Friday, March 07, 2008

CA Marriage Protection Act

Dear Friends,

Here is a link to the official website of the CA Marriage Protection Act.

There are lots of resources at the site, including where to pick up petition forms for gathering signatures.



Our campaign to place a California marriage amendment on the November 2008 ballot is well underway. If you have not already requested a petition, please click here and do so TODAY! Your involvement in collecting signatures NOW is critical to our success in qualifying this measure for the ballot.

Our goal is to acquire the necessary 694,354 valid signatures by April 1st to qualify the initiative. That’s fewer than 60 days!!

Many of you requesting petitions have asked, “Can I copy the petition?” The simple answer is “NO.” While this has been done in previous campaigns, the state laws have tightened to a point where copied petitions are invariably discounted. We want your efforts to count, so there are 2 ways to get petitions:

1. Use the order form on this Web site by simply clicking the Request Petitions button at the top right on this page and fill out the necessary information. Petitions will be mailed to you. Along with your petition, you will also receive a page of instructions on how to circulate a petition. Please feel free to download the instructions page by clicking here. You can make as many copies of the instructions page as you’d like!

2. Distribution Centers are located around the state for you to conveniently pick up petitions. Please click here to find out if there is a Distribution Center near you! Check this list often, as we are daily adding Distribution Centers.

If you, your church, business, or organization would like to be a Distribution Center, contact us at Gina@protectmarriage.com.

This Web site has many important and useful features for you:

· Check out the Resources page for numerous tools and articles.

· There is also the FAQ page, which will answer many of your questions about the marriage amendment. The Why It’s Needed page provides a chronology of what has taken place over the past several years to get us to this point!

Together we can do this! Don’t delay! We need your help and the help of your friends and family. So get involved TODAY!


Here is the Resources page.

Among the various items available, I found this flyer to be one of the best:


Help Put KIDS FIRST!

10 Reasons to Protect California's Marriage Law with a Constitutional Amendment

Reason #1 Children Need Fathers: Same-sex marriage deliberately creates motherless or fatherless families. If same-sex marriage becomes common, social scientists predict the majority of same-sex couples with children would probably be lesbians. This means there would be more children growing up apart from fathers. Studies are conclusive that fatherless households increase crime. Boys whose parents divorced or never married are two to three times more likely to end up in jail as adults. Although there are many single parents heroically raising wonderful children who do not fall into these statistics, they are likely to be the first to say their situation is not ideal.

Reason #2 Children Pay a High Price if Marriage is Not Protected: In 1993 Norway legalized domestic partnerships. Now the average out of wedlock birthrate in Norway is a staggering 60 percent and in some areas it is as high as 80 percent. Here in the United States, one-third of children are born out of wedlock. Decades of social science and government data are absolutely conclusive that overall children have the best physical, cognitive and social outcomes when raised in a home by a married mother and father in a low conflict marriage.

Reason #3 To Protect Parental Rights for School Children: In a Massachusetts school a second grade teacher read a fairy tale to her students called "King & King." In this fairy tale a prince chooses NOT to marry a princess but rather another prince. The story ends with the two princes kissing. When parents complained that they were not notified ahead of time so they could opt their child out, school officials were unresponsive. In fact the superintendent insisted on "teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal."

Reason #4 Marriage Leads to Prosperity: Nearly 80 percent of children suffering long-term poverty come from broken or never-married families. Because married couples share the responsibilities of domestic work and market work, they produce more together than either one could alone. In fact, labor economists have tracked that married men earn 10 to 40 percent more than single men even after controlling for other factors. Economists have named this phenomena the "marriage premium."

Reason #5 Marriage is a Social Institution: Same-sex marriage does NOT broaden the social institution of marriage; it leads to dissolving man/woman marriage and the terms "Mother" and "Father." For example, in Massachusetts same-sex couples are challenging the state's birth certificates. They want the terms "Mother" and "Father" replaced with "Parent A" and "Parent B."


