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

Latest Commercial- Share it with others!

Today's rally in Sacramento

Here are some pictures from today's "Yes on Prop 8 rally" in Sacramento. There was an incredible amount of support there. If you couldn't make it to this rally, there is another one on Tuesday, October 28- 11:15 am at the State Capitol. Please spread the word.

Yes on 8! We will win this fight!






Members of the Woodland Stake

Members of the Spanish Branch in Woodland show their support for prop 8

Freedom of speech and tolerance are apparently "one-way-streets".

"HOMOSEXUAL marriage is not a civil rights issue.

"But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement -- and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists."

"In The New York Times last Sunday, cultural critic Frank Rich, quoting a "civil rights lawyer," beatified the gay and lesbian couples lining up to receive illegal marriage licenses from San Francisco's new mayor, Gavin Newsom:

"An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing it, much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month." Nearby, the Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding veils -- and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in.

Rich's essay -- "The Joy of Gay Marriage" -- went on to cast the supporters of traditional marriage as hateful zealots. They are "eager to foment the bloodiest culture war possible," he charged. "They are gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era."

But it is the marriage radicals like Rich and Newsom who are doing their best to inflame a culture war. And as is so often the case in wartime, truth -- in this case, historical truth -- has been an early casualty.

For contrary to what Rich seems to believe, when Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth's in Greensboro, N.C., on Feb. 1, 1960, all they asked for was a bite to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the same terms -- the same food at the same counter at the same price.

Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren't demanding that Woolworth's prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren't trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren't bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.

All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had barred discrimination in public accommodations.

But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court's betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them -- that was the great cause of civil rights.

The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the right to marry -- only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically -- by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights. But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor.

Last month, as Massachusetts lawmakers prepared to debate a constitutional amendment on the meaning of marriage, the state's leading black clergy came out strongly in support of the age-old definition: the union of a man and a woman. They were promptly tarred as enemies of civil rights. "Martin Luther King," one left-wing legislator barked, "is rolling over in his grave at a statement like this."

But if anything has King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All God's children are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. To claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all."

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

A great opportunity to show your support

Dear Friend,

As soon as the polls began showing support for Prop. 8 gaining ground, our opponents sounded the alarm and have seen millions of No on 8 donations pour in. They are using these donations to mislead voters into believing that there are no consequences surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage.
But we know better! This is why we are launching a Statewide Media Bus Tour Next Week. We’re going from one end of the state to the other to let California know that the majority of voters support Prop. 8.
We need your help to get hundreds of supporters to our bus tour stops to stand up for traditional marriage.
The tour will start in Sacramento on Monday (Oct. 20) at the Riverside Wesleyan Church. We’ll visit 15 locations throughout the state over the course of eight days.
Please help us spread the word. Plan to arrive 45 minutes before the times listed below and remember to bring along your Yes on Prop 8 signs as well as any other materials you might have. If you make your own signs, be sure to write on both sides for the best visibility!
Below is a list of CONFIRMED dates, times and locations for our bus tour rallies. Additional stops will be added to our bus tour next week so please look for updated tour stop notifications.

Kick off: Monday, October 20
11:15 A.M.
Riverside Wesleyan Church
6449 Riverside Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95831

Who supports Proposition 8 and why?