*A RATIONAL APPROACH IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 8

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.

*SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE SCHOOLS

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:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-marriage-coalition-2208337-gay-parents

http://flashreport.org/commentary0b.php?postID=2008102702572854&authID=2005091915442370&post_offsetP=0

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.

*THE DISGRACE OF THE CTA DONATION TO NO ON 8

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQs4-5crLKI

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:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/oct/23/no-headline---ob9samesex23-ec/

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHWBWSaW-4

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

*WHAT OTHER BLOGGERS ARE SAYING ABOUT PROP 8

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.

*WOULD MARRIAGE BY ANY OTHER DEFINITION BE THE SAME?

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.

*SEND A "YES ON 8" MESSAGE TO THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

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

http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-refund-cta-nonbargaining-expenses

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!)

*THANKS TO ALL OUR VIDEO-MAKING SUPPORTERS!

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!