Saturday, October 11, 2008

YES On Proposition 8!

Proposition 8 protects the people’s will and overturns activist judges.
In 2000 over 61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 to reaffirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. However, because this language wasn’t put into the state Constitution when it was approved, four activist judges from San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote. In November 2008, Proposition 8 gives California voters the opportunity to reverse the court’s decision and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution.


Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward.
Proposition 8 contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” By putting these words directly into the state Constitution, the court cannot strike them down as unconstitutional.


Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions to this. Proposition 8 will not change this.


Proposition 8 protects our children.
Proposition 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code §51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.


Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society.
Proposition 8 protects marriage and the important role of a traditional family. While death, divorce or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.


YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things.

􀂃 It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

􀂃 It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

􀂃 It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Vote Yes on Proposition 8!
www.ProtectMarriage.com


Legalizing same sex marriage has real consequences. Clink on the link below to view full article:

First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why is it that when a Supreme Court judge rules on something that neoconservatives don't agree with, they are referred to as "activist judges"? Sounds like an easy way out for those who haven't been through legal schooling and training.

Marriage is about property and creating an environment to fuel capitalism. It is an institution that should stay in the church and out of secular politics.

Why don't you pro-8 people start a campaign to take "marriage" out of the state? That way, you can protect marriage all you want without having to inject your religious doctrine into the state constitution. Every couple, indiscriminate of sexuality, can then enter into a civil union and receive legal rights and state benefits. And you can keep marriage all to yourselves!

I want to comment on this awful propaganda: "In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage." In what universe is health education taught to kindergartners? Here is the whole text of Family Code 297.5, which you cite after this statement, because I want to be sure anyone reading this blog has the opportunity to check your (wrong) citations:

"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.
(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered
domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care
plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part
3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.
(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was
adopted by initiative.
(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses
shall be construed to include domestic partners.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision
or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits, and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with
respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either partner to seek financial support from the other following the
dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference
to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement's
effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as
of June 30, 2005." -- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fam/297-297.5.html
There is not one word in there that refers to a legal requirement of health ed for youngsters.

Why can't you all just own up to the fact that this is all about your own fears and hatred, commonly referred to as homophobia? Why don't you just come out and say, "I want everyone else to live by my moral standards"? Why, instead, must you try to influence others--using sources that don't quite add up--to think like you do? It's a changing world, my friends. It is inevitable that the separation of church and state will grow and grow, regardless of how many Propositions you pass.

Mr. Cox, you made a terribly positive impact on me while I was your student at Monache. I truly hope you are continuing to keep your religious beliefs to yourself and are not attempting to influence your students.

David Cox said...

Anonymous

You stated: "Why is it that when a Supreme Court judge rules on something that neoconservatives don't agree with, they are referred to as "activist judges"?"

Whether or not you acknowledge the four judges as "activist", you must admit that our system is very dangerous if 4 judges can go against the will of 61% of the people. They legislated from the bench.

You stated: "Marriage is about property and creating an environment to fuel capitalism. It is an institution that should stay in the church and out of secular politics."

Is this your view? If so, can you elaborate? It seems to me that prop 8 is trying to do just that: keep marriage in the church.

You stated: "Every couple, indiscriminate of sexuality, can then enter into a civil union and receive legal rights and state benefits. And you can keep marriage all to yourselves!"

If you truly believe this, then you should vote for prop 8. Check your own quote of the text of family code 297.5. Couples can already enter into civil unions.

You quoted family code 297.5 at length in an attempt to show error in the post. The problem is that Art didn't cite the family code in reference to health ed. He cited the Education code. Ed Code 51890 states the following: (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

So, yes, health ed is taught to kindergartners in this universe.

Unfortunately, you seem to be the one with the wrong citation.

I appreciate your comment and I respect your position. I am also glad that I made a positive impact on you. I wish I knew to whom I was responding. It is unfortunate that you didn't feel comfortable placing your name on you argument. I found your comment about my keeping my religious beliefs to myself to be a bit unfair and unnecessary. With that being said, I would love to enter into a dialogue about this to show you that those of us who believe in prop 8 aren't "homophobes" who are trying to coerce others to "believe like we do." But, in order to do this, it would be nice to put a name with the comments. That way I can ask you how you are doing? It is nice to catch up with former students.

Arthur Guillen Jr said...

