Emergency Marriage Alert (4/15/04)

[Exton1]

PLEASE FORWARD THIS URGENT MESSAGE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN CALIFORNIA

CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES (CCF)
Randy Thomasson, Executive Director
www.savecalifornia.com

"HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" BILL SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 20 HEARING AT 8 A.M.

Emergency Action Alert: AB 1967 Needs Phone Calls, Emails, Faxes, Letters Immediately

Under the cover of the big workers' compensation issue at the State Capitol, the Democrat-controlled Assembly Rules Committee today sent AB 1967, the full-blown homosexual "marriage" bill that rejects the vote of the people, to the Assembly Judiciary Committee for a vote early Tuesday at the unusual early time of 8:00 a.m.

This controversial "gay marriage" bill has been unassigned for nearly two months now due to public pressure, but the Democrats who rule the Assembly apparently want to "test" the voters as they push to impose full-blown homosexual "marriage" upon California as a role model for the children. They want to pass AB 1967 through two committees and bring it to the Assembly floor. Don't let this happen. Stop and realize that AB 1967 is only going forward because the ruling Democrats have not heard from you or your friends loudly enough. Now is the time for action!

AB 1967 is scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, April 20 at 8 a.m. (new early time) in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which will meet in Room 4202 of the State Capitol.

Please take personal action right away. Don't think of your involvement as optional. This is the time to fight for marriage and morality, and AB 1967 needs a FLOOD of pro-family opposition today, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Pray and work to stop AB 1967 at the Assembly Judiciary Committee. We have a fighting chance if you and thousands of others take renewed action right now.

There has never been an official committee hearing on a "civil unions" or homosexual "marriage" bill in the history of California. Don't let history be changed or the definition of marriage be destroyed. Do your part now to protect marriage! Raise your voice with phone calls, emails and faxes! Use the AB 1967 Action Flyer to activate others!

PLEASE TAKE ANY OR ALL OF THESE IMPORTANT ACTION STEPS:

1. Send a Brand-New Email Message
2. Print and Distribute the AB 1967 Action Flyer
3. Call the Assembly Speaker and the Committee Members
4. Fax Your Opposition Letter (Sample Letter Provided)
5. Come to Tuesday's big hearing

1. CCF has a brand-new message for you to email to every state legislator saying "OPPOSE AB 1967." Even if you've used CCF's email system this year, please act today to send another powerful "Stop AB 1967" email message to the Judiciary Committee members and to every state legislator in Sacramento. Click here and for easy instructions: http://www.savecalifornia.net/index.php?id=gaymarriage

2. Help generate a flood of phone calls and email messages opposing AB 1967. Download and distribute the AB 1967 Action Flyer at your church this weekend: http://www.savecalifornia.com/actioncenter/ab1967_0304.cfm

3. Call Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and the 12 members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Tell them "How dare you even THINK of trashing my vote to protect marriage for a man and a woman. Stop AB 1967 right now. Marriage is for a man and a woman, and the people of California voted to keep it that way!"

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-downtown Los Angeles)

916-319-2046 / fax 2146
213-620-4646 / fax 213-620-6319

Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro), committee chair
916-319-2018 / fax 2118

Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara)
916-319-2035 / fax 2135

Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), AB 1967 Co-author
916-319-2014 / fax 2114

John Longville (D-San Bernardino Co.), AB 1967 Co-author
916-319-2062 / fax 2162

Sally Lieber (D-San Jose), AB 1967 Co-author
916-319-2022 / fax 2122

John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), AB 1967 Co-author
916-319-2027 / fax 2127

Cindy Montanez (D-San Fernando), AB 1967 Co-author
916-319-2039 / fax 2139

Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), AB 1967 Co-author
916-319-2009 / fax 2109

Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach)
916-319-2067 / fax 2167

Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut)
916-319-2060 / fax 2161

Todd Spitzer (R-Orange)
916-319-2071 / fax 2171

Patricia Bates (R-Oceanside)
916-319-2073 / fax 2173

4. Write a brief letter opposing AB 1967 on personal, business, church or organizational stationery. Fax it to the Assembly Judiciary Committee at (916) 319-2188, and fax a copy of your letter to CCF at (916) 848-3456. You may also fax your letter to other members of the Judiciary Committee by changing the addressee and salutation. Here is a sample letter to edit, or copy and paste if you wish:

(Date)

The Honorable Ellen Corbett Chair, Assembly Judiciary Committee State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB 1967 -- Oppose

Dear Chairwoman Corbett:

(Name of organization) strongly oppose AB 1967, which will usher homosexual "marriage" into California, violating the will of the people and the state constitution that prevents the Legislature from amending or rejecting the vote of the people on Proposition 22.