Reason #6 To Uphold Federal Marriage Law: In 1996 under President Bill Clinton Congress declared, "Marriage is the foundation of a successful society" and overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. That same year Congress established the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI). The HMI grants $150 million a year for healthy marriage promotion and fatherhood.

Reason #7 To Protect Democracy from activist judges seeking to redefine marriage. Never in the history of the world has the institution of man/woman marriage been under such aggressive legal assault. An astounding 28 lawsuits challenging marriage laws have been filed in state or federal courts. Sadly some states have not been able to escape these legal assaults. Activist judges have thrust legal recognition of same-sex unions on its citizens in Massachusetts (same-sex marriage) and New Jersey (civil unions). In response to the attacks on marriage laws, legislators and citizens in 27 states have passed constitutional marriage amendments.

Reason #8 To Preserve Religious Freedom: "...because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter," says Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the world renowned Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

In December of 2005, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty hosted a conference of noted First Amendment scholarsfrom across the political spectrum to assess the religious freedom implications of legalized same-sex marriage.

Although some of the scholars wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage and others oppose it, they all share one conclusion--legalized same-sex marriage will create an unprecedented level of legal confusion and invite a tidal wave of lawsuits in public accommodation law, employment law, and over government funding with the only certainty being that they will challenge the workings of religious institutions like never before.

Legal experts predict the most expensive point of conflict between religious freedom and same-sex marriage will be tax exemption. "Can a group--a church or religious charity--that opposes gay marriage keep its tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law?" Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says "that is the 18 trillion dollar question."

Reason #9 To Sustain the Population: All of us need the rising generation to sustain the government, the military, the economy and other systems and institutions for which all of society depends. To sustain the population we need a birth rate of 2.1 percent children per woman. Countries that have legalized same-sex marriage have some of the
lowest fertility rates in the world. The Netherlands, Sweden and Canada all have birthrates around 1.6 children per woman.

Reason #10 If Marriage is Everything, Then Marriage is Nothing: Laws set standards of behavior. Laws greatly influence culture and attitudes. What the law protects is generally valued by society. If the law is indifferent to marriage, what social norm are we leaving the rising generation? Defenders of man/woman marriage warn that if marriage is redefined to include simply two adults then we lose the legal logic for redefining it further. Where does the confusion stop? Some advocates have an agenda far beyond same-sex marriage. They seek government and legal recognition for any combination of relationships involving two, three or more people regardless of gender or children.

Read "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" at Beyond Marriage.org to see the truth about the opposite sides' intentions to seek government and legal recognition for any combination of relationships involving two, three, or more people regardless of gender or children. It is proof positive that these intentions are bent on destroying marriage.


To Help Put KIDS FIRST
Please go to Protect Marriage.com

Family Leader.net

15 comments:

John D said...

As marriage is a civil institution, it must be administered fairly by the state. The legal implications of homosexuality are no different from the legal implications of red hair. If a religion taught that all redheads were evil, we would disdain them, but I for one would say they had a right to say it.

On to your ten.

1. Fathers Then ban divorce. Forcibly abort children born out of wedlock. I don't see this is an issue concerning gay people.

2. Norway The bad statistics that will not die. This has been debunked. The way to avoid a Norway is to deny benefits for children born out of wedlock.

3. School And the family that objects to an interracial couple depicted in a story? Or good people of other or no religious faith. Take it up with the school board.

4. Prosperity So, gay people ought to be impoverished?

5. Social In legal terminology mother and father have no relevance. Both parents have the same legal rights. This has nothing to do with gay people.

6. Federal DOMA is likely unconstitutional discrimination against law-abiding Americans.

7. Activist Activist judge simply means "I don't agree with this ruling."

8. Preserve religious freedom But not all clergy oppose same-sex marriage. The rights of clergy are violated daily by the current status. No one can force clergy to officiate. The law will not allow clergy to act within the dictates of their conscience and and according to their religion if their denomination celebrates same-sex couples.