Anonymous, thank you for your response and your opinion. However, your opening response, “Marriage is about property and creating an environment to fuel capitalism,” is completely mistaken. Where did you find that definition of marriage? Is that how you see marriage? I’ll let you answer that but also inform you that marriage is defined as, “"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” The true definition of marriage comes from the Church, not a dictionary. I find that most people who favor same sex marriage really don’t understand the true definition of marriage, thus providing statements that are extremely nonsense.
If we reduce marriage to simply property and capitalism, what do we often reduce life to? Simply, ‘Me’. When we view marriage in its proper context, we see that its life giving and extremely unselfish. As you can, these are two different types of people. One of the early church fathers St. Augustine, In the waning years of his life, wrote his mammoth work, The City of God. According to Augustine, the whole world is comprised of two communities: the City of God and the City of Man. Citizens of each city are determined not by one's birthplace or residence, but rather by the object of one's love: placing the love of God above self, or the love of self above God.
You and I may not share the same faith, but we can’t ignore the consequences that society’s face who allow same sex marriages. Marriage is family, it builds families because its life giving. As John Paul II once said, “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” History will repeat itself. It may not affect us now, or in 50 years, but societies who take marriage and families out of the equation will fall, and that’s another thing to be concerned about. However, those who love themselves more than their creator or anything else, often don’t care about what’s going to happen in the next 50 to 100 years. Again, It goes back to selfishness and what makes me feel good now, disregarding everything else that it will lead to.
Marriage itself creates life, it builds civilizations. Marriage between a man and woman is part of the natural law. Again from St. Augustine, “Sins against nature, such as those of Sodom, are always and everywhere to be abominated and punished.” I don’t mean to be harsh, but after a few of years of studying the early church fathers, I can see why they responded in such ways. Protect marriage is not about making marriage solely ours, its protecting what is holy, life giving, and in line with the natural law. Whether you believe in Christ or not, it addresses all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
Art

Anonymous said...

Such regurgitation. It's the same thing over and over. "Legislating from the bench", "Marriage between a man and woman is part of the natural law", etc etc.

Separation between church and state. It sounds so simple, but it is made to be so complicated!

And, just to note: Not a bit of what I've said is intended to be a personal attack on your religious beliefs. I respect all religious beliefs, even though the dominant ones (or one) are forced upon me at every corner of my life. I'm sorry if you took what I said personally. I just thought I would share my perspective. Take care you two.

David Cox said...

Anonymous
Unfortunately you haven't really given a perspective. You incorrectly cited the family code to argue against the Education code and you have used rhetoric to dismiss thoughtful responses as "regurgitation." The irony is that saying that this is a matter of "separation of church and state" is the ultimate in regurgitaiton. There is no "separation of church and state" in the US or State constitution. There is an "establishment clause" in the constitution that says that the government will not establish a state religion. In no way does prop. 8 establish a state religion.

I enjoy hearing what others think. That is why we have this blog. I wish you would elaborate on your position a bit more.

Just one last quesiton: What do you mean when you say that religious beliefs are forced upon you?

David Cox said...

Anonymous (if you are still out there...)

I didn't take any of your comments personally. I didn't mean any of mine personally as I was responding to an opinion and not a person (such is the case in an anonymous post.) I hope that you never felt that I abused my authority as your teacher. However, my religious beliefs cannot help but shape the way I teach.

I appreciate the fact that you have somehow found our blog and decided to leave an opinion. I am glad to see that my students have strong opinions and are willing to voice them. Keep voicing them...I am sure that you are an exclamation mark!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cox, I have been struggling with whether or not to comment and I'll share with you MY PERSPECTIVE:

As a queer person, I do not believe the issue of same-sex marriage raises the questions we should be asking. I've chosen not to respond because it is simply not my battle. With two highly destructive wars going on, I cannot see why people who claim to be patriots who love life can focus on this social issue that has such an obvious remedy (which, I believe, you misread. What I meant to say regarding civil unions is that marriage in all forms should stay within the confines of the church. Prop 8 would be injecting the Christian definition of marriage [man+woman] into to the state constitution which is, obviously, not keeping marriage in the church. Furthermore, I want to point out that many First Nations have certain peoples that do not adhere to the normative notions of gender; nor do these "two-spirit" people (an umbrella term for these non-gender conforming individuals) involve themselves in "marriages" to a person of the perceived opposite sex. Since we are all on Native land and, since you Mr. Cox are a white gentleman of presumably Euro descent, I think we should remember that all three major religions are visiting.

To be continued...

Anonymous said...

Again, I am not attacking you. I just think reminding people of these lesser-known facts can provoke an interesting reaction in the mind! If you ever want suggested readings on the First Nation beliefs I'm describing, I would be happy to provide some for you.

I do admit I made a mistake on citing the education code; I obviously read the post wrong. However, I am concerned about how realistic the Education Code is. I personally don't feel I would want my children learning about marriage at that age, regardless of who is doing the marrying. I am very close to kindergarten teachers and have spent a good amount of time in K classrooms, and I have never witnessed/heard a discussion on marriage. I just wanted to throw my experience out there.