This radical bill would allow any two persons  two men or two women  to receive a government-approved gender-neutral marriage license. Completely destroying the uniqueness of marriage for a man and a woman, AB 1967 trashes the vote of the people to protect marriage and turns this sacred institution upside down.

AB 1967 would create same-sex marriage in California, violating Proposition 22 and the will of 61.4 percent of the voters who demanded that the sacred rights of marriage be protected for a man and a woman, a husband and a wife.

I urge you to protect the rights of voters and resist this bad bill which would completely destroy the uniqueness of marriage in California. The state should strengthen and protect marriage between a man and a woman, not weaken or eliminate the distinction of this sacred institution.

Just four years ago, 4.6 million Californians went to the polls and demanded that marriage rights be protected for a man and a woman only. AB 1967 goes directly against the voters and the state Constitution:

Marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman. - Arnold Schwarzenegger on the nationally-syndicated Sean Hannity radio show, August 28, 2003

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. - Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative, approved by 61.4 percent of California voters (4,618,673 voters) on March 7, 2000

The Legislaturemay amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval. - California State Constitution, Article II, Section 10(c)

Because the voters have overwhelmingly spoken and have stated that marriage should only be for a man and a woman, please oppose AB 1967. This bill would destroy the uniqueness of marriage, reject California voters, and reject and our state Constitution. Marriage is only for a man and a woman!

Sincerely, (Signature) (Name) (Position) (Organization)

5. Come to the committee hearing in Sacramento to add your voice at the hearing. There will be an opportunity for you and your friends to come to the microphone and state your name and that you are opposed to AB 1967. Bring your friends to Room 4202 at the State Capitol at 8 a.m. (new early time) on Tuesday, April 20. The State Capitol Building is on the corner of 10th and L Streets in Sacramento.

# # #

CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES (CCF) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization serving families in this state and across America. Sign up today for CCF's free email updates at www.savecalifornia.com. Your partnership empowers CCF to work to restore family-friendly values to government and society. Please join with us by sending a gift of any size to:

Campaign for California Families
Randy Thomasson, Executive Director
Fighting to Restore Family-Friendly Values P.O. Box 782, Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 443-1410
www.savecalifornia.com

One hundred percent of CCF's resources can be used to boldly influence government on your family's behalf; therefore gifts are not tax deductible.

[little jeremiah]

When discussing most topics, factless opinion doesn't count for much. In what passes for debate in discussion about homosexuality, the pro-"gay" crowd subsist solely on emotion and feelings, with not a shred of fact, truth, statistics, research, history or common sense to support their opinions.

Therefore, such opinions are worth less than cow manure.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but not a right to be right.

The next question is, WHY have an opinion that is contradicted by fact and truth? Hmmmm.

[scripter]

In what passes for debate in discussion about homosexuality, the pro-"gay" crowd subsist solely on emotion and feelings, with not a shred of fact, truth, statistics, research, history or common sense to support their opinions.

That reminds me of Baghdad breakem Bob. Not a shred of fact to backup what he says. He cannot support anything he's said and cannot refute anything we've said. Yep. Baghdad breakem Bob.

[little jeremiah]

Hmm, two "professional people" who "love each other" etc? Would it be different if it was three auto body mechanics who wanted to "love each other" for an hour? Or a couple of weeks?

Look at the statistics of homosexual promiscuity, if you dare.

[ChocChipCookie]

"I don't think gays "choose" that lifestyle. Why would they?" I can tell you that they do.....I was one. It's a form of 'rebellion'.....

You know, Chani, I had never thought about rebellion as being one of the reasons individuals get into the homosexual lifestyle. I think a lightbulb just went on for me. :o)

My SIL (dh's twin) has been a lesbian since high school. Supposedly, her best friend placed that as a condition to the continuation of their friendship, but I definitely see a large amount of rebellion in her. She is constantly needling my husband about her great academic exploits and is unnaturally competitive with him. (Come on, at 37 ACT YOUR AGE!!) She spouts off programmed lines with words like, "patriarchal domination." Dh has told me that for years she resented the very fact that HE actually came out of their mother's womb first! It's insanity.

