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: