*PROPOSITION 8 AND OUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION

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.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=91554986

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.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=page.printable&pageld=66247

A Lutheran school in Riverside county has been sued for expelling twoallegedly lesbian students.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/6.20.html

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.
http://tinyurl.com/GaySuesDR

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”.

*SCHOOL CHILDREN PARTICIPATE IN "COMING OUT DAY"

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.

http://ifprop8fails.org/DNA/LetterToParents.pdf

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."

http://ifprop8fails.org/DNA/GayAgendaInstructions.pdf

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

*WHY MARRIAGE IS REGULATED BY THE STATE

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:
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html