'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- November 2008: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

On Thanksgiving Eve, Obama family hands out food to the needy at a Chicago church

On Thanksgiving Eve, Obama Family Hands Out Food to the Needy ABC News, By Matt Jaffe, November 26, 2008
On Thanksgiving Eve, President-elect Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and his daughters Malia and Sasha, all bundled up in winter coats and hats, dished out chickens to the needy at a Chicago church, leaving some overcome with emotion. "The number of people who are getting food this year is up 33 percent," Obama said of the crowds who gathered at the Windy City's St. Columbanus Church. "And I think it gives a sense -- times are tough. And I think that on Thanksgiving, it's important for us to remember people in need, but it's important not just during Thanksgiving." "These folks were already often times having a tough time and it gets tougher now," he added. "So we want to make sure that people that can give, that are able to contribute to the food depository, volunteer, participate. This is part of what Thanksgiving should be all about." Obama, who noted this was his third year at his hometown food bank, was asked why he had brought his two daughters with him. "I want them to learn the importance of how fortunate they are and make sure they are giving back," he responded. . . . . ."I just want you to know that what I'm thankful for is my family and my friends and my community," he concluded. "That's the most important things." As he departed, the kids serenaded him with chants of "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" Their hour-long visit over, Obama and his family returned to their Hyde Park home just past noon local time, where they will spend the rest of the day and tomorrow's holiday. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gleaners descend on Colorado farm One News Now- AP, November 28, 2008
People who've studied their Bible or who paid attention during Sunday school are familiar with gleaning. That is the ancient practice of picking up leftover food in farm fields. One Colorado farm couple got a huge surprise when they opened their fields to anyone who wanted to pick up free vegetables left after the harvest -- 40,000 people showed up. On Saturday, the fields were picked so clean that a second day of gleaning was canceled. Joe and Chris Miller say they opened the farm to the free public harvest for the first time this year, after hearing reports of food being stolen from churches. Miller says they had a profitable year and could have made a little more on the potatoes but decided to let those in need have the food. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Some share the bounty this bleak Thanksgiving San Francisco Chronicle, By Todd Lewan, November 26, 2008
A Thanksgiving ago, many of us were fretting over delays at the airport, our holiday season shopping lists, even things like whether to get another Botox injection or a new set of wheels. Now we worry about keeping gas in the car. Or just keeping the car. This Thanksgiving, a slumping economy is making many Americans more fearful than thankful. And yet, as grim as these days are, millions of Americans are still preparing to turn a meal into a celebration — to find joy in the midst of growing hardship. You could see glimmers of it everywhere. . . . . "People need to stop being so worried about me, me, me, my bills, my life," he says. "You stop worrying, and look what happens?". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Thanksgiving food program helps thousands of local families The Times Tribune-Scranton, By Borys Krawczeniuk, November 26, 2008
The line of need stretched out of the Scranton Cultural Center, up North Washington Avenue, then around the corner and halfway up the block to the Children’s Library. Stephen Lee lined up in the autumn cold Wednesday with faith that the slumping economy won’t always be this bad. As he waited to receive a free turkey and other goods from the annual Family to Family Thanksgiving food giveaway, the 55-year-old unemployed construction worker said he’s surviving. “Barely, but I’m doing okay,” Mr. Lee said. “This is like a safety key for everybody, not just for me, but for the community ... It’s a blessing. It’s a real blessing.” . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The First Lady who found she couldn't have it all - a new biography on Michelle Obama reveals her cruel awakening The Daily Mail- UK, By Liza Mundy, November 27, 2008
She's the boss; gotta check with the boss, is Barack Obama's standard comment, reinforcing his wife's image as the coolly impressive power behind the new U.S. President-elect. Indeed, some say Michelle Obama is even smarter than her husband. Well organised and a formidable list-maker, she can be forceful and at times intimidating. Former colleagues describe her as a better boss than an employee. Barack and Michelle's united ambition has taken them to the pinnacle of power. But as she oversees the packing for the move to Washington, Michelle surely cannot help but reflect that had her husband been prepared to do as she had once demanded, his career in politics would have been over before it had even begun. Less than ten years ago, Michelle was decidedly hostile about her husband's political ambitions. . . . . . .She was also unfazed by another inevitable aspect of her husband's rising profile - female competition. 'I never worry about things I can't affect, and with fidelity... that is between Barack and me, and if somebody can come between us, we didn't have much to begin with.' Valerie Jarrett, one of Michelle's oldest friends, puts it a little more vividly. 'He knows that if he messes up, she'll leave him. She'll kill him first - and then she'll leave him. And I think there is a subtle element of fear on his part, which is good.'. . .

Power struggle complicates NY bid for same-sex marriage

Power struggle complicates NY bid for gay marriage Reuters, By Edith Honan, November 26, 2008
- New York is close to becoming the first state to pass legislation making gay marriage legal but, like many political issues in the state capital Albany, it has fallen victim to a power struggle. Democrats won a majority in the upper house Senate for the first time in more than 40 years in the November 4 election, but three Democratic senators refuse to back fellow Democratic Sen. Malcolm Smith as majority leader without concessions. The Republicans could regain their power in the Senate if the three Democratic senators, who include longtime gay marriage opponent Sen. Ruben Diaz, opt to vote with them. "I will not give my vote to a leader that will bring gay marriage to the state," Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, said in an interview. "Have a voter referendum. Let the people decide." Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow same-sex marriage as a result of court rulings. No state legislature has instituted gay marriage into law. After Californian voters passed Prop 8 on November 4 reversing the state's Supreme Court decision in May to allow same-sex marriage, the next battleground state for gay marriage is expected to be New York. The New York Assembly passed a marriage bill in June 2007 but the Senate has yet to act. The Senate power struggle has delayed appointment of a majority leader until January and upset gay rights activists who believed gay marriage would be legalized once Democrats took control of the Senate. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts: It's far worse than most people realize MassResistance.org, By Brian Camenker, October 20, 2008
Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone ImpactApologetics.com
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Using sound reasoning and evidence—not religion—award-winning author Frank Turek shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people. Turek’s message is direct but respectful. It is correct, not politically correct. And it is a message that we must not ignore. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, November 26, 2008
After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights! We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry. Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights. That’s a preposterous premise! . . . . Gay complaints of “discrimination” are bogus as well. Marriage laws do not discriminate against persons, they discriminate against behavior. That’s true of most laws. . . . The nonsensical comparisons to interracial marriage don’t work either. Race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, November 1, 2008
This “born that way” argument is fueling the case for same-sex marriage in California. Is it a good argument? I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but I think the reasonable answer is no. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, May 26, 2008
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated. . .

China's forced abortion policy challenged by mother of three OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts, November 26, 2008
Chinese officials have caved to international pressure and will now release a woman who is pregnant with her third child. The woman was being held in a hospital in order to undergo a forced abortion. China has a strict one child policy, although two children are permitted under certain circumstances. Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute is thankful that officials have released the woman, but says now is not the time to forget her situation. "She's been released now because the world is watching," he points out. "But as soon as the world blinks I'm afraid this woman could be rearrested and…[the child] forcibly aborted. She is by no means out of the woods." According to Mosher, if she does have the baby, it will have to be in a government hospital because it is illegal to deliver a baby elsewhere. "And when she goes to the hospital to give birth they may very well take that baby and give it a lethal injection while it's being born," he warns. "That happens all the time in China." If she gave birth privately, she would still not be free said Mosher. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Uyghur Woman Faces Forced Abortion: An ethnic Uyghur woman faces an imminent abortion of her third child. Radio Free Asia, November 13, 2008
. . .Their experience sheds rare light on how China's one-child policy is enforced in remote parts of the country, through fines, financial incentives, and heavy-handed coercion by zealous local officials eager to meet population targets set by cadres higher up. . .

China's forced abortion policy challenged by mother of three

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Forced Abortions Persist in China Time magazine, By Simon Elegant, April 30, 2007
The fact these cases continue to surface is a troubling reminder of what activists say is the schizophrenic approach of the central government towards its own one-child policy: On the one hand, the authorities are loosening up, well aware that the scheme, which restricts couples to one child and imposes fines and other sanctions on violators, has largely outlived its usefulness. First implemented in 1978, the one-child policy has been so successful in checking China's population growth that the country now confronts the prospect of the rapid aging of its total population in the next two decades. The reaction of many Chinese demographers, not surprisingly, has been to call for the abolition of the one-child policy, which they say has served its purpose. Other critics point out that India has achieved broadly similar declines in fertility without state coercion or occasional brutality. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Forced Abortion Still A Reality in China Says New Amnesty Report LifeSiteNews.com, May 27, 2005
Amnesty International, the well known human rights group, has issued its 2005 Amnesty International report which again shows China's continuing abuse of women due to the one-child policy. Successive reports indicating such abuses have, however, failed to convince the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to abandon its relationship with the Chinese population control program. They have also evidently failed to convince Canada and other nations to follow the lead of the United States and refuse funding to UNFPA based on their complicity with China's coercive abortion regime. . .

Yemeni child bride, Nujood Ali, 10, hailed as hero (Click for Related Video)

Yemeni Child Bride Hailed As Hero
Married Off As A 9-Year-Old, This Girl Fought Back CBS Evening News, November 25, 2008
Nujood Ali is anything but your typical kid in a candy store. In fact, there's nothing typical about the 10-year-old Yemeni girl, CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports. At Carnegie Hall, Nujood became one of Glamour magazine's Women of the Year - their youngest ever. And at the United Nations, she told her story to representatives from a dozen or so U.N. agencies. She went on to meet Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. But she's also recently spent time in her native Yemen, where just last February, when she was only 9 years old, she was forced into marriage by her father. "Did you know what marriage was when your parents told you you were going to get married?" Miller asked her through a translator. "No, I did not know what marriage meant," Nujood said through a translator. It's not uncommon for children to be married in Yemen, but it is unusual and unlawful for those marriages to be consummated before the bride turns 15. But that's what happened to Nujood. "I was really scared and I cried a lot every night," she said. "In the morning and in the night." But she didn't cry for long. Two weeks into the marriage, Nujood said "enough." She went - all by herself - to court and asked for a divorce. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Glamour magazine's Women of the Year 2008 Glamour.com

RELATED VIDEO: Women of the Year 2008 Highlights Glamour.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Women of the Year 2008: Nujood Ali & Shada Nasser: The Voices For Children Glamour magazine, By Carla Power
Poverty often leads to child marriage since a typical Yemeni earns about $900 a year, and marrying off girls means fewer mouths to feed. Then there is a question of honor. One of Nujood’s sisters had been raped, another kidnapped. When her father heard the kidnapper was eyeing Nujood, he thought marriage would save her. Instead, she says, she was beaten by in-laws, and nights were a hellish game of tag, with Nujood running from room to room to escape sex with her husband; he raped her anyway. Nujood begged for help. “I was sad and angry,” her mother, Shuaieh, says, “but I still felt [her marriage] was the thing to do.” It was Nujood’s “auntie”—her father’s other wife, a beggar who lives in one room with her five children—who told the girl she might look for justice in court. . .

