The lie was that school districts in California would be *forced* to teach that same-sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage unless Proposition 8 passed. In fact any decision on how to treat same-sex relationship lies in the hands of local school boards, regardless of whether Proposition 8 passed or not.

The gay-inclusive curriculum in Lexington, Massachusetts was the product of the local school board. It was in no way mandated by Massachusetts state law or by Massachusetts’ legalization of gay marriage. The parents who objected to the curriculum still have every right to change it through political means, again, regardless of the legal status of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

As usual, there is more than is being let on.

“A video posted on The Bakersfield Californian Web site shows Mettler in front of gay marriage supporters holding Yes on Prop. 8 signs that had been altered to read No on Prop. 8.”

“Mettler was confronted by a protester who tried to grab the signs from him.”

“The video shows Mettler swinging and kicking the protester.”

Sounds like another instance of fringe gay rights supporters physically attacking someone who was peacefully excersizing his Constitutional right to free speech. We have every right to defend ourselves against physical attack.

Thanks for this opportunity to set the record “straight” (so to speak!)

Really.

I couldn’t make this up.

The “messaging” of the Right Wing is clear and they’re “on message” working hard to paint a false picture of Prop 8 protesters as terrorists and frame themselves as victims. Thanks for this opportunity to set the record “straight” (so to speak!)

The Reverend Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena

The same groups now charging it’s a lie (public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not) — were just in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don’t have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“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.” [p 9]

Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims? I suspect the “Yes on 8” folks keep many more of the Ten Commandments (including “Bearing false witness”) than the “No on 8” side (some of whom subscribe to the “Ten Suggestions”).

Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine California’s marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California’s marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.

When same-sex couples seek California’s approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.

Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, “it is force”. An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as “marriage” would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has already happened in Massachusetts (CatholicCharities and Lexington Public Schools), New Jersey (Methodist Church lost its tax exemption), etc. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality.

Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.

The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states’ marriage laws must be based on “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”

So far, no gay-rights activist has had the fortitude to burn a Qur’an on the doorstep of a militant mosque where imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals (even celibate ones).

Oh, I forgot, criticizing Moslems is off-limits for the Politically Correct. The Moslem imams might issue a “fatwa” on all homosexuals.