Tuesday, November 25, 2008


Not really. I was incredulous when, after the election, I saw a picture in the paper of a woman protesting outside the LA LDS Temple who carried a sign that read, "When Do I Get to Vote on Your Marriage?" News flash--you got to vote on my marriage on November 4, 2008! Did you bother to go to the polls?

As this blog's manager for Moms for Marriage, I thought I would have the blog shut down by this time and be back to life as normal. I was naive enough to think that the election would settle the definition of marriage issue. Apparently, it was only the starting gun for the opposition to begin a witch-hunt type of campaign against those who supported Prop 8. After all the talk about "No on 8--Stop the Hate", it now seems pretty clear that there is a fair amount of hate going around among those professing to want to "stop the hate"--and their hate is directed toward anyone who doesn't follow their party line. The scapegoating, intimidation, and terror tactics of the opposition are reprehensible and need to stop immediately. Many who support same-sex unions are apparently throwing a major temper tantrum that has taken a turn for the worse and even the wicked--really now, white powder mailed to the LDS Church headquarters! (For a great article on the post-election temper tantrums, visit Beetle Blogger at http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/queen-of-hearts-campaign/)

Prop 8 won handsdown, fair and square. The LA Times said that Obama won the office of president by a "convincing" 53% of the popular vote. If that is the case, round out the percentage who voted in favor of Prop 8 and you get that same "convincing" number of Californians who voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Monday, November 3, 2008


We cannot stress enough the importance of passing Proposition 8 to protect the innocence of our children. Please consider the following article entitled "Public Records Show Proposition 8 Opponents Want Gay Marriage To Be Taught In Public Schools – ‘The earlier the better.’"


And how about kindergarten students signing pledge cards committing to be an "ally" of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals? Think we made this up? Read the article at:


How can opponents of Proposition 8 claim that homosexuality would never be endorsed in the schools? It's already happening. We implore you to vote yes on 8 to protect the innocence of our children.

Sunday, November 2, 2008


As moms, we favor Proposition 8 because we feel it protects the rights of our children along with their innocence. In our past postings, we have focused a great deal on the impact of Proposition 8 on our schools.

Freedom of religion is another issue that is dear to us. We feel that failure to pass Proposition 8 will restrict our freedom of religion and our freedom of speech when we express our religious beliefs. We have observed a number of cases where these freedoms have been diminished over the issue of same-sex marriage. Think about the following:

Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business for the first time in 100 years because it would not place children with a homosexual couple. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_to_halt_adoptions_over_issue_involving_gays/

In Ocean Grove, New Jersey, a Methodist group was stripped of part of its state real estate tax exemption for refusing to permit a civil union ceremony at the beachfront pavilion it owns.

In Canada, A Catholic priest is under criminal investigation under a “hate crimes” law for quoting from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals during Canada’s same-sex debate.

A Lutheran school in Riverside county has been sued for expelling twoallegedly lesbian students.

A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group inVista, California declined to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a lesbian patient on the grounds that doing so would violate the doctor’s religious beliefs. Although the doctor referred the patient to another partner in her practice who agreed to do the procedure, the patient still sued and won. The judge also recommended the doctor find a new line of work. In order to respect the religious views of the doctor, the clinic no longer provides in vitro fertilization to any of its patients.

The decision that made same-sex marriage legal in California conferred upon gay couples a "a protected legal class" under the law. This means that when the perceived civil rights of gay couples conflict with our constitutionally protected freedoms, our freedom of religion and freedom of religious speech will lose. Gays constitute 2% of California's population. We do not believe it is right for their concerns to trump constitutional rights which are foundational to the freedoms that 100% of Californians enjoy as citizens of the United States.

We agree with Orson Scott Card, who wrote that our state is “proceeding headlong into a vast social experiment whose consequences, as far as we can see, risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few”.


We have received the actual letter that was sent to the parents ofthe elementary school children who were forced to participate in“Coming Out Day” a week ago in Hayward, California. It clearly explains how homosexuality IS and WILL be force-fed to our children without bothering to ask for parental permission.


Get the word out! Also, here are the instructions that accompany a video called “That’s a Family!” that teachers use to teach their brand of “diversity."