RELATED INFO: Donate to the Women of the Year Fund initiative Glamour.com
So what can American women do to help child brides? Most advocates say that schools are crucial—that educating girls is the best way to change the culture. “When you promote education, you create new roles for women,” says Gabool al-Mutawakel, general manager of the Girls World Communication Center (GWCC) in Sana’a, which offers courses in English, computers and family planning to impoverished girls. In honor of Nujood and Nasser, Glamour has chosen the GWCC to be the recipient of money raised through the 2008 Glamour Women of the Year Fund initiative; donations that readers make will help child brides and girls at risk of early marriage finish school. “Yemeni people are receptive to educated women in the workforce,” al-Mutawakel says. “When a woman can contribute, they’re encouraging.”. . .

RELATED BLOG: A Tiny Girl With A Brave Heart And A Bold Proclamation CBS News, Posted by Michelle Miller, November 25, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Forced to marry 28-year-old who beat her for sex: Yemen annuls 8-year-old girl's forced marriage Al Arabiya News Channel, April 16, 2008
A Yemeni court on Tuesday granted a divorce to an eight-year-old girl on the grounds that she had not yet reached puberty after her unemployed father forced her into an arranged marriage this year. The girl's lawyer and human rights activist Shatha Nasser said the minor had filed a suit in April asking for a divorce and told the court that her husband had been physically abusing her and forcing her to have "sex with him after hitting her". . .

FLORIDA: Activist Miami Judge Defies Court Precedent and Rules against Homosexual Adoption Ban LifeSiteNews.com, November 25, 2008
- Today, a Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman claims that the law violates equal protection rights for homosexuals and that there is no valid reason to consider sexual orientation when approving adoption. The state has already filed an appeal. Liberty Counsel in the past successfully defended the same law at the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which upheld the law banning homosexual adoption against a constitutional challenge. The law has also been ruled to be constitutional by state courts of appeal. Although the decisions by the appeals courts are binding on the circuit judge, Judge Lederman disregarded these legal precedents. . . . . . Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. They do so due to the fact that the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender. Only a handful of states currently permit homosexual adoption. Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "In the short term, this ruling by an activist judge is a tempest in a teapot. In the long-term it will be overturned on appeal. . .

Activist Miami Judge Defies Court Precedent and Rules Against Homosexual Adoption Ban (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Judge Rules Against Florida Gay Adoption Ban Associated Press, November 25, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Adult children speak out about same-sex parents TownHall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, July 7, 2007
It was the TV pictures that first got to Bronagh Cassidy. Same-sex couples marrying in San Francisco: "They were so proud of themselves. And then they had these little children with them." Cassidy, a 27-year-old married mother of two, sighs. "Something inside of me wants to be able to help those kids, because I know they are going to have problems." Sound ignorant, maybe even bigoted? This week, as the Senate is expected to begin debate on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, many voices will try to convince you that people like Cassidy are, as Cheryl Jacque, head of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, put it in a recent letter, "hate-filled people who will stop at nothing to achieve their discriminatory, offensive goals." But Cassidy knows better: She is one of the first generation of "gayby boom" babies, raised by two moms. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Two Mommies Is One Too Many Time magazine, By JAMES C. DOBSON, December 10, 2006
The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy--any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl. The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters--perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother.". . . . . . Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers. But set aside the scientific findings for a minute. Isn't there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father?

RELATED ARTICLE: The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs AmericanValues.org
A new report from the country’s leading family experts finds that worldwide trends in law and reproductive technologies are redefining parenthood in ways that put the interests of adults before the needs of children. “The two-person mother-father model of parenthood is being changed to meet adults’ rights to children rather than children’s needs to know and be raised, whenever possible, by their mother and father,” according to the report.

LDS Church Investigated by State for Defending True Marriage

LDS Church Investigated by State for Defending True Marriage
The implications of this complaint should be a cause for serious concern to all those who are dedicated to the defense of true marriage. Catholic Online, By Deacon Keith Fournier, November 26, 2008
The State of California is investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because they helped to defend true marriage as between one man and one woman. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was created by the Political Reform Act of 1974, itself a ballot initiative passed by California voters as Proposition 9. It is now being used as a tool to persecute those who defend marriage, wielded by a savvy ex political consultant who does not like the position taken by the Church or the results of the latest Proposition 8 initiative. . . . . The group which triggered this investigation by this Commission entrusted with the authority of the State of California calls itself “Californians against Hate”. On its web site it states its mission as follows: “Californians Against Hate was established in July 2008 to draw attention to the major donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. These contributors spent $36 million to amend the California Constitution to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry.” In addition to serving as a propaganda arm of the effort to force Californians to grant legal equivalency in the law between homosexual paramours and married people, the group has created what amounts to a “black list”, a kind of enemies list. It lists the businesses, church groups, interest groups and associations which gave funds to defend the institution of marriage against the effort to redefine it. . . . . The implications of this complaint should be a cause for serious concern to all those who are dedicated to the defense of true marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Above the Hate Townhall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, November 25, 2008
Judging from their unwillingless to speak out, leaders of the gay marriage movement (including powerful politicians like Mayor Newsom) apparently believe that the new politics of payback works for them. Something new and very ugly has entered American politics. Right now, the politics of hate may be centered on marriage, but if these tactics are permitted to work uncriticized, I promise you one thing: They won't end there.

RELATED ARTICLE: Political bullying works Jewish World Review, By Cal Thomas, April 5, 2001
Gay rights groups are experienced intimidators. Add to that the effective infiltration of the media, academia, religion and psychiatry by gay rights activists and their sympathizers and you see how this issue has been turned around in a single generation.

RELATED SITE: Above the Hate
Please sign the petition below to join us as we stand together to say "Enough!" to the campaign of hate and intimidation being waged against the LDS Church and other supporters of California's Proposition 8. Now is the time to stand together to protect the rights of minority religious communities to participate in the political process without fear of violence, intimidation, or vandalism.

RELATED ARTICLE: California's Epic Battle for Marriage and Religious LIberty Townhall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, May 21, 2008
There are religious liberty defenses under the U.S. Constitution for youth ministers, but not for Christian schools, physicians, social workers, teachers, attorneys, psychiatrists, counselors or tax-exempt charities. The First Amendment will not protect us if our own governments (through the courts) decide that, for example, my Catholic faith is in itself a form of bigotry. If gay rights advocates don't really mean this to happen, why don't they stop asking courts to rule in this way?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex “Marriage,” “Hate Crimes,” and the New Totalitarianism LifeSite Special Report, By Michael D. O’Brien, February 28, 2005
Is it so far-fetched to consider the possibility that we are in a downward slide toward totalitarianism? Few people would go so far as to maintain that we are living in the early phase of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley’s Brave New World, yet the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual acts were a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual acts have become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it “publicly” has become the crime. Call it by any name you like, but this is Thought Crime. As Orwell predicted, we have arrived at a situation in which “some of us are more equal than others.” . . .

When Science Points To God, what will atheists do?

When Science Points To God Townhall.com, By Dinesh D'Souza, November 24, 2008
Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists. The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator. But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion.” What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith. Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and enjoy life. In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun. “Be good for goodness sake” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. The question remains: what is the source of these standards of goodness that seem to be shared by religious and non-religious people alike? . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory. Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many. Discover magazine.com, By Tim Folger, November 10, 2008
Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. The main scientific explanation for this is that there are a multitude of universes, and ours just happens to be livable. But "if there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse," says cosmologist Bernard Carr.

RELATED ARTICLE: Atheist evangelising? It's likely that the vast majority of people will be as sceptical about being sold atheism as they are about being sold belief The Guardian- UK, By Simon Barrow, October 21, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: All aboard the atheist bus campaign. It's real, it's happening: you can sponsor the first atheist advert on a bus – and Richard Dawkins will match your money The Guardian- UK, By Ariane Sherine, October 21, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Atheists – gimme five: Since when is it OK to spread the fear of God from the side of a bus? Let's get together and distribute reassurance The Guardian- UK, By Ariane Sherine, June 20, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Dawkin 'bout a revolution: Join me on the atheist bus, Cif readers. You have nothing to lose but your fear of hell The Guardian- UK, By Ariane Sherine, August 6, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Moral Absolutes: Judeo-Christian Values Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, May 3, 2005
Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion? In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society.

RELATED RESOURCE: Answers in Genesis

I'm not the archangel Gabriel - but I'm not the devil incarnate either says 'swinging vicar.'
Drunken sermons, nudist holidays, claims of wife-swapping... How in heaven's name did the 'swinging vicar' get her dog collar? In her first interview - and hallelujah, with some regrets - she gives her side of the story The Daily Mail- UK, By Antonia Hoyle, November 23, 2008
Ever since Dawn French burst on to television as the larger-than-life Vicar of Dibley, Church of England congregations have slowly become used to the idea of a new breed of women priests with a markedly different – and some would say commendably less stuffy – approach to the ministry. But few can have anticipated a priest quite as unconventional as the Reverend Teresa Davies. It wasn’t so much the 37-year-old vicar’s love of motorcycles that scandalised the congregation, nor her penchant for attending parish meetings wearing plunging dresses that left little of her generous embonpoint to the imagination. Her parishioners in Welton, Northamptonshire, were even prepared to make Christian allowance for the fact that she could be late for services and sometimes appeared so tipsy she had trouble standing unaided. One evensong ended in chaos after the choir fell apart under her direction. What really ended the Rev Mrs Davies’s brief career were her boasts to two fellow clergymen over a pub Christmas dinner that she and her husband Michael enjoyed an ‘open marriage’. Not only that, but they had enjoyed holidays at Cap d’Agde, a notorious swingers’ resort in the south of France where couples swap sexual partners. Given that one of Teresa’s duties was to preach the sanctity of marriage, it is not surprising that tongues started to wag in her parish. She was suspended from her post – part of the Daventry team ministry – and summoned to appear before a disciplinary tribunal. . .

I'm not the archangel Gabriel - but I'm not the devil incarnate either says 'swinging vicar' Teresa Davies

Defending marriage The Gleaner— Jamaica, By Peter Espeut, November 24, 2008
All 10 of the state's largest newspapers editorialised against Proposition 8, including the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee. A coalition of Silicon Valley executives urged a 'no' vote on Proposition 8, Google officially opposed Proposition 8 "as an issue of equality", Apple Inc also opposed Proposition 8 as a "fundamental" civil rights issue, and donated $100,000 to the 'no' campaign. Many members of the entertainment industry were opposed to Proposition 8. The non-partisan League of Women Voters of California opposed Proposition 8 because "no person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination". It sounds like a reasonable - even ethical - position, until you look at it closely. Just because a group supporting a particular type of behaviour exists, does not mean that the behaviour they advocate should be allowed. Using argumentum ad absurdum, would the League of Women Voters of California support the league of rapists, paedophiles and perverts? Would the supporters of same-sex marriages also support defining marriage to include unions between humans and donkeys or dogs because we need to be inclusive? Support for any position, like gay marriage, must be based on the correctness of the position, not just because people have a right to hold a position, which they indisputably do. And, morality is not a matter of populism; when something is wrong, it remains wrong even if millions of people - even influential people and movie stars - powerful private-sector corporations and dozens of newspapers support it. I do not believe that homosexuality should be a crime as long as fornication and adultery are not crimes; also I do not believe that homosexuality should be elevated to the status of an 'alternative life style' equal to heterosexuality; and I do not believe that same-sex unions should be given the same status as 'marriage' which has always meant the union between a man and a woman. In our rush to support the human rights of minorities (which we must do) - even of those who do bad things - we must be careful not to condone their bad behaviour in the name of equal rights. In that scenario, everything goes!. . .