Interfaith marriage is legal in all 50 states. Conservative and Orthodox rabbis are not obligated to solemnize interfaith marriages. Mr. Stern needs to consult a rabbi.

9. Population I suspect that people will continue to procreate even if the lesbian couple down the street (with the new baby) are married.

10. Laws set standards. And if our laws that tell us it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation can be easily dismissed, what other protections can be?

Charlotte said...

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Christinewjc said...

Before marriage became a "civil" institution, it was God's idea. The Bible confirms that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Anything else other than that union is called something else.

Charlotte, marriage was originally set up (both biblically, and secularly) in this nation as the union of one man and one woman. It is not discriminatory to deny marriage to homosexuals. Heterosexuals must follow the rules too. I can't marry my son or my daughter. My daughter can't marry her brother.

Homosexuals can have their relationships. But they don't have the right to re-define marriage. Putting the traditional definition for marriage as one man and one woman in the CA Constitution will prevent endless lawsuits and activist judges from overturning the will of the people in CA. Prop. 22 was passed in 2000 by 63% of the voting public. Why would you want to disenfranchise millions of voters just because you, and a small percentage of gays and lesbians want to change the definition of marriage?

The reasons are clear. Just because you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make your complaints correct or your views valid.

Stephen said...

Great response Christine. Homosexuals DO want to re-define marriage. It's a fairy tale. It's a fantasy. It's playing house -- one's the "man" and one's the "woman." I know.

Kudos for sticking up for the truth. These people are so tragically deceived, it's sad. They truly need the love of Christ to set them free from their sin and deception.

That's not hateful, homophobic or bigoted. It's biblical, moral and it's REALITY.

Christinewjc said...

Thanks Stephen. Christians need to stand up for the truth, no matter what the other side wants to call us.

I think that CA Christian churches have FINALLY woken up from their lethargic slumber. The double assault of that homosexual indoctrination bill being passed into law (SB777) last year, and the CA Supreme Court case being decided right now (on whether to overturn Prop. 22) has brought forth the reality that if we do not do something to stem this tide of pressure, our religious freedoms will suffer drastically. In fact, such laws may even result in taking away our religious rights to preach the true gospel and God's Word about morality.

I see what is happening in Massachusetts since gay "marriage" was forced upon the people in that state. It's terrible! The gestopo gay activists are so busy promoting their filth in the schools and taking away parents' rights to bring up their children without homosexual indoctrination; it's a wonder whether or not there is any time left in the school day to teach educational curriculum!

We know who the enemy behind all of this really is. Yes. These people (and those who support them) are tragically deceived.

Stephen, I don't know if you had seen my previous post that had a link to Pastor Miles McPherson's sermon entitled

Marriage, The Image of God.

It is one of the best, most comprehensive sermons on the subject of marriage being God's idea as the union of one man and one woman and why the church needs to reject gay "marriage" that I have ever heard!!

Go to that link, find that title, and click on the arrow to view the message. I would really love your opinion on it.

I asked our friend Jaded to view the video and then tell me what she thought of it. Never heard back from her. Mamalicious (remember her?) viewed it but, apparently, it didn't change her mind about how she views God's Word on the issue.

Good to see you here! Sent a note to you (snail mail) recently.

I'm looking forward to seeing the events you had mentioned in your last email.

God bless you this day!

In Christ,
Christine

Christinewjc said...

I got hate mail!!

GUEST'S MESSAGE:
The problem is not with God or his son. It falls with Gods followers. You preach love but your message is nothing but hate and intolerance. Your hateful words hurt many families and mostly the children of these families. Because of intolerance Children of Gay families are more likely to commit suicide. You go on about protecting children but at the same time you and your right wing followers hurt more children than another group of people. I thank God that not all Christians are nuts like you and your followers and that they follow God true words...love your neighbor. protect all of Gods children. You will lose your unfounded fight and the true children of God will triumph.