We get along very well, but I also know that at some point in the near future she and I will have a little "come to Jesus" chat. Our daughter (almost 5) will never be taught that Aunt Becky's lifestyle is OK. We will never tell her that Aunt Becky and (put current girlfriend's name here) are just like a married couple. This won't make Aunt Becky happy, but that's not my responsibility. My daughter loves her aunt, and we will always encourage that. As she gets older and understands more, we will also make sure she joins us in prayer for her aunt.

The more I see and hear of homosexuals, the more I am convinced that the "same sex attraction disorder" diagnosis was correct. Not politically correct, but correct all the same. My SIL has lived a very sad and painful life in spite of her bragging and bravado. My heart goes out to her.

[OutInTheColdAgain]

You Wrote: In regards to homosexuality and genetics, the work of homosexual activist Dr. Simon Levay has often been used to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic

I don't know the name of any homosexual activists. I read articles in mainstream newspapers and magazines but I have not gotten into the whole "homosexual agenda" thing.

My claim to fame is not going to be that I can write outstanding articles. I am pretty well read and one columnist I enjoy tremendously is Leonard Pitts Jr a columnist with the Miami Herald Tribune. He was awarded with a Pulitzer prize just a couple weeks ago. I really admire him and have been reading him for a long time, before I even knew my children were gay. I remember many of his columns, you probably do too, he wrote that pretty widely circulated column after 9/11 ...the one that goes something like "We are a family and when you attacked one of us you attacked us all" That is the guy. In this column he wrote is what I would respond to you with. http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts20_20040220.htm

[OutInTheColdAgain]

For a long time I lurked and never posted in any of the Gay threads because I thought, well what was the point? In a Gay topic there was a link to a web site called, I think it was the Family Research Council, or something like that. I spent a lot of time at that web site and analyzed the web pages.

I remember reading about a trial or a program I guess would be a better word. Basically it was a program for Gays who wanted to be heterosexual, like Gay rehab :), if you will. When I read the statistics of the program they were miserable. First of all the participants were all strong Christians, they were really motivated to change. I might be wrong here but the statistics showed how often they attended church, plus I think a large percentage of them were in fact married. So I thought to myself, Church going, Married Christians who really want to be straight- sounds like a motivated group of people to me.

Well the results of the program were miserable. I think after 2 years like 90% of them went back to being gay. I actually wondered why, and I think it was the Family Research Council, even put the information on their web site??? This study/program just reinforced to me that for those people, being gay was their nature, not anything they were choosing. If those motivated people couldn't change their nature, well to me being gay then is not something that is chosen. They are who they are.

I apologize for not reading your links. I did look at links on other posts previously, really searching for the truth that being gay is horrible. BTW I spend NO time looking at Gay web sites. I invested a lot of time previously searching on the anti (I hate the words "anti" it has a negative" connotation) gay web sites and I did not find anything that would make me reject my children or look at them less for being Gay. It's not for me, but I accept it in others. I am reluctant to invest that amount of time again, which is why I didn't search on your links. I may come back to it when I have more time. If so I'll drop you a freepmail.

[OutInTheColdAgain]

Thanks. I wish my kids were gay conservatives. They are both hard core DemocRATS. Believe me we have more arguments about politics in our family than we do about being gay.

Obviously strongly disagree with Bush on his Constituitional Amendment against gay marriage.

[OutInTheColdAgain]

You wrote: Blacks are just like homosexuals? Say that to one next time you see him on the street and see if he agrees with you.



Yeah, you are right about this. And was I surprised to find that out. The Pulitzer Prize winning Columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. really took the black community to task in this column http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts12_20040312.htm

The strongest words in the column are "How can we of all people, we who know the weight of American oppression better than almost anyone, stand in the path of those who seek simple equality? How can we support writing anyone out of the Constitution when it took us so long to be written in?" - That is powerful.

I repeat the anti gay sentiments are largely generational. It may not be this year but public opinion of the younger generations is accepting of gays.

[OutInTheColdAgain]

In this country you have the absolute right to raise your daughter the way you see fit. I' sorry that you believe your sister in law has a miserable life. Not all gays do you know. My kids have wonderful full lives. They are really happy people. Lot's of heterosexual couples have miserable lives as well. I think if you are gay and in the closet then you are asking for a hard life. However coming out of the closet and being who you are, while not guaranteeing a happy life at least puts you on an equal footing with the rest of society.