RELATED BROADCAST: Preserving Marriage Foundation- Part 1 Focus on the Family.org
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager discusses the biblical foundation of marriage and offers a thoughtful examination of how that foundation is being undermined in American culture. Part 2

RELATED ARTICLE: Elton John Solves Gay Marriage Controversy Townhall.com Blog, By Michael Medved, November 20, 2008
One of the world’s most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. “We’re not married,” he told the press, “Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership…I don’t want to be married! I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships”. If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2! The Real Proposal magazine, October 22, 2008
Who knew that we would ever see the day when it became necessary to define what marriage is in America... or the world for that matter? That said, no one could follow, for any length of time, our continuing coverage on this very critical sociopolitical issue without realizing that, whether we like it or not, the on-going and increasingly aggressive battle to redefine marriage is the next civil rights frontier in America! Most people do not fully comprehend how we got to this place. Many have a distorted perspective on the issues based on what is being fed to us by the mainstream media, who are largely complicit with the homosexual agenda and follow their playbook and manifesto quite diligently in the effort to convert straight America into accepting homosexuality as anything but deviant behavior. Therefore, we urge you to spend some time going through our coverage on the issue. For, without a doubt, the blinders will fall away and it will become clear that there is a very careful, very deliberate, very well financed and orchestrated marketing strategy being executed by radical homosexual activists to normalize same-sex relationships in this country. And you will likely be outraged that somewhere along the way — while most of us who believe in traditional marriage were enjoying our precious freedoms, taking kids to soccer, ordering pizza and watching our favorite shows — we were being manipulated and vilified as society's new "haters," "bigots," and "homophobes."

RELATED ARTICLE: Windy City proposes 'gay'-friendly school OneNewsNow, By Pete Chagnon and Charlie Butts, October 14, 2008
A battleground is forming in Chicago over a proposed "gay"-friendly high school for homosexual, lesbian, and transgendered students, or any other students who want to attend. According to reports, taxpayer money would be used to fund the school. The school would be called the Pride Campus of Social Justice High School, and plans are under way to possibly open its doors in 2010. Advocates of the school say it is needed in order to combat the bullying, dropout, and depression rate among homosexual students.The Chicago Sun-Times quotes a member of the school's design team who says students at the school would be taught about "gay and lesbian historical figures" so those students "have heroes.". . . . . "The task is to combat harassment and abuse and bullying, while not affirming disordered thinking and immoral behavior," [Laurie] Higgins [of the Illinois Family Institute] explains. And while she acknowledges that some homosexual students are bullied, Higgins' experience in public education reveals another group that she feels suffers more. "I can say with assurance that the kids who are very conservative Christians are probably the ones who are the most ridiculed or made fun of," she states. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Time Magazine: The Battle With the Facts Over Gay Teens in America NewsBusters.org, By Stacy L. Harp, October 6, 2005
Time Magazine’s cover story for this week is called The Battle Over Gay Teens, however when one takes a few moments to examine the contents of this verbose six-page article the author, John Cloud, really is talking about the promotion and acceptance of gay teens in America.The unbelievable bias for the promotion of gay teens is absolutely amazing despite the fact that Cloud attempts to cite a few conservative or Christian viewpoints. Here are a few blatant examples of bias that Cloud cites. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ex-Homosexual Blasts Time's Teen Homosexuality Article as 'Pro-Gay Puff Piece' Agape Press, By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker, October 6, 2005
- A former homosexual turned Christian activist is denouncing a new Time Magazine article on homosexual teens. The Time cover story "The Battle Over Gay Teens" reports that kids are disclosing their homosexuality with unprecedented regularity, and they are doing so much younger. Evangelist and recording artist Stephen Bennett, who spent 11 years in a homosexual lifestyle before becoming a Christian, believes the Time piece written by homosexual John Cloud derides Christians and former homosexuals. Meanwhile, Bennett contends, the article propagates false information and functions as a "major pro-gay puff piece.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Battle Over Gay Teens Time magazine, By John Cloud, October 2, 2005
In May, David Steward, a former president of TV Guide, and his partner Pierre Friedrichs, a caterer, hosted an uncomfortably crowded cocktail party at their Manhattan apartment. It was a typical gay fund raiser--there were lemony vodka drinks with mint sprigs; there were gift bags with Calvin Klein sunglasses; Friedrichs prepared little blackened-tuna-with-mango-chutney hors d'oeuvres that were served by uniformed waiters. Billionaire philanthropist Edgar Bronfman Sr. was there; David Mixner, a gay activist and longtime friend of Bill Clinton's, was holding court with Jason Moore, director of the musical Avenue Q. But the odd thing was that the gay (and gay-friendly) élite had gathered to raise money not for one of its established charities--the Human Rights Campaign, say, or the Democratic National Committee--but for an obscure organization that has quietly become one of the fastest-growing gay groups in the nation, the Point Foundation. Launched in 2001, Point gives lavish (often full-ride) scholarships to gay students. It is one of the few national groups conceived explicitly to help gay kids, and it is a leading example of how the gay movement is responding to the emergence this decade of hundreds of thousands of openly gay youths. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): The Non-Factsheet NARTH.com, By Dale O'Leary, Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D.
The APA and the other 12 organizations that comprise the Just the Facts Coalition recently published a new edition of Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. The Coalition has mailed copies of the factsheet to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States. It is important that parents understand the threat this document poses and are able to respond to the so-call “facts.” The factsheet claims to present accurate scientific information, which will help schools protect at-risk students, and prevent violations of the separation of Church and state. The factsheet fails to accomplish any of these objectives.
1) It is not a factsheet, but a political statement.
2) It puts youth at risk – particularly adolescent males experiencing SSA.
3) It violates separation of church and state.
What are the facts?. . . .

Dr.Phil Gets In On The Same-Sex Marriage Debate (Click for Related Video)

Dr. Phil's same-sex marriage [show] revealed! San Francisco Chronicle Blog, Posted by Erin Allday, November 21, 2008
If you forgot to set your DVR for today's Dr. Phil show, well, too bad for you: it's actually a surprisingly thoughtful debate on same-sex marriage. Phil McGraw is, of course, the psychologist, author and friend of Oprah whose TV show typically focuses on titillating topics such as, say, what to do when mom and daughter are in love with the same guy. . . . . In addition to Newsom, his pro-same-sex marriage guests include celebrity attorney Gloria Allred and equal rights advocate Joe Solmonese. On the other side are San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, Proposition 8 campaign manager Jeff Flint, and Margaret Gallagher, president of the National Organization of Marriage. Dr. Phil opens the episode by saying he wants to host a fair and balanced debate, and he personally doesn't want to influence anyone's opinions. (The opinion of this blogger is that he leans a bit in favor of same-sex marriage.) He announces that the audience itself has been split evenly between same-sex opponents and supporters, which becomes obvious later when we get some fun cheers and boos and hisses. . . .Things get a little heated when Dr. Phil brings up some of the less-than-savory tactics both sides of the Prop. 8 campaigns used, along with the post-election behaviors, especially protests targeting religious groups. . .

RELATED SHOW: Dr. Phil.com: Same-Sex Marriage: The Prop 8 Debate
It’s a hot-button topic in California and around the country: The passage of Proposition 8, which reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage. Supporters of this initiative voted to preserve the sanctity of marriage solely between a man and a woman. Opponents of Prop 8 say it violates the constitutional rights of the gay community and that America’s laws should treat everyone equally. Since Election Day, numerous protests and rallies have been organized to overturn the law, and the debates are getting heated regarding this highly personal and controversial topic. Is same-sex marriage right or wrong? Is it a corruption of morality and the definition of marriage, or is it a sacred union between two people, same as a man and a woman? Is banning same-sex marriage a form of discrimination against a minority group's equal rights? What are the values driving this debate? Is it about democracy, civil rights, religion? Is there a blurring of church and state?

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Phil.com: Same-sex Marriage: The Prop 8 Debate

RELATED ARTICLE: A Vote Against Gay Marriage is a Vote FOR Tolerance Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, October 26, 2008
Twenty years ago, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown, Virginia to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted by the general public. In the book [After the Ball] that resulted from their meeting, they revealed a strategy that achieves its effect "without reference to facts, logic or proof . . . the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not." In other words, their strategy was pure propaganda. That propaganda campaign has many people today believing that denying same-sex marriage involves denying rights to a victimized minority. That belief could not be further from the truth. In fact, let me suggest what the same-sex marriage debate is not about. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage — Challenges & Responses Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, February 11, 2007
A few years ago, the L.A. Times quoted a homosexual mayor in New York State dismissing the cultural significance of same-sex marriage. “I’ve never heard of anyone’s life being destroyed because someone got married,” he sniffed. Reading this assertion charitably (he couldn’t have meant no one’s life was ever destroyed by marriage), I take it this government official was mystified by the idea that anything bad could come of men marrying men or women marrying women. I immediately knew I was listening to a man who didn’t understand a simple truth: Ideas have consequences. In the case of same-sex marriage, the consequences will be massive. . . . . Unfortunately, addressing this issue requires refined distinctions and careful thinking that are easily overwhelmed by sound-byte rhetoric and broad, indiscriminate appeals to “rights.” What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Intolerance of Tolerance Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, December 14, 2006
Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted it's become a vice. There's one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is "intolerant." . . . . The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay "Marriage" Townhall.com, By Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions. . . . Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval. . .

Ellen Brookes: My husband dropped a bombshell - he was gay (Click for Related Video)

My husband dropped a bombshell - he was gay': How one woman coped with a shock confession after five years of marriage The Daily Mail- UK, By Charlotte Kemp , November 21, 2008
A few nights after her husband made his devastating confession, Ellen Brookes found herself frantically sifting through old photographs of their wedding. In her despair, the 34-year-old health care manager, who lived with her husband Dominic and young son Laurence in Derbyshire, was hoping to find some clues from the past. 'I was on a mission,' she says. 'Dominic had just dropped a bombshell - that he was gay and wanted to end our marriage - so I was torturing myself that I should have known the truth all along.' That evening she spent hours obsessively studying every photo taken that day, hoping to find some clues behind the jubilant smiles. 'But all I could see was smiling faces, our arms entwined, and that was so much worse,' she says. 'It made me think that, for him, the whole of our life together must have been an act - that I was merely a stand-in until he could have the life he really wanted. 'How could he suddenly spring this on me when we had always been so happy together?' Ellen remains bewildered by that question - the betrayal all the more incomprehensible, coming as it did on the eve of the couple's fifth wedding anniversary. . . . 'For months, I pretended to the outside world that we had just grown apart. It's one thing to confide that your husband has had an affair, but quite another to say he is leaving you for a man. 'Eventually, our close friends guessed and I had to face the truth. Some people even tried to console me by suggesting maybe this was easier to deal with than discovering my husband had gone off with another woman. 'But I disagree. When the man you love stands there and tells you he thinks he is homosexual, you can't compete. It's a fait accompli that leaves you reeling. 'And the question on everyone's lips, including your own, is how could you not have known?' . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Homosexual Activist Says There’s No "Gay Gene" CitizenLink.org, August 7, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Homosexuality: it isn’t natural: Ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ‘gay gene’, says Peter Tatchell: gay desire is not genetically determined Spiked.com, By Peter Tatchell, June 24, 2008
There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t.
[Editor's note: Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party.]

