Today is the day!!

This is part of an email I recieved from my Sister-in-law this morning:

Please PRAY for California voters to vote YES on Prop 8! It is very heated here and tensions are high. The Prop 8 race is so close.

I just saw the most horrible commercial on YouTube that is scheduled to air on TV tomorrow unless efforts to stop it are successful. It shows mormon missionaries committing a home invasion on a lesbian couple to confiscate their wedding rings and marriage license. Talk about lies and intolerance!! They accuse Yes on 8 of being intolerant, yet they are the one demonstrating flat out lies and intolerance left and right.

This was written by my sister-in-law on a blog she started, thought I'd share since today is the day this hotly contested issue will be voted on. To me tolerance is about still having love and respect towards the people who have same gender attraction, but it does not involve condoning or accepting the sin of homosexuality by way of marriage.


Marriage is Between a Man and a Woman -- NOT Party A and Party B, Whatever Gender They May Be - Vote YES on Prop 8
Written by Staci J. Johnson October 2008

What is the definition of marriage? According to the Webster’s New World dictionary (1975) that I’ve had in my home since childhood, marriage is “1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife.” According to the Merriam - Webster Online dictionary (2008), marriage is “1. The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law,” but there is a new definition too: “2. The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage .”

Why the additional definition? In the State of CA the change in definition came when our CA Supreme Court voted 4-3 and overturned Prop.22, passed by a majority of CA voters in 2000 which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The people spoke, the courts ignored them. In Connecticut, gay marriage just became legal this month as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, despite their civil union laws, and the fact that their state legislature voted against same sex marriage. Both state courts cited equal protection under their state constitutions. Somehow I don’t think same sex marriage is what the founding fathers of either of these two states had in mind when their state constitutions were written. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage despite their marriage laws that specifically forbid it. I find it disturbing that the judicial branch is legislating from the bench.

What about the rights of gay couples, you may ask. Under a Domestic Partnership, same-sex couples are granted all the rights and responsibilities that the state of California extends to married couples (see California Family Code section 297.5). The only difference is the name. Marriage and domestic partnerships both involve committed couples, but the nature of the relationship is inherently different. Marriage, by traditional, long-standing definition, has couples of opposite sexes, domestic partnerships have couples of the same sex. Even since the Supreme Court granted gays the right to wed, we hear the terms traditional marriage and same-sex marriage to differentiate between the two. Why? Because they are different, plain and simple. As a comparison, diesel and gasoline are both fuels to run engines, but you certainly can’t interchange them.

Is it only a dictionary entry that will change with the changing definition of marriage? No. Many things will change. For starters, the education of our children will change and parents rights will
be trampled. In the state of Massachusetts, under the guise of “diversity” education, an illustrated story book titled “King and King” is shared with second graders. It is a book about a prince who married another prince and it includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. Regarding this issue, the ACLU has stated, “Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book … King and King.” In Massachusetts parents do not have the option to opt their children out of such lessons. They have tried, and failed.

The California Education Code requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage (section 51890). Thus, with a changed definition of marriage, young children will be taught about same-sex marriage. It won’t only be taught formally during “sex education,” which parent’s currently have the right to opt their children out of, but I believe it will be quietly slipped into the everyday curriculum as “diversity” education. “Diversity” education does not require parental notification or consent. So when parents who object to such teaching ask for their children to opt out, the request will be denied.

You might be thinking, we are not Massachusetts, it will be different here. Not so. Many of the major donors to the No on 8 campaign are those groups that are fighting so hard to teach gay marriage in the Massachusetts schools and to stop attempts of parents to opt their children out of it. In addition, the California Teachers Association has contributed at least $1 million to the No on 8 campaign. Further evidence that our children’s education will be affected if Prop. 8 fails.

Obviously same-gender relationships exist in our world, but it is a parent’s responsibility, not the school’s responsibility, to teach our children about such relationships when the children are ready. What about the teachers who object to teaching such material based on their religious or moral beliefs? Will they be fired if they refuse to teach such material? Based on the history of many other lawsuits, I would dare to say it could and, most likely, will happen.

Another change is that we will see increased lawsuits in our courts, such as the Roseville couple that filed suit to be acknowledged as bride and groom, rather than Party A and Party B on their marriage license. Their license was deemed invalid by the State because they wrote Bride and Groom next to Party A and Party B. They were notified by the state, after their wedding, that alterations on forms are not allowed, and that their marriage was not valid. Due to their suit, they have been acknowledged as a married couple, and the forms have now been changed to give the option to check Bride and Groom, or gender can be left off entirely. Seems ironic to me that gender be optional on a Marriage License and that a man and a woman had to sue to be acknowledged as bride and groom.

Religious Freedoms are at jeopardy if Prop 8 fails. Religions could be accused of discrimination or hate speech if they teach that same sex relations are immoral. They could be forced to perform same sex marriages or lose their tax exempt status. Religious adoption agencies could be forced to place children with same sex couples. This country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, yet we are seeing our government slowly creep in and override our religious freedoms. For examples of lawsuits that have already hit the courts and are limiting people‘s religious freedoms, please see “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the world began. Once we start re-defining it, where does it end? How will it be re-defined next? The possibilities are endless. Let’s STOP re-defining words. Marriage is between a man and a woman, NOT Party A and Party B, whatever gender they may be. Vote YES on PROP 8.