If protecting the innocence of children means anything to you, we urge you to please vote YES on Proposition 8.


In a 2004 article entitled "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage," Adam Kolasinski discusses the state's interest in the regulation of marriage. The state's primary interest in marriage lies in the protection of the needs and rights of the children who may be created from a heterosexual union.

Kolasinski indicates that there is no universal right to marry, even among heterosexuals. Interestingly, he contrasts homosexual marriage with interracial marriage, which was at one time legally prohibited in parts of the United States:

"Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation."

For the full text of this enlightening article, please visit:

Friday, October 31, 2008


by Judy Eisenbrand
This November Californians will vote to decide whether the state should adopt Proposition 8 which calls for a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage to the union between one man and one woman.

Opponents of Proposition 8 try to frame it as a civil rights issue. It is not. Proposition 8 seeks to reverse an activist court’s attempt to mandate the social acceptance of homosexual unions by redefining marriage. Why is the California Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage to include same sex marriages harmful?

First of all, it removes the protection of children from the center of marriage. The legal institution of marriage with all its extraordinary protections and obligations evolved to support and encourage the risk-taking involved in having and raising children; as Blackhorn 2008 states, “Marriage is society’s most pro-child institution… Marriage says to a child: The man and woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: for every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.”

Contrastingly, the primary focus of homosexual unions is necessarily on the good of the two contracting adults; in fact, every child brought up solely in a homosexual household is denied the right to bond with either a father or a mother. Circumstances such as parental death or abandonment have denied children this right before, but do not excuse planning, intending, or even mandating such circumstances. When on September 15, 2008, another California court ruled that two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian woman on moral grounds were guilty of discrimination, not only did physicians lose their rights to practice according to their consciences, but children also lost their rights to have both a mother and father.

Secondly, the court’s redefinition confuses the development of sexual orientation in our youth. Many people mistakenly believe that our sexual orientation is purely inborn. In fact, the official stance the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association is that there currently is no consensus that homosexuality is largely genetically determined. More current scientific studies indicate that environment plays the larger role; in particular for adolescents, in one of the largest twin pair studies to date,Bearman and Bruckner (2002) found that if one identical twin had same sex attraction (SSA), there was only a 5-7% chance that the other also had SSA.

Environmental factors that appear to increase homosexuality rates include being raised in an urban area, college settings, an absent or unknown father for homosexual males, and maternal absence or death during adolescence for homosexual females (Lauman 1994, Frisch and Hviid 2006, Green 1986, Bailey 1995, Tasker and Golombok 1995, Lerner and Nagai 2001). Hansen 2008 states, “The data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression. Moreover, these findings are supported by decades of anthropological and sociological evidence that reveal that rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate-sometimes greatly-with changes in the social, cultural, and legal climate. The more an environment affirms or encourages same-sex sexuality- whether an urban center or a university campus- the more homosexuality there will be in that setting.” Considering what we know about the plasticity, curiosity, and impressionability of young minds, this is not surprising.

Yet the California Supreme Court insists that homosexual unions be equated with heterosexual marriage, sending a message to youth that society values them as equal choices. But so far the data is sobering. The Netherlands has had registered partnerships since 1998 and full homosexual marriage since 2001, yet the average range of male homosexual relationships in the Netherland was 9 months to 2 years, with an average of only 17 months (Xiridou, 2003). The National Health and Social Life Survey found that the mean number of lifetime partners since the age of 18 for men who had ever engaged in homosexual acts was 44.3; for women who had ever engaged in lesbian behavior the average number of partners was 19.7 (Laumann 1994). Considering that the rates of sexual promiscuity, sex with strangers, disease and early death including suicide, and obviously childlessness are all significantly higher for homosexuals, how can we truthfully present heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles as equal choices to our youth? If this issue were not so politicized, surely society would want to give legalized homosexual unions a chance to work before mandating their promotion.