RELATED ARTICLE: My gay husband: why it took so long for me to leave him Times Online, By Gail Fielding , April 3, 2008
In a 1988 article that appeared in The Times, a reader revealed her anguish at discovering that her husband was gay. She has remained in the marriage since then. Now, in an open letter to her spouse, she explains why she is ending it:. . .

RELATED LETTER: My gay husband: why it took so long for me to leave him Times Online, By Gail Fielding , April 3, 2008
Here is the article written by Gail Fielding and published in The Times in 1988: About eight years ago, while holding me close, my husband told me that he was gay. For days after this revelation I wrestled with its implications, trying to recall looks or observations that should have sparked more than a suspicion. Our three children involved us, our sex life continued, and my husband seemed unaltered: no horns or cloven hoofs. But one cannot always bury a timebomb of this magnitude for ever, although I am told there are “hundreds and hundreds” of gay husbands whose wives do not know of, or will not acknowledge, their husbands' homosexuality. . .

Actress Reese Witherspoon: I have great hope for love Parade magazine, By Dotson Rader, November 23, 2008
'Do I need men?” actress Reese Witherspoon asks. “I don’t think it’s about needing men. It’s about love.” Sitting in a quiet corner of a Beverly Hills hotel lounge overlooking a garden, Reese wears a chic black dress, black open-toe pumps, and gold dangle earrings. An Oscar-winner for 2005’s Walk the Line, Reese, 32, is reportedly the world’s highest-paid actress. She is also astonishingly beautiful. Her new movie, Four Christmases, a comedy about family ties co-starring Vince Vaughn, opens this month. “Everybody needs love,” she tells me. “Everyone deserves it.” The great love of Reese’s life was once actor Ryan Phillippe, 34. They met at her 21st birthday party in 1997 and married two years later. She admits that in some respects she was naïve to believe that her marriage would last forever. “I wasn’t good about protecting myself,” she explains. “I spent a lot of my 20s just trying to make other people happy, rather than trying to figure out if doing that made me happy.” Three months after they wed, their daughter Ava, now 8, was born. A son, Deacon, arrived in 2003. Then, a year ago, she and Ryan divorced. “There are things in my life that are hard to reconcile, like divorce,” she says. “Sometimes it is very difficult to make sense of how it could possibly happen. Laying blame is so easy. I don’t have time for hate or negativity in my life. There’s no room for it. When you make wrong choices, you have to take responsibility for them: ‘What part of this do I own?’”. . . . . .Reese became a movie star by choosing to play tough, single-minded careerists or conniving, manipulative social climbers in films like Election, Legally Blonde, and Vanity Fair. However, in person, she is nothing like the movie roles that made her famous. Instead, vulnerability underlies her finishing-school poise. “I want to be understood,” she says. “Even as a child, I didn’t feel like I was. I still see that part of myself that wants approval, and that’s a constant need.”. . .

Actress Reese Witherspoon: I have great hope for love (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Reese Witherspoon Vogue.com
She talked to us about her upcoming movie (Four Christmases with Vince Vaughn), the pressure of being a working mom, and her recent collaboration with Nina Ricci.

RELATED ARTICLE: Innocence Abroad: With a new look, a new man, and newfound happiness, Reese Witherspoon lives out a fashion fantasy in the City of Light. Vogue magazine, By Robert Sullivan, November 2008 Issue
These days, Reese's own star is in alignment, in part because of her range as an actress. After last year's thriller Rendition, she's returned to romantic comedy in Four Christmases, costarring with Vince Vaughn in a role that reminds us that Reese Witherspoon is the kind of star we like to think of as being just like us. . . . . In the meantime, a romantic comedy about the children of divorce appeals to her for other reasons, related to her own life: She recently finalized her divorce from Ryan Phillippe, whom she met during the filming of Cruel Intentions in 1999. "There are so many dynamics that people deal with all the time, and you don't really see it in movies very much," Reese says. "You don't see the blended-family Christmas very much. And it really is a complication in a lot of people's lives now. How do you see your mother and your father and not hurt anyone's feelings? You know, I didn't grow up like that. I mean, my parents are still married, and my grandparents stayed married, but it's a situation my own children will have to deal with, so it was of interest to me.". . .

Former Eliot Spitzer Call Girl, Ashley Dupre: 'My side of the story'

Ashley Dupre Exclusive: 'My Side of the Story'
Escort at Center of Eliot Spitzer Scandal Talks to Diane Sawyer ABC News: 20/20, By Kimberly Launier and Katie Escherich, November 19, 2008 November 19, 2008
The young woman at the center of the historic downfall of the governor of New York is finally speaking out. Ashley Dupre, the 23-year-old former escort who was the target of intense media scrutiny in the days after Gov. Eliot Spitzer's resignation from public office, has stepped forward to give her first television interview. Dupre told ABC News' Diane Sawyer that she does not feel responsible for Spitzer's downfall. "If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else," she said. "I was doing my job. I don't feel that I brought him down." In March, the media discovered Dupre was "Kristen," her alias at the Emperor's Club V.I.P., the high-end escort service that had arranged her rendezvous at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., with Spitzer. Soon after the story broke, Dupre sought refuge at her family's home in New Jersey. "I felt like it was surreal, like it wasn't happening," she said. "But it was." The insight Dupre gives into the world of high-end prostitution is a continuation of Sawyer's recent and extensive reporting on the profession "Prostitution in America." Dupre's situation raised questions about how an upper middle class girl from New Jersey, whose stepfather is a prominent oral surgeon, could become an escort. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sex for Hire: Real Stories of Prostitution in America: ABC News' Two-Year Examination of Women Working in the Commercial Sex Industry ABC News- 20/20, By Elizabeth Joseph, March 21, 2008
For more than a week, Americans have been fascinated by the revelation that former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was a client of a high-end escort service called "The Emperors Club." "The last time I saw him, he had asked me to write about prostitution and his work on the field," said The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof. "It's just such an astonishing act of bravado and chutzpah considering what we know of him now." What we know now is not just a tale of one man's political fall from grace, but one that represents the lives of thousands of women collecting money in return for sex in the U.S. every day. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Online Resources to Help End Sexual Exploitation: Tips on Escaping the Industry, Advocating for Different Legislation and Raising Awareness ABC News, March 21, 2008
If you're a viewer wondering how to help women or girls entrenched in the sex industry, or if you know someone who needs support, there are several online resources available.

RELATED SLIDESHOW: Prostitution in America ABC News

RELATED ARTICLE: Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal: A Public And A Private Betrayal The Real Proposal magazine, March 11, 2008
It is not just a "private matter" at all! Contrary to the assertions in his brief statement shortly after The New York Times broke the scandal of his involvement in a high-priced prostitution ring, New York state governor Eliot Spitzer's actions affect all of us as public citizens. Indeed, his dealings with the Emperor’s Club V.I.P escort service, over several years it would seem, constitute not just a reprehensible betrayal of the private trust endowed him by virtue of the marriage vows he made to his wife, Silda. They also represent a flagrant and spectacular breach of the public trust conferred upon him by the electorate. . .

E-Harmony GOES GAY???? Townhall Blog, Posted by: Kevin McCullough, November 19, 2008
So in a blatant move of cover your backside, and with all the courage of a backbone made of jello, eHarmony.com--previously a match-making site that had held some modicum of values to its product, has just thrown the faith-based community (that it built it's name off of) under the homosexual bus. Evidently so afraid of having to take a stand for what is their right as a world view, Dr. Warren and company said, "if we become the lackey for the gay mafia, will you leave us alone?" This is astoundingly shameful on many levels. One that they didn't even assert their right to run the company the way they wish to, given that their product was based on research of MARRIED heterosexual couples they could have remained a uniquely heterosexual service. But they didn't even try to fight it. . . . It's pragmatic, at least Dr. Warren gets to keep making his millions... But forgive me if I now NEVER recommend eHarmony to another single friend as long as they maintain this passive posture to radical activists who wish to tear down the definition and picture of what healthy family looks like. Shame on you Dr. Neil Clark Warren...

RELATED ARTICLE: eHarmony agrees to provide homosexual matches OneNewsNow- AP, November 19, 2008
Under terms of the settlement, the company can create a new or differently named Web site for homosexual singles. The company can also post a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples. Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, admit any liability. In addition, eHarmony will pay the division $50,000 to cover administrative costs. It will pay McKinley $5,000 and give him a free one-year membership to its new service. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Matchmaker's marriage goal disqualifies 'gays': eHarmony berated in lawsuit for refusing to facilitate homosexuality WorldNetDaily, June 6, 2007
The popular matchmaking service eHarmony.com rejects homosexuals from its profiling and matching services because its goal is marriage, and that isn't legal for "gays" in most states, the founder has said. The site, one of the most popular matchmaking operations in the nation, is facing new accusations in a lawsuit brought by a lesbian who alleges the company discriminated against her because of her sexual choices. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Are Internet marriages more likely to end up in the delete bin? ABC 12.com, By Lauren Moraski, April 26, 2007
- An estimated 3 million U.S. Internet users have clicked their way to love, so says the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Some entered long-term relationships after linking up in cyberspace, and some even made their way down the aisle. But more than 10 years after the Internet transformed dating, one question remains: Are these couples living happily ever after, or are they more likely to meet with divorce lawyers?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: My date with Mr. eHarmony: Neil Clark Warren is the Christian evangelical who runs Internet dating titan eHarmony. I'm a pagan feminist who's leery of the religious right. Would sparks fly? Salon magazine, By Rebecca Traister, June 10, 2005

California Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court
The California high court will review legal challenges to Prop. 8. A hearing is set for March. Prior to a ruling, gay weddings will not be allowed to resume. Los Angeles Times, By Maura Dolan , November 19, 2008
-- The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling. Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and said a hearing on the cases could come as early as March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question. Today's decision to review the lawsuits against Proposition 8 did not reveal how the court was leaning. The court could have dismissed the suits, but both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 sought review to settle legal questions on a matter of statewide importance. Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay. The order was signed by six of the court's seven justices. Justice Joyce Kennard did not sign, and the court said she would have invited a separate filing to determine the fate of existing same-sex marriages. She voted against granting review of the lawsuits. . .

RELATED NEWS: Yes on 8 Protect Marriage.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Proponents of Proposition 8 Gratified With Supreme Court Rulings, Express Confidence That Proposition 8 Will Be Upheld Market Watch- Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2008
-- The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters, today said it is "profoundly gratified" that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure's validity, granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation. . . . ."Granting the backers of Prop. 8 intervention in these cases means that voters can be certain that there will be a thorough and vigorous defense of Prop. 8," Pugno said. "Voters will not have to solely depend on Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend the measure. Since the attorney general was an active opponent of Proposition 8, we did not want the fate of the measure to rest in his defense of it.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Misguided Activism: Proposition 8 protesters undermine their own cause The Harvard Crimson, By Lucy M. Caldwell, November 19, 2008 (Alternate link)
Since most American voters oppose gay marriage, the question of how to proceed on the gay rights front now hinges on whether or not same-sex marriage bans constitute an act of tyranny of the majority—in other words, whether or not gay rights are minority rights. Many activists have described the gay rights debate as the most important civil rights issue of our time. This is not an apt description, as gay Americans are not being denied rights. This was not the case in previous civil rights movements. African-Americans living in the sixties were granted fewer rights than their white counterparts. Women living in earlier decades were granted fewer rights than their male counterparts. Gay Americans are not being granted fewer rights than their straight counterparts—technically, a gay man does have the right to enter into a marriage with a woman. The push for same-sex marriage is a rally for additional rights. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay-Marriage Ban Sets Up Host of Battles: California's Proposition 8 Is Challenged in State Court; What Happens to Previously Wed Couples? The Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008
California voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 8, which adds to the state constitution the following sentence: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." While the wording is simple, the situation quickly became complicated. For example, what happens to those same-sex couples who married before the ruling? Legal challenges filed Wednesday raised other questions: Was the referendum process itself lawful? Does the new language conflict with other parts of the state constitution? Separately, should Proposition 8 opponents have filed challenges saying the proposition violated the U.S. Constitution? David Cruz, a constitutional-law expert at the University of Southern California, has some answers. . . . .WSJ: Please explain the grounds upon which Proposition 8 is being challenged in court. . .