Good luck to you and your family. I hope your daughter does not turn out gay. Why would anybody chose to be gay? It is not something I would ever choose for my kids, or even anything I ever encouraged. But I can honestly say I love them the same, gay or straight.

[OutInTheColdAgain]

You wrote: Look at the statistics of homosexual promiscuity, if you dare.

I did, it was awful! It was in some mainstream newspaper or magazine I read. There is some STD that is really ripping through the gay community. It is up dramatically for heterosexuals also but even worse for gays. Thankfully my children are not promiscuous.

My son is actually administering a clinical trial for the CDC out of Atlanta, and if the trial is successful it will be the protocol for all AID programs in the USA. Then in the fall he is off to Africa with the Peace Corps to fight AIDS. I would not recommend anyone lead a promiscuous lifestyle, either heterosexual or homosexual.

[OutInTheColdAgain]

I just checked into FR at the end of the night and am sorry that I was not able to reply to you in real time. I apologize for the multiple posts in a row however I thought you really did want me to respond.

I will leave you with this thought. Not all gays are beating the pavement calling attention to themselves waving their flag. It is like someone wrote earlier, there is this vocal firing who is "in your face" and I suppose to the more quiet gays, they owe the flag waivers a debt of gratitude. If not for those "in your face" type of gays there would not be so much acceptance, "no big deal" from the younger generation. Because of the flag wavers, my children's lives are much much better.

I never hoped to change anyone's opinion here. I pretty much figured before I posted that you have strong convictions on this issue. My goal was only to let you know that I hope my two children will... one day... enjoy the same civil rights that you all enjoy. I am pretty busy for the next couple days so if you don't hear back from me please don't be offended.

I goggled on the Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. Looking for his column about how blacks feel about gay civil rights. In that search I came across two more really good columns which will give you food for thought.

Gays in the Military?
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts7_20040107.htm

And this is really the crux of the matter. It is about surviving family members of 9/11 victims
http://www.ljworld.com/section/diary_101401/story/69708

[little jeremiah]

The rates of promiscuity for homosexuals is vastly higher than for normal people. Especially the rates for male homosexuals can't even be compared. Not only are the STD rates incredibly higher, but also diseases such as parasites, various kinds of hepatitis, "gay bowel syndrome", and every venereal disease known to man are extremely high. This behavior is not natural, not healthy, and no amount of money thrown (wasted) on it will help.

[little jeremiah]

Jim Robinson, the owner and founder of Free Republic, has stated that he specifically is opposed to the homosexual agenda (among other leftist, secularist, liberal evils). He does not want this forum used by those who want to promote such things. This forum is for conservatives who want to discuss conservative issues.

Take you homosexual promotion elsewhere. We aren't interested, and you won't last long if you keep it up.

P.S. That old news about the 3 retired homosexual generals (one didn't count, he was Coast Guard) was discussed, dissected, and commented on weeks ago. Those three are among the tiny minority (maybe the only ones) who want homos in the military. No wonder, since they are homosexual. If you wanted to be educated (obviously you don't) you would have read some of the threads here about those three homosexuals. You would have read comments from ex and current military guys here on FR, and they are 100% opposed to homosexuals in the military, asking, telling or not.

You are a shill for the homosexual activists, and I don't even believe that you have two homosexual daughters. If it is true, I am sorry for them and you. Homosexuality is neither normal, natural, healthy, or benign. It is a mental illness, and when acted upon and/or promoted, a dangerous vice. If the promotion of homosexual acts is not stopped, it will destroy human society. If you don't know that the "gay rights" activists want to eventually do away with the age of consent laws, you have been hoodwinked. And if you do know, you are trying to hoodwink others.

I would suggest banning yourself from FR before others do it for you.

Take your smarmy, phony-polite, caring and concerned, saccharin, fake-humble homo-promotion crap elsewhere. We don't buy it, never have, never will.

And neither do the majority of Americans.

[Happy2BMe]

Save California - ping.

[Happy2BMe]

California Supreme Court Orders a Halt to Same Sex Marriages

GAY MARRIAGE Unlawful - New Paltz, New York Police Chief's Summons (Actual Summons Pics)

D.A.: I'll arrest same-sex wedders - Says homosexuals committing frauds

* * * * *

* * * *

The War For The Soul Of America

QUEERLY BELOVED New York AG: Same-sex marriage illegal

Mayor facing charges for same-sex weddings>
Mayor Jason West

Another city backs same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage comes to N.Y. town

Action filed to remove S.F. mayor, AG

Bush announces support for marriage amendment

Arnold: Terminate same-sex marriage

'Anarchy is breaking loose across America'

Same-sex wedding officiant 'arrested'

Faulty forms to void same-sex marriages?