Yet it is very likely that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions will force public schools to do just that. The threat of discrimination lawsuits would be enough to motivate budget beleaguered public schools to scrupulously remove all potential heterosexual bias in what is taught about marriage and family, enforcing a curriculum of neutrality. A 2006 Massachusetts court case ruled that school districts were under no obligation to inform parents in advance of teaching about same sex marriage. Parents who disagree will need to take on the difficult burden on tracking what is taught in public school and try to have their children excused from class whenever homosexual unions are promoted. Other institutions which do not conform to the civil definition of marriage could also potentially be at risk for legal repercussions. Clergy who refuse to perform same sex marriages might lose their state authorization to witness marriages. Religious social service agencies might lose their contractual agreements with the state for community services because of accusations of discrimination. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court granted the right to marry to gay couples, Catholic Charities of Boston, a respected organization that had placed more orphans in homes than any other organization in the state since its founding in 1903, had to shut down its adoptions agency because its insistence on placing children in heterosexual households with both a mother and father was deemed discrimination by state law.

We all want a society characterized by mutual tolerance and respect. Heterosexual marriage and homosexual unions should have different names because they are obviously different and have profoundly different consequences (children). Proposition 8 maintains this appropriate distinction, and thereby preserves marriage as the primary institution that safeguards the rights of children. Proposition 8 also maintains the rights of parents and supporting religious and educational institutions to guide children preferentially toward a biologically coherent sexual orientation without accusations of discrimination or fear of litigation. Homosexual couples will continue to enjoy equal legal privileges under California Domestic Partners Law, Family Code 297.5; as the California Supreme Court minority opinion reads, “California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights the state can bestow.” Conferring the name of marriage, which has established validity across multiple faiths and cultures over thousands of years, upon homosexual unions, implicitly promotes the latter, will profoundly confuse the development of the sexual orientations of our youth, and creates a legal basis that endangers the rights of society to preferentially promote the very institution, heterosexual marriage, that it depends on to survive. The rational choice is to vote ‘yes’ on Proposition 8.

Thursday, October 30, 2008


It's absolutely amazing that commercials and vidoes are now airing which show California's Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell stating with a straight face that Proposition 8 has nothing to do with instruction in the public schools. Without a doubt, he knows that 96% of California schools already teach marriage. Want further details about how that instruction will be affected if Proposition 8 fails? Check out these two sites:



It is one thing to teach respect for others. It is quite a different to indoctrinate the upcoming generation with acceptance of controversial sexual mores and lifestyle choices, particularly without the notification or consent of parents.

Please vote "yes" on Proposition 8 to protect our children.

Saturday, October 25, 2008


We continue to hear teacher and parental dismay--even outrage--at the CTA donation to defeat Prop 8. Listen as one California teacher speaks out against the donation:


The comments of James Sloan of Moorpark undoubtedly characterize the viewpoint of many Californians. In a letter to the Ventura County Star, he wrote:

"In a time of diminished funds and cancellation of programs, I cannot believe the audacity of the CTA donating to a proposition that is not supposed to have any impact on the schools. I have seen the 'No on Proposition 8' ads saying that if Proposition 8 does not pass, there will be no effect in the schools. If that is true, then why did the CTA donate so much money to a proposition that does not impact them? Wouldn't the money be better served on investments in schools, the teachers themselves or, at a minimum, on political causes that would actually support and benefit our children through education?"

Read his complete comments at:

Failure to pass Proposition 8 will impact the schools. Listen to the experience of a Massachusetts couple--their child's teacher read a book to the class about a prince marrying a prince:


We must protect the innocence of our children. Make your voice heard by contacting the California Department of Education at:

Jack O’Connell
California Department of Education1
430 N StreetSacramento, CA 95814-5901
General: 916-319-0800
TTY/TDD: 916-445-4556

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


I've spent time today searching the net to discover why other bloggers are supporting Proposition 8 and have found some great information.

--The recent decision of the California Teachers Association has a lot of people upset. One mom in our group wrote:

Inasmuch as my children have had so many caring and capable teachers, I could hardly believe it when I learned that the California Teachers Association donated over $1 million to defeat Proposition 8. The organization representing these dedicated professionals should have chosen to protect children by protecting the institution of marriage. Given what teachers see in their classrooms everyday, the union’s leaders should clearly know by their members’ experience that children prosper best when they are raised by a mother and father who are married to each other. I only hope that the teachers themselves make their voices heard in support of California’s children by voting YES on Prop 8 come November 4.