‘H8ing’ the Christians: Video Shows Aftermath of Homosexual Mob Attack on Christians in San Francisco’s Castro District Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), Posted by Peter LaBarbera, November 18, 2008
The following is an edited version of the informational background accompanying a YouTube video showing the aftermath of a homosexual mob attack-- including an alleged sexual assault-- on a group of Christians that come to San Francisco’s Castro district every Friday to witness the Gospel. As the original note says, “This video was not posted by any member of the group in the video. However, below is an account [by] one of the team members who was there.” This mob assault occurred following the passage of Proposition 8 restoring traditional marriage in California. Homosexual activists are deriding the successful ballot measure as “Prop H8" (hate) -- but look at the hatred on display below in what is supposedly America’s most “tolerant” city. This criminal assault is also significant in that “gay” activists routinely charge Christians and pro-family groups -- and most recently Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family -- with fomenting “hate violence.” Clearly, “hate violence” and threats committed by vengeful homosexual militants against religious people and churches is on the rise following California’s electoral repudiation of “gay marriage” on November 4th. . . .Eye-witness account by posted with YouTube video by member of Christian group: I went to the Castro (the homosexual district of San Francisco) like we usually do on Friday nights. Normally, we sit on 18th and Castro, and someone plays the guitar, and we all worship God. Sometimes a person will yell at us, or maybe a few. Sometimes people will ignore us. Sometimes people will let us pray with them. This time was not a normal night. It was the first time we’d been back in the Castro to do our normal outreach since California Proposition 8, which defined marriage as “one man with one woman,” was passed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob Townhall.com, By Michelle Malkin, November 19, 2008
Corporate honchos, church leaders and small donors alike are in the same-sex marriage mob's crosshairs, all unfairly demonized as hate-filled bigots by bona fide hate-filled bigots who have abandoned decency in pursuit of "equal rights." One wonders where Barack Obama -- himself an opponent of Proposition 8 -- is as this insane rage rages on. Soul-Fixer, Nation-Healer, where art thou?

'H8ing' the Christians: Video Shows Aftermath of Homosexual Mob (Click for Related Video)

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Anger Over Prop. 8 Erupts In San Francisco KTVU, November 14, 2008

RELATED VIDEO: Chased out of the Castro District YouTube.com, November 14, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: No More Mr. Nice Gay! Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr., November 17, 2008
As I completed the Larry King interview, I awakened to the fact that we are going to see more national violence and vindictive behavior by a mobilized gay community that has picked up an entitlement mentality. Their violence and rudeness will be tolerated by those that view gays as victims of a gender biased culture that must be reformed. Dan Savage, also a guest on Friday’s program, summarized the change in gay political engagement by saying, “No more Mr. Nice Gay.” This phrase was cute, but carries a threat of more violence and name calling. Churches are being vandalized in California, pastors have received death threats, and there is a general sense that gays will now try to intimidate those they cannot woo. Although the 80 demonstrations for gay rights conducted this past Saturday were peaceful, don’t expect this front to remain calm, cool, or collected!

RELATED ARTICLE: Mormons on high alert after gay marriage vandalism Chicago Sun Times, By Jennifer Garza- Sacramento Bee, November 17, 2008
For the past two weeks, Sacramento, Calif. leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been on high alert. They are hiring extra security to watch over the temple in nearby Folsom, and asking members to drive by church buildings late at night. Mormons in law enforcement are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held. . . . In the past two weeks, 10 local church buildings have been vandalized, temples in other areas have been picketed, and last week envelopes containing suspicious white powders were mailed to a temple in Southern California and one in Utah. . . . Many Mormons believe they are being unfairly targeted and compare the anti-Mormon sentiment to a witch hunt. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Radical Homosexuals Trample a Cross, Harass a Granny, Crash a Church, and Threaten Joe the Plumber’s Life Townhall.com, By Doug Giles, November 15, 2008
Can you imagine what would happen if a gang of angry male Christian activists started shouting down and shoving around some nice old lesbian during a religious rally right after ripping her rainbow pride flag from her hands and waffle stomping it? How much television coverage do you think that spat of stupidity would spawn? What kind of outrage do you think the gays would gin up over such an inexcusable and pathetic act? . . . . . My advice to the MSM is this: If I were you, I’d cover it and condemn what the gays are doing to Christians and their Churches or it’s going to get worse—way worse. And lastly to the radical gay guys, do you really believe that this kind of belligerent behavior is going to make Americans capitulate to your cause? Who came up with this strategy? Was it the same guys who thought that Clear Pepsi would be a real winner?

RELATED ARTICLE: Protesters Target Supporters of Gay Marriage Ban Washington Post, By Ashley Surdin, November 15, 2008
-- The backlash against those who supported a ban on same-sex marriage continues to roil California and nearby states. Protests and vandalism of churches, boycotts of businesses and possibly related mailings of envelopes filled with white powder have followed the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. In Sacramento, a high-profile theater director resigned from his job of 25 years after a boycott threat over his $1,000 donation in support of the measure. In Los Angeles, a Mexican restaurant owner, a Mormon who donated $100, was reduced to tears and left town after hundreds of protesters confronted her at work, by phone and on the Internet. "You express your beliefs and you have to be punished for it?" said Arnoldo Archila, an employee at the El Coyote restaurant. "This is not right, not in this country. This is not Iraq.". . .

California Attorney General Jerry Brown urges the state Supreme Court to let Proposition 8 take effect

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urges high court to let Prop. 8 take effect
Brown's office, which has the responsibility of defending the initiative, said it's in the 'public interest' to let the gay-marriage ban take effect while lawsuits are reviewed. Los Angeles Times, By Maura Dolan, November 17, 2008
-- Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown today urged the California Supreme Court to review lawsuits that seek to overturn Proposition 8, but to permit the measure to take effect during that review. Brown, whose office is supposed to defend the initiative, said the lawsuits raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court. "But, due to the potential uncertainty that may be caused in important legal relationships by a temporary stay, the public interest would be better served by allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effective while expediting briefing," Brown's office said. Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that it was a sweeping constitutional revision, which can be put on the ballot only by the Legislature, instead of a more limited constitutional amendment, as supporters contend. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage Likely Headed to Courts in California: Jerry Brown, the state attorney general, filed a brief saying the matter merited the court’s attention US News & World Report, By Justin Ewers, November 18, 2008
In his brief, Jerry Brown, the state's attorney general, says the matter requires the attention of the court, agreeing with the petitioners in three lawsuits filed immediately after the election that the state is facing a constitutional crisis.

RELATED ARTICLE: If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy Townhall.com, By Chuck Norris, November 18, 2008
There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests. . . . . Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. . . . On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened; the majority of Californians -- red, yellow, black and white -- voted to define the margins of marriage as being between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: So Much for Tolerance Breakpoint.org, By Chuck Colson, November 13, 2008
Two days after the election, 2,000 homosexual protesters surrounded a Mormon temple in Los Angeles chanting “Mormon scum.” Protesters picketed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, holding signs reading “Purpose-Driven Hate.” Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills was spray painted. Church members’ cars have been vandalized, and at least two Christians were assaulted. Protesters even hurled racial epithets at African-Americans because African-Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage. This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs. . . . . . Clearly, Christians need to redouble their efforts to help people understand what marriage is all about. In Los Angeles, when protesters gathered at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, they chanted, “What Would Jesus say?” That’s a good question, and the Church should not hesitate to answer it. What would Jesus say about same-sex “marriage?”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Dangers of Same-Sex "Marriage" Breakpoint.org, By Chuck Colson, May 26, 2008
Before we examine the societal effects of gay “marriage,” we need to set the record straight about the moral teachings of Jesus. While it’s true that Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality, it’s also true he never mentioned the evils of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, slavery, wife-beating, or substance abuse, to name a few. In fact, the New Testament records very few things that Jesus specifically condemned. It would be reckless, therefore, to assume that anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. What the scriptures do record, however, is Jesus’s shift from old-covenant particulars to core moral principles. . .

With two great new roles and a body that won't quit, Jennifer Aniston is reinventing what it means to be 40 and female in Hollywood. InStyle.com—Vogue.com, By Jonathan Van Meter. Photographed by Craig McDean, December 2008 Issue
. . .This whole 'Poor lonely Jen' thing, this idea that I'm so unlucky in love? I actually feel I've been unbelievably lucky in love. Just because at this stage my life doesn't have the traditional framework to it—the husband and the two kids and the house in Connecticut—it's mine. It's my experience. And if you don't like the way it looks, then stop looking at it! Because I feel good. I don't feel like I'm supposed to be any further along or somewhere that I'm not. I'm right where I'm supposed to be.". . . . . . When I ask her about Angelina Jolie, Aniston asks me to turn off the tape recorder for a moment. Suffice it to say, if there is never any love gained in the first place, there can be no love lost. But she did want to put a few things on the record. (Funnily enough, they involve some of the same issues brought up by the recent profile of Jolie in The New York Times, in which she talks about falling in love on the set of Mr. & Mrs. Smith.) She asks me if I ever saw a cartoon that appeared in the New York Post a couple of years ago that depicts Aniston talking on the phone in her kitchen. The bubble over her head says, HI ANGELINA…I DECIDED TO TAKE YOU UP ON YOUR OFFER OF A "SIT-DOWN TALK."…In the drawing, Aniston is loading a shotgun, and there is a copy of Vogue sitting next to her. (The cartoon was inspired by an interview I did with Jolie for this magazine in January 2007 in which she said she would welcome the opportunity to "sit down" with Aniston.) Someone sent Aniston the cartoon ("the funniest thing I've ever seen," she says), and afterward, she could not resist the urge to buy a copy of Vogue to see what the fuss was about. What really rankled Aniston about the piece was that Jolie felt the need to recount a detailed timeline of exactly how her relationship developed on the set of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, while Aniston was still married to and living with Pitt. "There was stuff printed there that was definitely from a time when I was unaware that it was happening," says Aniston. "I felt those details were a little inappropriate to discuss." Aniston, still galled, shakes her head in disbelief. "That stuff about how she couldn't wait to get to work every day? That was really uncool.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image New York Times, By Brooks Barnes, November 20, 2008
While all celebrities seek to manipulate their public images to one degree or another, Ms. Jolie accomplishes it with a determination, a self-reliance and a degree of success that is particularly notable. . . . . Shifting the focus is one of Ms. Jolie’s best maneuvers, magazine editors and publicity executives say. When she became romantically involved with Mr. Pitt, for instance, she faced a public relations crisis — being portrayed in the tabloid press as a predator who stole Mr. Pitt from his wife, Jennifer Aniston. . . .This time, it was Ms. Jolie’s charity work that helped turn the story. . .

