Tuesday, October 28, 2008
From a scholar and physician who grew up in Davis.
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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Not going to be taught in scholls, huh?
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!
Friday, October 24, 2008
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.”
Thursday, October 23, 2008
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."
ARC students reject recall of Student Council members supporting Prop 8
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."