Visit our sister blog's post from Sunday, October 19 to view a video from one California teacher who wishes his union was actually spending time and money promoting the welfare of schools instead of pursuing a radical social agenda. http://mamapro.blogspot.com/

--At another site, a local psychotherapists exposes the falicies of current social science myths that are circulating with regards to same-sex attraction and the implications of same-sex marriage. In her view, the biggest myth of all is: "If you are gay or lesbian you were born that way." Visit http://julannsmindfulmatters.blogspot.com/ to learn more.

--Interested in the legal precedents for our rights in America and how those rights are protected by Proposition 8? A recent post at this site http://voteyesonprop8.wordpress.com/ qoutes from an article by A. Scott Loveless, J.D., PhD. which connects the "inalienable" rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence with the rights preserved by Proposition 8.

--"Tolerance" is the battle cry of the "No on 8" campaign. "Yes on 8" supporters have discovered however that tolerance from Prop 8's opponents frequently only means respect for those who agree with same-sex marriage. One "Yes on 8" volunteer wrote:

My daughter has been active in waving signs on street corners in faver of Prop 8. People have yelled obscenities at her and used obscene gestures toward her. Strangely, one woman tried to insult her for her activism by accusing her of being a closet lesbian. Last Saturday, someone threw an egg at her and her group. Gratefully, it only splattered my daughter's feet. My friend has had her yard vandalized with paint because she displays a "Yes on 8" sign facing a much-travelled city street. Others who have "Yes on 8" bumperstickers have had their tires slashed and their cars keyed. So much for tolerance.

Visit the Monday, October 20 post at http://makemyvotecount.blogspot.com/ for another supporter's encounter with those opposed to Proposition 8.

--The "No on 8" campaign would have California voters believe that the gay community unanimously supports their cause. That's just not the case. Visit the Wednesday, October 22 post at http://championsofmarriage.blogspot.com/ to read the "Yes on 8" perspective of a gay talk show host at Los Angeles' KABC.

--Think the failure of Proposition 8 could negatively impact religious rights and freedoms in our country? Check out the article at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191 which details what has happened when gay rights and religious rights have clashed. This important article was posted on http://thoughts4prop8.wordpress.com/ where you can find other pro Prop 8 information.

--Does defeating Prop 8 promote societal inclusion? Visit http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/ for some interesting observations.

If you feel like you are alone in your support for Prop 8, know that you're not. More importantly than anything else I discovered today, I learned that there are a lot of folks who think and feel that only marriage between a man and a woman should be valid and recognized in California.

Monday, October 20, 2008


by Karen Bennett

What’s in a name? A lot, judging from all the furor raised by California’s Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define “marriage” exclusively as a relationship between a man and a woman. Why is that historic definition worth preserving? The answer is simple. It takes a man and a woman to create a child. When a man and a woman vow before their communities and governments to commit their lives to each other and to the children they may create, we call it a “marriage.” It makes both legal and linguistic sense to have a term reserved for describing the uniqueness of this type of union.

Couples who create children provide the lifeblood that guarantees the continuation of a society. Through laws governing their unions, societies worldwide invest in the future by encouraging men and women to form stable homes where they jointly care for the children they create. These laws acknowledge the time-tested fact that the upcoming generation prospers best when children are provided for by the fathers and mothers who gave them life. Laws holding individual couples legally responsible for the children they produce also prevent that responsibility from falling to government. Reserving a specific legal name (“marriage”) for heterosexual unions recognizes their unique reproductive capabilities and communicates the duty fathers and mothers have to the posterity they create.

Can same-sex couples love each other and even love a child? Undoubtedly. However, left to their own devices, they cannot independently create life no matter how much they profess to care for one another. While homosexual and heterosexual love may have corresponding value to the individuals involved, the potential for bringing a child into the world through the expression of that love is simply not the same. Legally, calling same-sex relationships “marriages” implies that the reproductive capability of heterosexual unions is no longer significant to public discourse, a concept that is clearly not the case. Linguistically, changing the age-old meaning of the word weakens the term’s descriptive power, reducing it to a mere connotation for any amorous relationship between two human parties who have chosen to make a governmentally supervised commitment to each other.