Jennifer Aniston finally breaks her silence on Angelina Jolie

RELATED SLIDESHOW: Vogue feature story: Prime Time December 2008 Issue

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Gone Post-al' Jen 'Tooned in on Jolie NYPost.com, By Jennifer Fermino, November 12, 2008
Jennifer Aniston thought a Page Six cartoon "was the funniest thing I've ever seen" - but it turned out the joke was on her.

RELATED ARTICLE: Jennifer Aniston on John Mayer: 'We Adore One Another'   People magazine, By Brian Orloff, November 11, 2008
Jennifer Aniston has a simple message when it comes to her on-again relationship with John Mayer: "People need to mind their own business," the actress tells Vogue in its December issue. . .

RELATED BLOG: Brangelina Triangle Tragedy: Marriage Vows Don't Count  The Real Proposal magazine BlogSpot, December 22, 2006
One of the things we know for sure in life is that nothing just happens. Science bears out this point with a well-established, immutable law of cause and effect. So, to hear Angelina Jolie play the "it-just-happened” card in a recent interview for the January 2007 issue of Vogue magazine to explain how her relationship with Brad Pitt evolved on the movie set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, while he was still married to "best friend," Jennifer Aniston, was very disappointing. Ms. Jolie's moral and ethical conscience appears, at times, to be otherwise alive and well, as witnessed by her stance on several global sociopolitical issues. Therefore, as difficult as it might have been for Ms. Jolie to speak truth on this matter, we would have had a lot more respect for her honesty—and thought her interview less disingenuous—to hear her readily admit, without excuses, that she coveted Ms. Aniston's husband, and that they both suffered moral failure in doing the honorable thing, which would have been to walk away from each other—for good—with their integrity in tact. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: ANGELINA: I Tried Not to Steal Jen's 'Best Friend'   NY POST.com, By David K. Li, December 12, 2006

Wanda Sykes is now 'Out and Proud' (Click for Related Video)

Wanda Sykes is Out and Proud PopEater.com, November 16, 2008
-- Comedian Wanda Sykes is openly gay, but was content to keep discussions of her sexual orientation private - until Proposition 8 passed in California. Sykes surprised organizers of a Las Vegas rally for gay rights with an unscheduled appearance on Saturday, and told the crowd, "You know, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation... I was just living my life, not necessarily in the closet, but I was living my life. Everybody that knows me personally they know I'm gay. But that's the way people should be able to live their lives." She explained that the passage of Prop 8 felt like an attack on her lifestyle. "Now, I gotta get in their face," she said. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay.". . . . .George Clooney told E!'s Ted Casablanca, "At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black.". . . Gay and straight celebs showed up to a protest rally in West Hollywood Wednesday night. Among the stars in attendance were Ricki Lake, Rose McGowan and Wanda Sykes. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Radical homosexuals plan day of 'intolerance' OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper, November 14, 2008
Activist homosexual leaders are planning a day of protest this Saturday over losing the traditional marriage battles in three states. The homosexual movement for special rights has become louder, and in some cases violent, in the aftermath of losses at the ballot box in Florida, Arizona, and California. Florida Family Association notes the increased intensity in rhetoric from the self-proclaimed "champions of tolerance" and diversity. The National Day of Protest's logo is a clenched fighting fist and features phrases such as "Fight the H8" (Fight the Hate) and "Ready to Rumble.". . .

RELATED VIDEO: Wanda Sykes Comes Out YouTube.com

RELATED VIDEO: Gay Advocates Protest Marriage Ban Around Nation Associated Press

RELATED ARTICLE: Why The Prop 8 H8ters Lost Townhall.com, By Kevin McCullough, November 16, 2008
How are they ignorant? For one they don't seem to understand the validity of Constitutional authority, Constitutional law, and Constitutional rule. They are running around ginning up the pathetic gatherings of theirs to "override" Prop 8. They don't seem to understand that the court is under the authority of the Constitution in the state of California. They don't seem to understand that if some Kangaroo judge attempts to hijack the resounding will of the people, having now passed in two landslide victories--even when outspent on the matter 6 to 1, they will have anarchy on hand. Given that to shred the explicit language of a state's sovereign constitution is to suspend all law, and all authority found in the law. . . . I also publicly wonder if McCain supporters acted this way (who lost in just as big a fashion as did the opponents of Prop 8), how long they would be allowed on the street, threatening peaceful voters who had done their civic duty and voted their conscience. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Gay Rights Protests Across The Nation CBS 5 — San Francisco
Gay rights supporters gathered Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008, to protest the California vote that banned gay marriage, urging supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed. Crowds gathered near public buildings in major cities including Boston, Denver, San Francisco and Chicago to vent their frustrations.

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: In To Be Out: Gay Celebrities CBS 5.com
Here's a look at some stars who are living openly gay lives, and realizing that it is "in to be out."

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: When It Was Out To Be Out CBS 5.com

RELATED ARTICLE: That's No Man, That's My Wife Townhall.com, By Burt Prelutsky , June 30, 2008
It’s strange from our vantage point to realize there was a time before same-sex marriages and gay pride parades when homosexuality was the love that dared not speak its name. These days, it’s the love that never shuts up.

There's Nothing Democratic About Judges — Not Society — Upending Traditional Definition Of Marriage The Hartford Courant, By Peter Wolfgang, November 16, 2008
Same-sex marriage arrived in Connecticut this week the only way it could: by bypassing the democratic process. Only three states have had same-sex marriage, and in each case it was imposed by a 4-3 vote of the states' high courts. In California, the people reasserted their right to self-government and — thanks especially to African American turnout — voted on Nov. 4 to overturn their court and restore the traditional definition of marriage. With Arizona reversing an earlier vote, same-sex marriage has now lost in all 30 of the 30states that held referendums on amending their constitutions. Connecticut was supposed to be different. Same-sex marriage activists saw in our state their best chance for a democratic victory and so they frequently brought their cause to the General Assembly. Their repeated failure to democratically pass same-sex marriage undermines the legitimacy of their court victory. In neither Massachusetts nor California did the legislature say "no" to same-sex marriage as often or as explicitly as in Connecticut. Even in 2005 — their best year — same-sex marriage advocates were forced to drop their "same-sex marriage or nothing" demand and settle for a civil union law that explicitly defined marriage as between a man and a woman. That even a legislature as liberal as ours refused to pass same-sex marriage says a lot about where the people of Connecticut really stand on this issue. In the end, same-sex marriage activists had to rely on four unelected judges to impose it. The conduct of those judges and of state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal raises further questions about the democratic legitimacy of same-sex marriage in Connecticut. . .

There's nothing democratic about judges - not society - upending traditional definition of marriage

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Gay the New Black? Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, November 18, 2008
It is worth noting that the people least impressed with the comparison of the gay struggle to redefine marriage with the black struggle for racial equality are blacks. They voted overwhelmingly for Californias Proposition 8 which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. One reason given is that blacks tend to be socially conservative. But another, less verbalized, reason may well be that blacks find the comparison demeaning and insulting. As well they should. One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be callous to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex. They are not in the same moral universe. There is in fact no comparison between the situation of gays in America in 2008 and the situation of most black Americans prior to the civil rights era. Gays are fully accepted, and as a group happen to constitute one of the wealthiest in American life. Moreover, not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is not anti-gay; it is pro-marriage as every civilization has defined it. The fact is that states like California already grant people who wish to live and love a member of the same sex virtually every right that marriage bestows except the word married. A certain number of gay men will feel better if they can call their partner husband and some lesbians will enjoy calling their partner wife, but society as a whole is not benefitted by such a redefinition of those words. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Counterfeit Marriage and its Counterfeit Movement Townhall.com, By Matt Barber , November 16, 2008
By drawing artificial parallels between the systematic persecution experienced by blacks over centuries past to the inherent aversion most have toward biologically unnatural, traditionally immoral and objectively perverse sexual behaviors, the homosexual lobby trivializes and diminishes the African-American struggle for civil rights. It's dishonest and offensive for people who choose to define their identity based upon aberrant sexual proclivities to compare sexual temptation and volitional sexual conduct to immutable and innocuous biological traits such as skin color. "Don't compare your sin to my skin," goes the African-American mantra. . . . . . .The left's venomous reaction to the passage of Prop 8 has showcased these people for who they truly are. It has removed the sublime mask, revealing an ugly and desperate countenance below. It has exposed the self-proclaimed agents of "tolerance" and "diversity" as the most intolerant, hateful and bigoted among us. It has revealed – as Scripture says of those trapped in homosexual sin – that they are "[given] over to a reprobate mind." Yes, the mask is off and so are the gloves. It'll likely get worse before it gets better. But now is the time to stand firm ground. Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have always had it right. . .

'Pregnant Man' Thomas Beatie expecting a second child (Click for Related Video)

Barbara Walters Exclusive: Pregnant Man Expecting Second Child
In First Interview Since Giving Birth, Thomas Beatie Tells Barbara Walters About Life With Daughter Susan ABC News, By Alan B. Goldberg and Katie N. Thomson, November 13, 2008
Thomas Beatie, the controversial "pregnant man" who gave birth to a daughter earlier this year, reveals to Barbara Walters in an exclusive interview that he is pregnant again with his second child. Thomas Beatie, a transgender, welcomed a baby girl, Susan, June 29. Since sharing the story of Susan's birth with ABC News, he and his wife, Nancy Beatie, hadn't spoken to the media until they sat down last month with Walters. Thomas Beatie, who is in his first trimester, tells Walters he did not go back on the male hormone testosterone after Susan's birth so he could have another baby. "I feel good," he said. "I had my checkups with my hormone level, as far as the HCG. And everything is right on track." He says the baby is due June 12. Thomas Beatie also spoke to Walters about Susan's birth, which was not via Caesarean section. He was in labor for 40 hours; Nancy Beatie cut the umbilical cord. In the spring, Thomas Beatie wrote an article in the national gay magazine The Advocate, revealing that he was legally male and that he was pregnant. He released a photo showing his bearded face and pregnant belly. The news -- and the controversial photo -- ignited a media frenzy and provoked questions about traditional notions about sex and gender. . . . In order to secure Nancy Beatie's parental rights, legal experts say the Beaties need to do what many same-sex couples with children do and have Nancy Beatie, the nonbiological parent, adopt Susan. Instead they want to fight to change the birth certificate. They asked the American Civil Liberties Union to take their case but were turned down. They are still seeking legal representation. . . . The Beaties are already telling Susan about the unusual circumstances of her birth. Thomas Beatie reads his daughter, whom he calls "Sweetpea," the Eric Carle book "Mr. Seahorse," a children's picture book that shows how male sea horses carry their offspring. "And I point to the picture at the end of the book where Mr. Seahorse has his babies and say, 'this is what I did with you, Sweetpea, and you're just that one special sea horse.'". . .

RELATED VIDEO: Journey of a pregnant man ABC News, November 13, 2008
Pregnant man Thomas Beatie speaks about life with his new daughter.

RELATED VIDEO: "What Is a Man, What Is a Woman? Journey of a Pregnant Man" ABC News, November 13, 2008

RELATED COMMENTS: Barbara Walters Exclusive: Pregnant Man Expecting Second Child ABC News, November 13, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Pregnant ‘Man’: Barbara Walters Struggles Against Reality   Townhall.com, By Brian Fitzpatrick, November 18, 2008
During her special on Thomas and Nancy Beatie, Walters repeats doggedly, almost desperately, that the Beaties are “normal” and “ordinary.” The problem is, transgenderism is not a joke and it is not normal. It’s a real mental disorder, inflicting real anguish on real people. As a journalist, Barbara Walters should tell the truth about Beatie and transgenderism. The truth is very simple: Thomas Beatie is not a man, and changing sexes is a disorder, not a choice.

