase 2 and more

Phase 2: We will be calling the people who answered "undecided" when we called the first time and asking if we can provide more information, such as dialogue, websites, etc. A script will be provided for you with many ideas.

We will need every able body with a cell phone.
Thursday 6-8PM:
See D2 Blog or email for places

Saturday 9AM to NOON:
See D2 Blog or email for places



From the Sacramento Bee:
"He drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic to his job at Intel. She is a stay-at home mom who makes most of the family meals and bakes her own bread. The couple, who have five sons between the ages of 3 and 12, live in a comfortable but modest three-bedroom home in Folsom.

It's a traditional lifestyle they believe is now at risk. That's why the Pattersons recently made a huge financial sacrifice – they withdrew $50,000 from their savings and donated it to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.

"It was a decision we made very prayerfully and carefully," said Pam Patterson, 48. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children."

More than 700,000 church members live in the state; 85,000 in the Sacramento region. "Obviously, a lot of other people besides Mormons are concerned about this and are contributing," she said.

West said church members have given generously to this issue because it strikes at the core of their beliefs – that marriage is between a man and a woman and lasts for eternity.

"The No. 1 reason members are donating and working toward this cause is the preservation of the traditional family," she said.

That's why Auburn resident David Nielson, 55, is giving. He said the church has not pressured him to contribute.

"Absolutely not," said Nielson, a retired insurance executive. He and his wife, Susan, live on a budget. The couple donated $35,000, he said, "because some things are worth fighting for."

The couple will forgo a vacation for the next two years and make other sacrifices to pay for their donation, he said.

"If it doesn't pass, then at least I can tell my grandchildren I gave everything I could," Nielson said.

The Pattersons, who have been married 14 years, say there were thinking about their children's future when they decided to tap into their savings to contribute. And they also said no one pressured them into giving.

They were reluctant to talk about their donation – not even their families knew how much they contributed – and agreed to do so only because it is listed on public campaign documents.

"The amount may surprise people," said Rick Patterson. "But people who know us, know how much the family means to us."

Will they regret donating so much of their savings if the ballot proposition fails?

"No. I feel totally at peace about it," Pam Patterson said. She said they will continue to live frugally. "We have done what we feel is right."

COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE:
"One reader commented that the Pattersons must have been taught to hate by their parents. I'm Pam Patterson's father. I'm a practicing Mormon, and I'll keep practicing until I get it right. Our children have been taught to love all people, especially those who are caught up in what we consider to be sin.. Any Mormon who hates or is bigoted is not living his or her religion. I have never seen so many hateful blogs accusing us of hatred. A few Mormons who have disowned family members because they found out they were gay, have a serious need to repent. Well, if we are not motivated by hatred on Prop 8 why are we for it? Because we see it as an attack on the traditional family, which is a very important aspect of many people's religion. If gay marriage is legalized, our children will be forced by law to be taught that gay marriage is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage, and we will be forced to counteract this in the home."

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1308945.html