We have different words to name different things for the express purpose of communicating their uniqueness. Even simple differences between like items are acknowledged by differing terms. The petals of a sunflower and a daisy have similar shapes but only one of these two flowers produces edible seeds. If we decide to call both types of blossoms “sunflowers,” how will we know if the package of seeds we purchase and plant will provide us nourishment? The future use of the term “marriage” is much more significant than the naming of flowers. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet but “marriage” by any other definition would be diminished. The inherent ability of heterosexual unions to create children significantly distinguishes them from same-sex partnerships. To legally acknowledge and linguistically preserve this crucial difference, the term “marriage” should retain its traditional definition as a union between a man and a woman. A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 would do just that.

Karen Bennett is raising her children in California. She is an active community volunteer and a former legislative analyst.


Many parents are choosing to fight back against the CTA for
donating over $1.25 million to the No on 8 campaign by excusing their
children from school tomorrow, October 21st. If you feel it is
appropriate, tell the school administrator that you will spend the day
teaching your child about the political process, democracy, and how
citizens standing up together can make a substantial difference. Also, please donate $35, $50, or $100 on that day to Protectmarriage.com with the letters
“CTA” in the referral box – to send a clear message that the harder
the CTA pushes the harder they fall. Spread the word around to other
families in California! We have less than 24 hours to get the word
out. Go, go go!

Similarly, if you are a teacher, go to


to find out how to get a refund for your portion of the union dues
spent towards supporting No on 8. (if 3,333 teachers do this, it will
make the CTA donation completely null and void!)

Saturday, October 18, 2008


We have been working on putting together YES on 8 videos to post on the internet for the past two weeks. Despite our lack of technical skill and less-than-stellar equipment for movie making, we were finally able to post five pro PROP 8 videos on YouTube today. Links to our videos are found to the right under the header "Californians Speak Out In Favor of Prop 8." Thanks so much to our supporters who had the courage to take a very public stand in support of traditional marriage!

Friday, October 17, 2008


by A. Scott Loveless J.D., Ph.D

1. Men and women are different, and the union of a man and a woman is different than the union of two men or two women. Throughout history marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for powerful reasons relating to the complementary differences between men and women. The differences combine to create a unique and essential social relationship. Marriage channels human sexuality into responsible and socially valuable functions, namely adult complementary sexual union that results in the procreation, nurturing, and training of the next generation. It gives couples and society a future. The combination of the opposite sexes creates a distinctive integrative union and social relationship. No two men together or two women together can do this. Just as the combination of the different chemical elements Na (sodium) + Cl (chlorine) together make salt, but Na + Na or Cl + Cl do not.

2. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is actually restricted, not expanded. The law categorizes and treats relationships in three ways: some are barred and prohibited; others are tolerated and permitted; and some others are preferred and privileged. Historically, same-sex relationships were prohibited, but in recent decades they have become tolerated and permitted in the United States and many other countries. But tolerance is quite different from preference. Conjugal marriage always has been the most preferred and privileged social relationship because it is the foundation of society. The claim for same-sex “marriage” abandons tolerance and seeks special preference; it actually removes the preferential treatment of conjugal marriage, rather than elevating same-sex couples. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is restricted. Freedom of religion is undermined, and freedom of speech is curtailed. Children in public schools are taught not true tolerance but the moral relativism of equivalency, i.e. that different forms of human sexuality are no more than matters of personal preference. Disagreement with this “principle” is not tolerated.

3. Equality does not require treating different relationships the same. Same-sex marriage advocates purport to desire “equal treatment” with heterosexual couples, but it is inequality to give full marital status to relationships that are so markedly different in lifestyle and social impact. Same-sex marriage really means the near-term elimination of actual marriage. As a matter of nature, it cannot fulfill the same functions as traditional marriage. The effect is to pull traditional marriage down to the lowest common denominator and soon render it meaningless. Our society cannot accept this outcome.

4. Marriage is a pre-existing social institution, not a mere legal creation or social construct. Marriage between male and female is a uniquely ubiquitous social institution, found in all civilized human societies. Finding marriage already in existence, the law has recognized the importance of marriage by regulating and thereby protecting it. The law does not create marriage any more than it creates parents, land or water, but the law regulates those resources -- marriage, parenting, land, and water -- in the public interest.