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Born With the Wrong Body: Transgender 10-Year-Old Girl and Her Family Talk to Barbara Walters   ABC News, By Alan B. Goldberg, June 27, 2008
Last year Barbara Walters spoke with the families of three transgender children who agreed to share their story. Now, one year later, "20/20" has reached out to the families again to learn what's happened since the original "20/20" episode aired. All three families said that the story helped change their world for the better. Advocacy groups also report a significant surge in young transgenders coming out. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:   More than a 'gay gene' controlling the media: It's New Age heresy The Real Proposal magazine, April 12, 2008
Check out the video link that was brought to our attention by one of our readers in response to our previous posting, "The 'Gay Gene' Controlling the Media." Without a doubt, it lends credence to our skepticism and justifies not just our own bewilderment but also that of several readers who posted comments about the media's blatantly false editorial positioning in the illusory farce concerning Thomas Beatie, a seriously confused "transgendered" woman, who is being heralded—and, thereby, validated—not only by Oprah but also by such publications as People magazine as the world's first "pregnant man". Now the fundamental issues raised by this unseemly event weren't particularly difficult to grasp. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The "Gay Gene" Controlling The Media The Real Proposal magazine, April 1, 2008
Either way, the mere fact that we are even contemplating this as a possible scenario is a sure-fire indication that, if ever as a society, we were waiting for that defining moment in which we ought to reconsider the primrose path along which gay rights activists are leading us, it would be now. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A “Gay Man” Trapped in a Woman’s Body and Other Nonsense Townhall.com, By Matt Barber, December 26, 2007
Talk radio host Michael Savage doesn’t mince words. He often says that “liberalism is a mental disorder.” He’s right. Liberal ideology and political correctness, infused with public policy, begets social insanity. Case in point: A recent report on a popular homosexual “news” site declares, “A transgendered student says he is the victim of discrimination at a small Massachusetts community college because he is biologically female.” Say what? “He” is “female”? Welcome to PC-ville. Come for the oxymoron, stay for the cognitive dissonance. In other news, “French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte says he is the victim of discrimination because he is biologically Bob from Detroit.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Surgical Sex   First Things.com, By Paul McHugh, November 2004
Mental health professionals like Paul McHugh at Johns Hopkins University believe that all the social, medical and psychiatric resources employed in turning men into women are “a misdirection of psychiatry.” and partly at the his urging, Johns Hopkins no longer performs sex reassignment surgery. He became convinced that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Psychiatric Misadventures By Paul R. McHugh— Henry Phipps Professor and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
During the thirty years of my professional experience, I have witnessed the power of cultural fashion to lead psychiatric thought and practice off in false, even disastrous, directions. I have become familiar with how these fashions and their consequences caused psychiatry to lose its moorings. Roughly every ten years, from the mid-1960s on, psychiatric practice has condoned some bizarre misdirection, proving how all too often the discipline has been the captive of the culture. Each misdirection was the consequence of one of three common medical mistakes--oversimplification, misplaced emphasis, or pure invention. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberals Reveal 'Hidden Politics': The hidden politics of mental health associations are revealed in what some call "the most important book of the decade."  Family.org, By Aaron Atwood
In 1973, another major mental health group, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of clinical disorders. Robert L. Spitzer of Columbia University, then a member of the Nomenclature Committee, argued for homosexuality's removal from the "Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)." In "Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The well-intentioned path to harm," William T. O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles explain that there is more to this removal than meets the eye. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Father's imprisonment took toll on Dillard High shooting suspect: The teenager accused of shooting and killing her Dillard High classmate was depressed after her father went to jail for attempted murder, records show Miami Herald, By Todd Wright, November 14, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge jails Fla. girl accused of killing classmate Miami Herald, By Antonio Gonzales- Associated Press Writer, November 12, 2008
Some students wore black, while others brought flowers and teddy bears to the service next to three flagpoles outside Dillard High School. A few said prayers. Teah Wimberly, a 15-year-old sophomore, is charged with first-degree murder and discharging a weapon on school property in the killing of Amanda Collette. Investigators said Wimberly shot Collette, then walked to a seafood restaurant to call authorities and turn herself in. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): The Non-Factsheet NARTH.com, By Dale O'Leary, Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D.
The APA and the other 12 organizations that comprise the Just the Facts Coalition recently published a new edition of Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. The Coalition has mailed copies of the factsheet to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States. It is important that parents understand the threat this document poses and are able to respond to the so-call “facts.” The factsheet claims to present accurate scientific information, which will help schools protect at-risk students, and prevent violations of the separation of Church and state. The factsheet fails to accomplish any of these objectives.
1) It is not a factsheet, but a political statement.
2) It puts youth at risk – particularly adolescent males experiencing SSA.
3) It violates separation of church and state.
What are the facts?. . . .

Gays playing the race card with same-sex marriage

Playing the race card on gay marriage Boston Globe, By Jeff Jacoby, November 12, 2008
IT HAS been widely noted that black voters put California's Proposition 8 over the top last week, with nearly 7 out of 10 voting in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As the magnitude of black opposition to same-sex marriage became clear on Election Day, blogger Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay-marriage champion, reacted bitterly: "Every ethnic group supported marriage equality," he wrote, "except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them." Well, let's see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation? Plainly, declining to change the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of "the civil rights once denied" to blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur: For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963. Which is, of course, exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage contend. . . .Thus, supporters of same-sex marriage regularly referred to the California ballot measure as "Proposition Hate," while a group calling itself "Californians Against Hate" launched a website to publicize the names and addresses of donors to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Yet it was the foes of Proposition 8 whose hatred and intolerance were vividly on display. . . . If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. . .

RELATED ARTICLE, VIDEO & COMMENTS: Small Businesses Get Caught In Gay-Marriage Battle Wall Street Journal Blog, Posted by Raymund Flandez, November 13, 2008
The cultural war on gay marriage rages on, and business owners — as well as their employees — are being caught up in it. The approval of Proposition 8, in which California voters voted to overturn same-sex marriage rights, was a major victory for religious conservatives but a setback for the gay rights movement. . . . . Those businesses weren’t the only ones affected, though. Some small businesses, those who donated money in support of banning gay marriage in California, are being threatened with boycotts. . . . Backers of gay marriage have also put up a Web site calling for the blacklisting of individuals and organizations that donated money to Proposition 8, saying “Please do not patronize them. 8=HATE.” The list includes the name, title, the company’s name, the location and how much money was donated. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay activists protest Mormon church: Beyond the anger over the church's support for a gay-marriage ban in California, some seek dialogue. The Christian Science Monitor, By Ben Arnoldy, November 13, 2008 edition
San Francisco - At a rally downtown, Kevin Kopjak holds a sign that reads, "No More Mr. Nice Gay." Many in the gay community are fed up, he says, and ready "to fight the good fight." Tens of thousands of people have turned out in California cities to protest a new voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages, and wider demonstrations are planned for this weekend. . . . There are limits to dialogue, suggests Don Eaton, a regional LDS public affairs director. "The theology isn't going to change. Our understanding of them might change, although I hope that we already have a pretty good understanding – there are gay members of our congregations," he says. The church is on record, he adds, in support of domestic partnerships – just not marriage – for same-sex couples. Cole notes that the church rejects sex outside marriage, effectively forcing gay Mormons to stay celibate singles. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage Townhall.com, By Thomas Sowell, November 5, 2008
The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"-- especially "equal rights." Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals. . . . . Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage." Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football. The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have? While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. . .

'Bash Back!' Bigots Storm Michigan Church

‘Bash Back!’ Bigots Storm Michigan Church
Activists disrupt worship service, shout ‘Jesus was gay!’ Is this a ‘hate crime’? Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), Posted BY Peter LaBarbera, November 12, 2008
Below is a statement posted by an anarchist “queer” group called “Bash Back!,” which stormed the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan Sunday. You can read more about their carefully planned assault in WorldNetDaily, which reported: “Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.” Note below the diversionary tactics that enabled the hate group to disrupt Mount Hope’s worship service. We want to know if the Michigan Attorney General is going to investigate and prosecute the twerps that organized this hateful attack — or is the whole “hate crimes” concept a one-way street that serves only politically correct causes like homosexuality? Imagine if a conservative or Christian group stormed a Sunday service of the Metropolitian Community Church, which caters to homosexuals — would there be media outrage and a sense of urgency to prosecute the perpetrators? You bet there would. Veteran observers of the homosexual activist movement will know that this “Bash Back!” assault is only the latest of many “gay” direct action attacks over the years designed to intimidate conservatives and Christians into silence. . .

RELATED STATEMENT & COMMENTS: Bash Back! Raises Hell at Anti-Queer Mega-Church
The Mount Hope Church is a deplorable, anti-queer mega-church in Lansing, Michigan. The church works to institutionalize transphobia and homophobia through several repulsive projects including organized “ex-gay” conferences and so-called “hell houses”, which depict queers, trannies and womyn who seek abortions as the horrors. Mt. Hope is complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond. . . . . . .Let it be known: So long as bigots kill us in the streets, this pack of wolves will continue to BASH BACK! We are everywhere. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: FAITH UNDER FIRE: Lesbians, condoms go wild in attack on Christian church: Making out at pulpit, shouting blasphemies in front of children World Net Daily, By Bob Unruh, November 11, 2008
Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and Lansing City Pulse – which reported it was notified of the protest ahead of time and sent a reporter along instead of warning the church . .

RELATED ARTICLE & COMMENTS: Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation in the middle of Sunday worship Right Michigan, By Nick, November 10, 2008
This is what we're up against. On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers. They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Online networking spurs events, crowds San Diego Tribune, By Jeff McDonald, November 12, 2008
A cavalcade of e-mails, text messages, blogs and social-networking Web sites is propelling a series of protests against last week's statewide vote to ban gay marriage. It started with a gathering at the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center the day after Proposition 8 succeeded at the polls. On Saturday, nearly 10,000 people marched along University Avenue in Hillcrest. Demonstrators have gathered twice at the San Diego Mormon Temple to protest the church's involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign. At least three more events are planned this week. Proposition 8 supporters say the events ignore the will of the majority, which twice has voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. “They're certainly within their rights under the First Amendment, but it demonstrates a disdain and lack of respect for the democratic process,” said the Rev. Chris Clark, pastor of the East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church. “The people have spoken.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. gay marriage fight takes to the Internet Reuters.com, November 12, 2008
- The rejection of gay marriage by California voters has unleashed a hurricane of protest on the Internet, with some supporters venting their anger and others planning national demonstrations. Amy Balliett, 26, used her lunch break last Friday to start a website -- www.jointheimpact.com -- to call for coordinated action across the United States this weekend. In a few days, more than 1 million people have visited her site and dozens of marches and meetings are now planned for 1:30 p.m. EST (1830 GMT) on Saturday. . . . . "It took the rights being taken away from people to really get across that it's not a California issue. It's a nationwide issue," said Brandon Williamson, who was about to start his own protest website when he found Balliett's and joined forces as publicist.