I hope you can sleep at night knowing the harm you have caused gay families and single parent families. You and your followers have made Religion a dirty word.
You just prove how crazy all of you really are...Keep up the good work!


Dear Hate Mail Writer,

I can't quite tell whether or not you are a gay christian movement advocate or a non-believer.

I would, however, like to invite you to view the following video:

Marriage, The Image of God.

Then, you can come back here and apologize to me for your hateful words towards me, your misrepresentation of the facts concerning true Christian beliefs, and for personally slandering me because I follow Jesus and His Word, the Bible.

The reality is this. It's not my words that you hate and reject; it is the Word of God and what He says about homosexual behavior that you hate and reject.

Christinewjc said...

For some reason, blogger is not allowing me to post from my dashboard today. It is giving me a "server error" message when I tried to post my current message.

How strange is it that I can post comments?

I think that several people must have "flagged my blog" or something. Or, maybe the blogger dashboard problem is a separate problem. Who knows?

Anyway, please go to Talk Wisdom over at Word Press to read, "Which Jesus?".

I wrote it in direct response to this post and thread of comments.

Jos76 said...

It is not quit clear to me why so many right-wing conservatives are completely against gay marriage. They are essentially trying to convince people that mutually respectful relationships are not beneficial to the couple or the society around them. In addition, Democrats that favor civil unions over marriage rights are opening the door to straight couples entering into civil unions so that they can get the benefits alloted, without actually getting married. Civil unions, then , will actually lower the overall marriage rate. Who is to stop two straight “friends” from filing for a civil union in order to get work-related benefits in a state. Legalizing gay marriage would raise the overall marriage rates and civil unions would lower it. This is perhaps the goal of both political parties. Civil unions means no access to Social Security, whereas marriage does give access.

I’m a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, and because there is no federal recognition of our marriage, we will not contribute to the bankruptcy of Social Security because we will not have access to the money that we pay for legally married straight couples who tap into the Social Security Benefits of his/her spouse. Civil Unions may have nothing to do with gay rights, but rather may be a way of keeping money available in Social Security.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com

David said...

You're completely correct, Jos76. It is in complete contradiction to conservative values to prevent people from entering into legal contracts of their own choosing. What we see happening here is not conservatism, but theocracy -- the forced acceptance of religious ideas onto the population.

Additionally, making this out to be an issue of "democracy" is also fallacious. California, along with Oregon, refused to allow African-Americans into their state based upon their then nascent state constitutions. This, of course, was overturned by judges who understood that minority rights must be protected in the face of majority rule. That is why we are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights and the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.

Ultimately, however, this issue is taking care of itself. Conservative Christianity is on a precipitous decline, with some 80% of American children leaving the religion once they reach adulthood. There is already a majority in support of equal marriage rights in Massachusetts, and we are quickly approaching a majority in California. Despite the actions of those who wish to impose their religion on us, justice and equality continues to march on.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Jos76,

Welcome and thanks for your comments.

You asked, "It is not quit[e] clear to me why so many right-wing conservatives are completely against gay marriage."

Did you watch the video called "Marriage, The Image of God" at the link provided? I think it would definitely answer your question.

David,

Tell me this. If a man wants to marry 3 women, what is that called?

Polygamy

If a woman wants to marry two men, what is that called?

Bigamy

If a man wants to be married to one woman, yet wants a woman "on the side," what is that called?

Polyamory

Conclusion? People join in with all kinds of aberrant sexual relationships...but they aren't called "marriage" they are called something else!

Marriage has always been the definition of "the union between one man and one woman."

Get your own word.

David said...

"Conclusion? People join in with all kinds of aberrant sexual relationships...but they aren't called "marriage" they are called something else!"

Oh come on!! Are you REALLY being serious!! You know full-well that "biblical marriage" was in fact polygamous!!! Not only that, "biblical marriage" prohibited inter-racial relationships. You couldn't have come up with a more ironic response.