5. The legal definition of marriage signals important social functions. The way the law defines and treats marriage sends powerful social signals to all members of society about marriage roles and what is expected of married persons. By diluting the meaning of marriage, reducing it to a mere romantic relationship between any two persons, it dilutes the meaning of marriage itself and ignores and denigrates the integral responsibilities of marriage and marital parenthood. Conjugal marriage reinforces the taking of responsibility for the natural outcome of the sexual act: children; same-sex marriage weakens that tie.

6. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms families and makes more vulnerable those who invest their lives, and sacrifice their careers, for their marriages and families. In states and nations where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the public commitment to families and conjugal marriage is significantly weakened. Adoption has been impaired. Mothers are marginalized, and social support for them weakens. Sexualization of society increases. Public support for marital parenting wanes. Marital childbearing and childrearing drop, and public education becomes more propagandistic. Churches and religion are harassed.

7. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms children by depriving them of a mother or father, and removing the clear legal signal that marriage connects parents to children and parental responsibility. All children need and deserve to be raised by a mother and a father; they are deprived of that by same-sex marriage. Two moms are not the same things as a mom and a dad. Legalization of same-sex marriage is false advertising to children; it teaches them that same-sex coupling and parenting is fully equivalent to dual gender marriage and parenting. It deprives some children of a parental connection with half of their biological heritage and family. Parental authority is diminished.

8. Legalizing same-sex marriage harms society by the transformative power of inclusion and by weakening the basic infrastructure of society. Conjugal marriage historically has “scripted” responsible living and civic virtue. Gay and lesbian lifestyles do not. By redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, the social meaning of marriage is transformed by the power of inclusion; the culture of infidelity, promiscuity and polyamory that characterizes gay and lesbian sexual relations will redefine what marriage means in a way that will undermine that social institution and bring suffering to many families. Society should not engage in “consumer fraud” by sending the message that there is no difference between conjugal marriage and same-sex unions.

9. Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests. Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement. The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs, not just to bind boyfriends and girlfriends and other romantic interests.

10. The radical redefinition of marriage is a matter for the people, not the courts, to decide. In a democracy, the power to decide fundamental questions about basic social institutions is reserved to the people. It is not a judicial function. By a vote of 4-3, four California justices simply imposed their personal political preference under the pretext of interpreting the state constitution. That is why even strong supporters of same-sex marriage, such as the Washington Post, criticized the California Supreme Court decision for mandating same-sex marriage by judicial decree. It seriously violated separation of powers and undermined the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.

11. Many constitutional amendments have been adopted to protect threatened basic institutions and rights. That is how America got the “Bill of Rights.” That is why our nation passed the Civil War amendments – to correct a terrible decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why voters in 27 American states recently have adopted constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That is why 37 nations around the world also have adopted constitutional provisions protecting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. When cherished rights and relationships are threatened, people pass constitutional amendments to protect them. That is why Proposition 8 has been proposed.

12. Proposition 8 is about marriage, it is not about homosexuality. The issue is whether the basic social institution of marriage should be radically redefined. The issue is not about homosexual relations, which have long existed without needing (or wanting) to be called “marriages.” It is not about homosexuality, or the nature-vs-nurture debate about the cause of homosexuality. It is not whether homosexuality is biologically hard-wire-determined, or predisposed, or environmentally caused, or experientially influenced, or a matter of choice. It is not about homosexuality; it is simply about the institution of marriage. Today, tragically, many marriages fail, but legalizing same-sex marriage will not solve that problem. Rather, by reducing the meaning of marriage, and applying the “marriage” label to gay and lesbian relations, which have an even higher rate of instability than heterosexual couples, it will only worsen the problem.

13. It doesn’t end with redefining marriage. Legalization of same-sex marriage is the beginning, not the end, of the social revolution gay and lesbian activists promote. Consider what has happened in Massachusetts since same-sex marriage was “normalized” by a one-vote majority of the Superior Court there: 1- Catholic Charities, which included among its charitable activities the placement of children for adoption for a century, was told following the Goodridge decision that their refusal to allow adoptions by same-sex married couples was discriminatory and prohibited. When their request for a religious exemption was denied, that organization felt compelled to get out of the adoption business, rather than compromise their religious principles; 2- Sex education classes in the Massachusetts public schools now are required, based on Goodridge and attendant reforms, to include “neutral” instruction on homosexual acts as part of the curriculum, so as to give equal treatment and avoid discrimination. So much for “normalization” and for the right of parents to direct the education of their children on these vital matters.