Judges allow same-sex marriages to continue

Judge delays same-sex marriage ruling

Schwarzenegger urged to arrest S.F. mayor

Same-sex weddings proceed unhindered

Lawsuit challenges homosexual 'marriages'

San Francisco officials marry same-sex couple

San Francisco mayor defies 'gay'-marriage ban

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage

It's 'gay' marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes 'gay' marriage

'Gay' marriage ruling's consequences 'dire'

'Gay' marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block 'gay' marriage - Vatican also launches campaign to battle 'civil unions'

Poll suggests backlash on 'gay' issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears 'right to sodomy' case

High court to give 'gays' their own 'Roe'?

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)

[Happy2BMe]

Excellent.

[little jeremiah]

P.S. If two homosexuals live together, they are not a family. A family means either blood relatives like parents and children, or married relatives like husband and wife, and in-laws.

A family is not, nor will it ever be, a relationship based on two or more people of the same sex who practice sodomy together.

Even a man and a woman living together without the benefit of marriage vows become "common law" after seven years (in most states). Two men who are homosexual, or women, can live together for 50 years and they do not fall under the definition of a family.

Plus, have you read how many homosexual "couples" are actually monogamous? Precious few.

Take your propaganda to those who will believe it - your fellow homosexuals and promoters of same. Enjoy your fanatasy.

[little jeremiah]

I think - I smell it in the air, like the cottonwood trees by the river - that the tide is turning. Spring is in the air.

The homosexuals and other assorted libertines are not in the ascendant any more. I think the zenith has been reached, and that more and more people will wake up, and realize - that way lies death.

[OutInTheColdAgain]

Correction to you. I have a daughter and a son, both gay. I am conservative, however I disagree with the majority of conservatives on this issue. The topic is about gay marriage in California and I do have a vested interest in seeing my children have the same civil rights as you enjoy. I understand that you do not agree and I'm fine with that. I jsut don't want you thinking that I am some kind of plant or that I may not pose an opposing opinion. Heck with your rules then I guess Dick Cheny can't post on FR either since his daughter is gay. You are allowed to state your opinion and facts, I believe that seeing as how I hold 90% of the conservative agenda that I am also allowed to post here as well on both topics i agree with and also with topics I don't agree with. Did you ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans?

Look I don't want to "get into it" with you. I will gladly slip away and leave you to continue on. Good evening and good night.

[risk]

I think you're confusing what society has traditionally bestowed on married couples as a "right" and an entitlement for all. We are not expressing prejudice when we say that marriage is for opposite sex couples. (Some may, but I don't.)

In a very real sense, marriage status is a financial burden on society. We pay for civil facilities, legal documentation, and court functions to support the couples we marry. This is done for one important reason: it's how human beings procreate, and it's how we have determined we should best organize our families.

Non-traditional couples offer society nothing in return for their unions. Since there is a cost involved with the civil aspects of their relationships, they cost society in ways that are not mutually agreeable to people with traditional values. Moreover, the tax and spousal benefits they are demanding are a drain on resources we could be providing to real families.

Furthermore, marriage is a means for society to say that it blesses a given relationship. We can all agree that healthy men and women who under ordinary circumstances might have been able to have children are fit to be married. However, most of us disagree about other types of relationships. To force the majority to bless relationships they either do not recognize as holy or feel are not worth supporting is an extremely undemocratic measure to impose on society. In short, it's the tyranny of the minority imposed on the majority.

Finally, the shared financial and civic load marriage exerts on society is something we only all agree to with respect to the traditional family unit. Asking Christians to pay for legal proceedings regarding same sex "divorces" presents them with an anathema. In short, it is taxation without representation.

This is about religion for some and about representative government and taxation with representation for others. Whatever the case, your children are free to do whatever they please but they shouldn't need me to support their practices with either my financial or legal blessing. To force me to do so is something I would find both collectivist and untennable from a perspective of cultural values.

These measures are hell bent on changing our society as if we were a simple laboratory in which to test and tinker. We are not lab animals. We are people. And we reject the idea that we have to support unfruitful unions in any way, shape, or form. Let them go in peace, but do not demand that we support them.