Christinewjc said...

David,

You made the typical faux pas of one who is ignorant of proper Bible hermeneutics and exegesis.

The Bible does not approve of all that it records. It's just an honest book. It records the sins and errors of human beings.

About the inter-racial marriage question. In the Old Testament days, God wanted to keep the Israelites away from the pagan nations and their sinful habits and practices. They were called out to be a special people - holy and righteous before God...the "apple of God's eye" ...so to speak.

In order to keep their religious faith pure before Holy God, they were told not to intermarry with the pagan women. It didn't have anything to do with skin color. It had to do with morality and their obedience towards God's Laws.

Today, the Amish separate themselves from the paganism of this world. They do so in order to be obedient to God. They desire holiness and righteousness in their lives; and, they see this as their way to honor God. Do you want to label them as "racist" too?

David said...

I'm sorry Christine, I thought we were talking about government marriage rights not "proper Bible hermeneutics and exegesis". But I guess that does just further add evidence what your movement is about -- the imposition of religious ideas upon an entire populace. Thank you for admitting as much. :)

Christinewjc said...

You are the one that brought up "biblical marriage" in your last comment. You tried (quite unsuccessfully) to do two things with your comment:

1. You attempted to make the false claim that biblical marriage was polygamous.

2. You attempted to make a race-baiting comment when you stated that "biblical marriage prohibited inter-racial relationships."

Next, you exacerbate your errors by changing the subject in order to avoid facing the fact that you were wrong on both accounts.

Your secular humanistic views are also a type of religion. Your movement is about imposing your secular humanistic religious ideas upon an entire populace. Thank you for admitting as much!

Christinewjc said...

Update: 3/11/08

Calling all prayer warriors!

The following is an email letter that I received this morning, calling for us to pray regarding the upcoming CA Supreme Court decision about marriage remaining the union between one man and one woman:

Desert Stream Ministries
March 11, 2008


Dear Christine,

Please join me in praying for the California Supreme Court as the seven justices consider whether or not to overturn the will of CA citizens by instituting gay marriage.

Last Tuesday, the Court heard a variety of arguments on the constitutionality of a voter-approved ban on gay marriage that occurred in 2000. In the winter of 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco overturned that ban and allowed over 4,000 gays to marry in that city.

These unions were voided and six of those couples have since sued to overturn the gay marriage ban. In spite of the fact that CA has a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples nearly all the same benefits of married couples, this lawsuit before the Court represents the relentless drive of gay activists to claim marriage as their own.

Marriage is the gold ring to which activists aspire; anything short of that prize is considered inferior, relegating gays to second class citizenship.

The problem? God defines marriage as intrinsically heterosexual, for the purpose of creating and protecting new life. Period. Any other configuration misrepresents His will for marriage. Gay marriage is a misnomer. The two words together signify a reality warp.

'Gay marriage' slaps God in the face, and manifests a blind pursuit of human rights.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege that the Creator accords a man and a woman. He can never bless and confirm two members of the same gender and nor should we.

The CA Supreme Court is currently split on the decision to overturn the gay marriage ban and allow these couples, and any other gay couple, to marry in the state. CA would then become only the second state in the union to do so. (The Mass. Supreme Court initiated gay marriage in the USA 4 years ago; they granted dissenting gay couples the right to marry on the basis that they had a constitutional right to so.)

Keep in mind that the California Supreme Court is the most influential state court in the nation. As CA goes, so will go the nation. Each state, regardless of previous legislation, will be that much more inclined to follow CA's powerful lead.

Pray that the CA court refuses gay marriage. The justices are currently split on whether or not to overturn the citizen's ban on gay marriage. Pray that 4 of the 7 justices stay true to what actually constitutes marriage-a man and a woman.


The Supreme Court has 90 days to make a decision. Pray they uphold the will of the citizens of CA, and the Creator.


Andy Comiskey

*******

1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.