America has made great strides in eliminating inequality. And as a melting pot of diversity we pride ourselves in trying to accept all people regardless of sex, race or religion. But we don’t melt ourselves into one gender, one color, one mold. We allow distinctions to be made without taking equality from those distinctions. We call a human being a man or a woman without saying that either is less human. A person can be Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist and still be equal to an atheist or Mormon. The different name connotes exactly that, differences, without making one more or less equal. And because same-sex partnerships are different than traditional marriages, they should be called something different--not to take away equality but to distinguish between two different types of unions.

Every time a heterosexual couple has sexual relations, there is usually a chance that a child could be born. (Obviously with birth control, age and other factors this chance can be greatly reduced, even eliminated.) But for many there is still some risk of creating a child, even with the best of plans to prevent it. That risk, is why society created marriage – to protect expected and unexpected children.

There should be a distinction between the type of union (one between same-sex partners) that outside intervention to have a child and the type of union (a man and a woman) that takes continuous planning not to have a child. One union is much riskier when it comes to creating children. Homosexual and heterosexual love may be equal, but the possibility of an unexpected child is not equal.

Another factor that is not equal is the thousand-year-old definition of marriage. All literature since the beginning of written language uses very similar definitions for the terms marriage, wife and husband. By calling the very new idea of homosexual unions “marriage” dilutes the word “marriage” and completely destroys the words “husband” and “wife,” which will become archaic and meaningless. We will have to explain to our great grandchildren when they read literature that “wife,” used to mean a woman that was married to a man.

I like the word “wife.” It means I am a woman, I am married to a man, I am taking a risk with my body if I accidentally get pregnant whether I have the child or not. That’s one of the reasons women get married to men, because the risks of having sex with a man are so great, that they want to be married.

When Martin Luther King fought for the rights of all Americans, he didn’t try to take away rights from some and give them to others. He tried to make America fair for all. If homosexual couples are allowed to call their unions marriage, they are taking the words “marriage” and “wife” from me. It’s kind of like calling all soft drinks Cokes. If I’m a Pepsi, I don’t want to be called a Coke. Though the differences are slight, there are differences.

Homosexuals can register as partners. They could even come up with a new word if they don’t like the word "partnership." And maybe because lesbian couples are different from gay male couples, they might want to come up with two terms. But please, we can protect the rights of all and still protect the definition of marriage. One man, one women, maybe some children if all goes right or not. That’s the risk we have called "marriage" for eons.


The opponents of Proposition 8 are trying to redefine a word that has represented a union between a man and a woman from the beginning. It’s amazing that our society thinks we have the right to change the meaning of something that nature is so clear about defining. Only a man and a woman can create a child. We call their legal commitment to each other and to their children “marriage” and it has always been thus.

There’s an analogy that sounds kind of silly but clearly makes a point. Changing the definition of “marriage” is kind of like trying to redefine a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. When you make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you put peanut butter on one slice of bread and jelly on the other and then you put the two slices together. Suppose someone were to come along and say, "I don't like jelly! Just use peanut butter on both slices of bread—but I still want you to call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich." PB&J simply doesn't describe the new sandwich. You can't redefine a PB&J just because you like the way this name sounds better than calling your new sandwich a “peanut butter and peanut butter sandwich!” It's a different combination and it needs its own term.