When you stated that these "activist judges" legislated from the bench, it confused me just a bit. I've done quite a bit of political and juridical research, and it seems to me that judges are in fact supposed to interpret the laws on the books so as to find any inconsistencies, which is what they did for a number of Constitutions in the U.S. A couple of years ago, the CA state Congress passed a resolution legalizing same-sex marriage, only to have it vetoed by the Governator. Were these legislators just legislating from the legislature? Aren't they representatives of the people?

You've also cited the fact that Prop 22 was passed in 2000; a whole new wave of voters have registered since then. Times do change, and we are lucky enough to witness it!

Oh and I giggled a little when you used the word "rhetoric". Well, of course it was rhetoric. The definition of rhetoric is basically an argument...read some Plato! Sarah Palin cracks me up when she says "rhetoric" here and there. It really doesn't mean what a lot of ya'll want it to mean!

Thanks for letting me have this opportunity to speak. Unfortunately, I have little time to check this blog but I will try from time to time.

One more note: I see that you have an almost direct link from your class math blog to this one. Do you think that might intimidate some of your students a little?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I forgot to ask this. How is your family?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I forgot to ask this. How is your family?

David Cox said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Cox said...

Anonomyous
I don't have a bunch of time right now and will respond to the rest of your statements soon...

But there are two things I need to address.

1. My profile isn't on my class blog. That was on purpose. I didn't want them to "stumble" onto my personal blog. That is why I felt the comment about influencing my students was uncalled for. I take my professional responsibilities very seriously. The only direct link is from the personal to the professional; Not the other way around. Which at this point, I don't see a problem with that.

2. The family is great. Thanks for asking. We had our fourth son last July. He is not 15 months old and all over the place. Our third son, the preemie, is thriving. The March of Dimes bracelet has a special place...

You can see a pic of the boys if you go to my post entitled "Are you finished yet? http://protoevangelium.blogspot.com/2008/04/are-you-finished-yet.html

Thanks for entering the dialogue.

Anonymous said...

I sure didn't accuse you of influencing your students. I said that I hope you continue to keep your religious beliefs to yourself in class, which I have no doubt that you'll do!

Great to hear about a fourth son. I'm happy to hear everyone is healthy.

David Cox said...

How do you propose we keep marriage in the "confines of the church?" I am of the opinion that marriage has two aspects: the contractual and the covenantal. (See my post entitled "Should we be surprised (updated)" I would be curious to hear your opinion.) The courts have complete authority over the contractual aspect of marriage. That is what makes it necessary for the state to be involved (on some level)with the institution of marriage. I married my wife covenantally, but along with that comes contractual benefits and responsibilites (as per the law of the land).

I agree with you regarding the appropriateness of marriage being taught in K. However, if same sex marriage is legal, then how long before the children's books in Kindergarten contain references to Jimmy's two dads? I don't know that a K teacher will explicitly make statements on marriage, but the implicit references will abound.

What will happen when a couple approaches a priest or a pastor and wants to be married in the church, are denied and a lawsuit follows. It is tough to keep the "separation of church and state" in this situation.

I must admit that I am not going to be as informed as you are when it comes to the legislation in this area. So help me out...what is it about the current family code that is unacceptable? It seemed to me that the code explicitly states that civil union has the same legal status as marriage. Am I incorrect here?

Regarding rhetoric--
I found this quote from Plato: "Socrates: The fact is, as we said at the beginning of our discussion, that the aspiring speaker needs no knowledge of the truth about what is right or good... In courts of justice no attention is paid whatever to the truth about such topics; all that matters is plausibility... There are even some occasions when both prosecution and defence should positively suppress the facts in favor of probability, if the facts are improbable. Never mind the truth -- pursue probability through thick and thin in every kind of speech; the whole secret of the art of speaking lies in consistent adherence to this principle.
Phaedrus: That is what those who claim to be professional teachers of rhetoric actually say, Socrates.

--Plato, Phaedrus 272"

Now you may say I am taking this quote out of context. And I am not a philosophy student, but there is a difference between rhetoric and an argument. Argument is based on facts and rhetoric is persuasive speech. Now one who has a solid argument and good rhetorical skill, will probably win the debate...agreed?

So, you indeed used rhetoric to dismiss my argument as well as Art's without making an argument yourself.

But why is it that everytime someone has a conservative point of view they are labeled as "homophobic" or are considered an unread back woods hick who doesn't realize that "times have changed?"

I simply belive in truth. Times may change but truth doesn't.

Are you suggesting that "two spirit" people are the norm amongst those of a "first nation?"

How is school? Have you graduated yet? And how in the world did you find this blog? :)

David Cox said...

Oh, and if I do in fact have a link from my class blog to this one, please point it out to me. I want to get rid of that asap.

