Freepers need to support efforts on Prop 8 in California "One man, one woman marriage"

Protect Marriage.com ^ | October 23, 2008 | the eagle has landed

[TheEaglehasLanded]

The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." Proposition 8: The California Marriage Protection Amendment

Proposition 8 places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61% of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn an outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.

About Proposition 8

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It 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.”

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

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, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

[NinoFan]

Oh, and by reasonable, I don’t mean I agree with it. I just recognize that it’s an attack that may actually work at the federal level. It will all depend on what side of the day Kennedy gets up on that day, I suppose.

[caseinpoint]

You are right and perhaps I either miscommunicated or I misunderstood your arguments. I think we are definitely on the same side. I don’t put any argument past those who want to ensure gay marriage rights, Twilight Zone or not. Gays as an interest group are one of the wealthiest in the country and have lots of money and help to challenge it every way it can. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them try to wear down the amendment with a stream of challenges—all the while arguing that until the matter is legally resolved, the amendment should be stayed since it takes away something they argue is already in the constitution. Environmentalists use the same method: they file a complaint, let it wind its way through the court process and when it appears the matter will be lost, another group files another complaint, sometimes actually using the same complaint as the earlier one with new plaintiffs. The courts note this also but keep on permitting these judicial tranvesties in the name of power to the people, or the “common good”. So we will have a very aggressive challenge and probably, at least in California, a very sympathetic judiciary. One of the major victories of the gay groups, besides the original court ruling, was the refusal of the court to stay issuance of licenses until after the election. Granting licenses is now the status quo and court will lean towards preserving the status quo during any pendency of the challenges. We will all need to gird up our loins and be prepared for the long fight to preserve marriage.

(Excuse the typos or grammatical mistakes: I just washed my hands and can’t do a thing with them.)