Opponents of Prop 8 have tried to frame the need to redefine the term “marriage” as a civil rights issue. Consider the often-aired commercial where the bride is trying to make her way to the altar, but she keeps encountering obstacles. She trips over cans tied to the back of a car; a flower girl tries to block her way; a wedding guest trips her with a cane. Finally, after someone restrains the groom from going to the bride's aid, these words come up on the screen: “What if you couldn't marry the person you love?” Someone unfamiliar with California law might think, "Oh my gosh, how horrible that the state of California refuses to acknowledge the rights of two people that love each other to be joined together, regardless of their gender!” That commercial very cleverly misguides people. It leads them to believe that Proposition 8 is going to prevent same-sex couples from creating a legally binding union with all the rights of traditional married couples. That's not what this is about! Same sex couples in California that would like to commit to each other legally have been able to do that for years. We call it a “domestic partnership.” By California law, domestic partners have all the rights and privileges of married couples. This vote isn't going to have any affect whatsoever on these legally guaranteed civil rights. This vote only applies to what we call that union. Opponents of Prop 8 want to change the recipe for their peanut butter sandwich but still call it a PB&J. But a PB&PB will never be the same as a PB&J.



Is Proposition 8 discriminatory? Opponents claim that same-sex couples should have the sames rights as married people. Guess what. In California, they already do. By law, same-sex couples who register as domestic partners have all the rights and privileges of married couples. Proposition 8 protects the name of marriage without Here's how the timeline to prove it:

The Evolution and Legalization of Same-Gender Relationships in California
1999 - The Domestic Partnership Registration Act is enacted by the California State Legislature, establishing a statewide registry for domestic partners. A “domestic partnership” was defined as “two adults who have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.” While stopping short of affording same gender couples the highly prized term “marriage” and the full range of legal rights and obligations associated with marriage, the Domestic Partner Registration Act bestowed basic legal recognition, rights, and obligations on domestic partner registrants, including hospital visitation privileges and certain employee health benefits of a partner.

2001 - The next several years saw the legislative expansion of the scope of benefits afforded to domestic partners. In 2001, domestic partners became eligible to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, to utilize employee sick leave to care for an ill partner or the child of an ill partner, to use unemployment benefits if relocated due to a partner’s job, to use stepparent adoption procedures to adopt a partner’s child, and the right to sue for the wrongful death of a partner.

2002 - The Probate Code was amended to afford domestic partners the right to automatically inherit a portion of the separate property of a deceased partner, and the Unemployment Insurance Code was amended to provide for 6 weeks of paid family leave to care for a sick spouse or domestic partner.

2003 - Assembly Bill 205, also known as the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (Domestic Partner Act), significantly expanded the rights afforded to domestic partners

“in order to secure to eligible couples . . . the full range of legal rights, protections and benefits, as well as all of the responsibilities, obligations, and duties to each other, to their children, to third parties and to the State, as the laws of California extend to and impose upon spouses.”

2005 - The final draft of the Domestic Partner Act became effective on January 1, 2005, under Family Code Section 297.5, which provides that:

“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

2005 - Family Code Section 297.5 (b) was added in order to equalize the rights and obligations of former registered domestic partners with those of former spouses.

2005 - Family Code Section 297.5 (c) was also added in order to afford a surviving registered domestic partner upon death of the other partner the same rights and responsibilities afforded to a widow or widower upon the death of a spouse.

2005 - Family Code Section 297.5 (d) further provides that the rights and obligations of a domestic partner, former domestic partner, or surviving domestic partner shall be the same as those of spouses, former spouses, or surviving spouses.

2005 - Eight months later in the case of Koebke v. Bermuda Heights Country Club, the California Supreme Court discussed Family Code Section 297.5 in addressing the marital status discrimination claims of a lesbian couple registered under the Domestic Partner Act against a country club that denied the couple benefits extended to married club members. In ruling that the lesbian couple had an actionable claim against the country club under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Supreme Court stated:

“a chief goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to equalize the status of registered domestic partners and married couples.”

2006 - The California Legislature amended Family Code Section 297.5 to afford registered domestic partners another privilege routinely afforded only to married couples, to wit, the opportunity to file income taxes jointly or separately for purposes of state income tax returns, with the earned income of jointly reporting domestic partners to be recognized as community property.

2007 - The California Legislature passed a law (Cal. Stat., Ch. 567) allowing domestic partners the opportunity to change their name to that of their partner during the domestic partner registration process.

2008 - In the case of In re Marriage Cases (43 Cal. 4th 75(2008)) the California Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry in the State of California. While the decision is widely considered to be a big step, legally it simply bestowed the highly prized term “marriage” upon a type of union that quietly albeit steadily developed the legal equivalent of marriage.