Anonymous said...

I want to start by commenting on the picture you linked me to: absolute heartbreakers, every single one of them! And as someone with five siblings, I can understand your annoyance with the questions that follow the divulgence of familial composition. People usually ask, "Are they half?" ... to which I have many sarcastic responses.

But onward with the current thread:

It's the contractual part of your view of marriage that is the issue here. I don't think anyone is wanting to attack the covenantal aspect; that is yours to conserve in any spiritual way you (and anyone who adheres to religious values) deem appropriate. Once "marriage" or ANY aspect of religion becomes imbued with the state (ie., the contractual union you're speaking of), it is legally up for argumentation. This assures freedom of religion, which any and every judge will rule in favor of (depending, of course, on the way the case is presented in court). With this freedom of religion comes a reply to your questions about lawsuits against the church. Any case that is presented to the court which accuses the church of exclusion will be tossed out without a second glance. The same goes for any private religious organization. See Welsh v. The Boy Scouts of America for an idea of how this is possible. I use this case because the Boy Scouts can also exclude, without risk of lawsuit, boys/adult men who are gay from participating in the organization. So if Prop 8 passes, priests, pastors, reverends, imams, rabbis and whoever else have the legal right to say "not in my church".

About Jimmy's two dads: It's interesting how you brought this up. I have seen stories about books introducing two dads or two moms and the subsequent uproar from parents. I am less concerned about a book in this case simply because a child in that class may have two moms or two dads already. As I said earlier, I would rather kindergartners not discuss marriage. However, if something comes up about the different faces of families (whether queer, single parented or interracial), what then does a teacher say? That there is only one type of family makeup? How then does a child who doesn't have a mother and a father, for whatever reason, begin to think about her or himself? These are more important questions to me.

I think the the fact that the family code is inclusive in the state of California is wonderful. Again, Prop 8 is not my fight. I am in a wonderful relationship with someone I want to spend the rest of my days with. My partner, along with other queer couples who are friends of ours, wrote and signed a letter to the editor of the local newspaper the day after the court ruled for same-sex marriage urging people not to forget about other, more important issues we are facing. Some lesbian and gay couples were excited about the ruling because they would acquire access to the health benefits of their spouse. But I say: Why aren't we fighting for the healthcare of those who cannot afford it to begin with?

I see you didn't capitalize "truth", but I'm guessing that's not what you meant to do? For you there is an ultimate Truth, with a capital T. Your truth may not be the same as others', though. My truth, for instance, does not include marriage. It does not adhere to the past.

Two-spirit, three-spirit, four-spirit (and so on) peoples are not considered "the norm" in some First Nations tribes. In fact, many are revered. They are given duties and responsibilities others in the indigenous group cannot touch. They are thought to contain great mystical powers! So no, they are not the "norm". However, they are never considered an "other". There are simply different truths.

By the way, I'm starting the process of applying for officer candidate school, or officer training school if I decide the air force is the way to go. Kinda great, huh? And one of my five siblings e-mailed me the link of your blog because this sib and this sib's friends were upset about an article you had in the Porterville Recorder. They thought I should check it out.

Can you tell me a bit about the word "protoevangelium"? What are its origins?

David Cox said...

Officer training school, huh? That is great. Did you ever get around to studying Chinese?

Protoevangelium is Greek for "first gospel." The first gospel refers to Genesis 3:15 when God promises a redeemer to come from the 'seed' of the woman. Very interesting that the 'seed' was to come from a woman.

To which article are you referring?

js said...

It may have been a letter to the editor. I didn't look into it, but it might be here on your blog?

And I decided to study Spanish instead. I'll be rounding this year out with Arabic, hopefully. I want to be a more desirable candidate. ;)

David Cox said...

I think that you and I are closer to agreeing on this whole thing than you may think. A lot of these issues that keep being thrown to the front tend to be a smoke screen for the greater issue: The dignity of the human person. Now we may disagree with how to protect said dignity.

You mention truth with a "T." I do believe there is an unchanging Truth. I don't accept the Kantian philosophy that states that God exists because I beleive he does. I believe God exists because He does, in fact exist. I don't see how it is possible for you and I to have different "truths." The irony in this relativistic philosophy where one would say that "there is no absolute truth", is that the statement itself is absolute. You said that your truth doesn't adhere to the past. What does that mean?

I am curious about these multi spirited people...How does one determine this? Is there any empirical evidence? Are these multi spirited people celibate?

Please don't think I am being obtuse (gotta throw a math term in now and then :)I am merely trying to understand your position.

David Cox said...

I just re-read you previous comments and have another question. Since you have said that marriage should stay in the confines of the church, are you of the opinion that the court went out of its jurisdiction to rule on same sex marriage?