RELATED ARTICLE: California gay marriage decision: The battle is on for our freedoms! The Real Proposal magazine, May 22, 2008
Anyone who thinks that the watershed issue of same-sex marriage is ultimately about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms or a fundamental constitutional right to marry whomever we fall in love or want to form a family with, regardless of their gender, is being either naive, misinformed, misled...or, simply, disingenuous. . .

Phyllis Burgess (in yellow top) - a 'Yes on Proposition 8' supporter is surrounded by angry mob of 'No on Proposition 8' supporters at a rally that turned ugly (Click for Related Video)

Homosexual Protesters Engulf Elderly Woman, Stomp on Her Cross Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, November 12, 2008
Dear Readers, here’s more evidence that homo-fascism is coming out of the closet following the triumph of Proposition 8, which simply restores the traditional definition of marriage in California. “Gay” activists now rail against ANY opposition to their agenda as “hateful.” Watch this video from Palm Springs, California — a notorious homosexual Mecca. Note the anchorman’s politically correct summation, as if the “hate” on the video really came from “both sides”! Beneath the video is more background on this latest “gay” outrage; note that a commercial preceeds the online video news story. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Prop. 8 tussle may result in charges The Desert Sun, Nicole C. Brambila, November 11, 2008
The woman at the center of a disturbance that erupted on Friday at a protest against the gay marriage ban says she plans to press charges. Phyllis Burgess alleges that she was assaulted as she carried a Styrofoam cross through the crowd at a No on Proposition 8 rally in front of Palm Springs City Hall. . . .“I guess I didn't see the gravity of the whole thing and how it was being portrayed to the public,” Burgess said. “People are incensed. They seem to want some kind of justice.” What was planned as a peaceful candlelight service took a hostile turn when the crowd began pushing and a cross was torn from Burgess' arms. The cross ended up in pieces on the ground. The crowd chanted, “Go home!” “Nazi!” and “Shame on you!” as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Prop 8 Rally KPSP Local 2 — CBS 2 Palm Springs

RELATED VIDEO: Prop 8 Rally Turns Violent KPSP Local 2 — CBS 2 Palm Springs

Gay couples start marrying in Connecticut Associated Press, By John Christoffersen, November 12, 2008
— Gay couples began marrying in Connecticut on Wednesday after a judge cleared the way, a victory for advocates stung by California's ban on same-sex unions last week. . . . The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples. . . . Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage passed last week in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. However, Connecticut voters last week rejected the idea of a constitutional convention to amend the state's constitution, a major blow to opponents of same-sex marriage.The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, condemned the high court's decision as undemocratic. Peter Wolfgang, the group's executive director, acknowledged banning gay marriage in Connecticut would be difficult but vowed not to give up."Unlike California, we did not have a remedy," Wolfgang said. "It must be overturned with patience, determination and fortitude." The state's 2005 civil union law will remain on the books, at least for now. Same-sex couples can continue to enter civil unions, which give them the same legal rights and privileges in Connecticut as married couples without the status of being married.

Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman (holding the license) left New Haven City Hall with the first marriage license issued to a same-sex couple in Connecticut

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriages Begin in Connecticut New York Times, By Lisa W. Foderaro, November 12, 2008
— Bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses festooned City Hall here Wednesday morning, as one of the eight couples who successfully sued the state to allow same-sex marriage became the first to obtain a marriage license as the law took effect.

Miami Beach Raises Pride Flag At City Hall (Click for Related Video)

Gay Pride Flag Is Raised In Miami Beach CBS 4.com- Miami, November 11, 2008
Three decades after the gay pride flag was created, gays and Lesbians are hoping to take its powerful symbolism to a new level--sharing space on flag poles around Miami Beach. On Monday Old Glory got company from the pride flag in Miami Beach's City Hall. Mayor Matti Herrera Bower ran the Gay Pride Flag up the flag pole, making what some would call a bold statement. "I don't think this a bold step," said Herrera Bower. "I think that this is just another step to making a whole city, a city that really welcomes Gays and lesbians.". Up until recently the gay flag was banned from being flown under city law. "All gay and lesbians are welcome on Miami Beach," announced Michael Aller during the flag raising Monday night. Some might view this statement as a formality, as Miami Beach has been known to be one of South Florida's most gay friendly locations, and thousands of tourists know it. With a new amendment passed by the city commission, all that changed, allowing it to be flown anywhere, including government buildings. . . . . .Most people passing by were ok with the new colors, but mixed when it came to attaching it to city hall. "I don't have a special flag so why do they get a special flag," said visitor Mike Vadermolen. "If they want to keep being the same be the same." "You don't need to raise a straight flag because that represents our identity," said Movahedi. The mayor says the flag will be posted intermittently at government buildings. Businesses will likely keep it up year round. The Miami Beach commission is hoping they are on the forefront, paving the way for the rest of South Florida. . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Miami Beach Raises Pride Flag At City Hall CBS4.com
Three decades after the gay pride flag was created, Gays and Lesbians are hoping to take its powerful symbolism to a new level — sharing space on flag poles around Miami Beach.

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage by gays met with a loud no vote: Florida was one of three states that approved constitutional amendments invalidating "all legal unions that are treated as marriage.'' Miami Herald, By Jennifer Mooney Piedra, November 8, 2008
Opponents of gay marriage scored a state-referendum sweep Tuesday, bringing some solace to social conservatives and anger and sorrow to gay rights activists. . . . . The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was supported by more than 62 percent of voters statewide -- surpassing the 60 percent threshold required for ratification. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Responding to Homosexuality & Gay Marriage: “Love the Sinner. Hate the Sin” The Real Proposal magazine, March 21, 2008
There are several gay rights factions within this country that, through sheer political bullying, are becoming more and more aggressive in their attempts to intimidate and silence anyone voicing opposition to their beliefs, and their agenda. Moreover, they have mastered obfuscation techniques, including the ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man"), which consists, essentially, of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument, or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works effectively to change the subject. Hence, dissenting voices to the homosexual lifestyle and agenda are reduced to "homophobic bigots" and "haters" and the real issues at hand fall by the wayside, including the well documented facts, even by our own national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that homosexual activity is unhealthy and ultimately generates health risks for the rest of the population. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What about the morality of homosexual behavior? Townhall.com, By Janice Shaw Crouse, March 20, 2007
Certainly, expressing views based in morality is not a good career move for anyone in today’s non-judgmental society –– especially a military man –– what with the left in control of Congress and liberals under the control of the lavender lobby. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Senators Clinton, Obama, say “Homosexuality is Moral” While Brownback Publicly Supports General Pace LifeSiteNews.com, By Gudrun Schultz, March 16, 2007
– U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama entered the media furor yesterday over comments General Peter Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made against homosexuality last week, with both issuing statements saying, “I do not think homosexuality is immoral.” Clinton and Obama made the statements after a homosexual activist group attacked “Democratic candidates” for failing to oppose General Pace’s comments that he believes homosexuality to be “immoral.” The general told the Chicago Tribune Monday, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”. . .

Liberty Council files to intervene in Prop 8 lawsuits The Desert Sun, By Nicole C. Brambila, November 10, 2008
Liberty Council today filed a motion to intervene in the three lawsuits asking the California Supreme Court to nullify last week’s voter approved gay marriage ban. "The lawsuit seeking to block Proposition 8 is patently frivolous,” Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel founder and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said in a news release. “The people have a right to amend their constitution. “It makes no sense that four judges can re-write the historic definition of marriage and more than 5 million people cannot restore it to its common understanding as the union of one man and one woman." Liberty Counsel is a Virginia-based nonprofit founded in 1989 that uses education and litigation to advance conservative religious beliefs. Proposition 8 was a voter initiative amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman only. It passed on Tuesday with 52 percent of the vote despite opinion polls leading up to the election showing its defeat. Same-sex marriage advocates argues that Proposition 8 substantially alters the state’s constitution by writing in discrimination against a minority group, in this case gays and lesbians. . . . The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed the writ the day after the election charging that Proposition 8 is invalid because it fundamentally alters the constitution and therefore requires a convention and not a popular vote. A constitutional convention requires a two-thirds legislative vote, which most political pundits believe is unlikely to pass because the state legislature has twice passed same-sex marriage laws that Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed. The Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the revision versus amendment issue. In July, the court declined to review a similar petition. . . .

Liberty Council files to intervene in Prop 8 lawsuits filed after California voter approval of gay marriage ban

RELATED PRESS RELEASE: Liberty Counsel Files Motion to Intervene to Defend California’s Marriage Amendment Liberty Counsel, November 10, 2008
– Today Liberty Counsel is filing a motion to intervene to defend against three lawsuits filed at the California Supreme Court by same-sex marriage advocates. The lawsuits, which were filed last week, are asking the Court to overturn the California Marriage Protection Act (Proposition 8) recently passed by California voters. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families. Same-sex marriage advocates erroneously argue that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision. But a revision covers multiple subjects, whereas an amendment is a single subject, as in this case. Moreover, the amendment was in the process long before the California Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008. The same-sex marriage advocates argue it violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which they say protects minorities' rights against the majority vote. . .

RELATED SITE: Liberty Counsel
To make a tax-deductible gift right now to help fight off this latest ACLU attack and continue other vital efforts, click here

RELATED ARTICLE: Church Action Prompts Tourist Boycott of Utah AOL Travel, By Brock Vergakis— AP, November 11, 2008
Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage. It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, the spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford among the state's popular tourist draws. "At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential Washington, D.C-based blogger. "They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don't do that and get away with it.". . . .What kind of economic, religious or political impact, if any, a boycott might have is unclear. The Mormon church has members all over the world and no plans to change its stance on gay marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Activists Rethink Their Gay-Marriage Tactics Time magazine, By Michael A. Lindenberger, November 11, 2008
The fight over gay marriage is not over in California, or anywhere else in the U.S. Street protests dragged into the weekend in Los Angeles and other Golden State cities, and legal challenges are already asking the California Supreme Court to overturn the Nov. 4 statewide vote on Proposition 8 that made same-sex marriage in California not only illegal but unconstitutional. . . . . The Republican-dominated court could decide by the end of this week whether to rule on the request for a stay or send it to a lower court first. But whatever the merits of the legal challenge, the court will face enormous pressure as it deliberates. . . . . "If the California Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that would invalidate the will of the people, the consequences for the court would be momentous," the Rev. Albert Mohler told TIME over the weekend. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of the nation's leading Evangelical voices, called such a "usurpation" hard to fathom. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Homosexuals Call for Violence against Christian Supporters of Prop 8 Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, Posted November 6, 2008
Surprise, surprise. Some “queer” activists are revealing their homo-fascist tendencies in the wake of the passage Tuesday of the pro-traditional-marriage amendment Prop 8 in California. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel — who is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality — issued the release below exposing the intolerance of some homosexual opponents of Prop 8. The two web posts shown here are copied from the vicious homosexual activist website “Queerty” (which is no fan of AFTAH either). To be fair, there were also posts from homosexual activists — including “gay” icon Frank Kameny — condemning the violent statements. . . . . .Meanwhile, over at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”. . . . . . Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, said, “This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they’re not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity. The homosexual lobby is always calling for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and ‘hate.’ Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians. This is not free speech; these are ‘hate crimes’ under the existing definition. Imagine if Christian Web sites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There’d be outrage, and rightfully so. It’d be national front-page news. . .

RELATED SITE: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH)

RELATED ARTICLE: It's official: Guy Ritchie is no longer Mr Madonna as judge grants couple 'quickie divorce' The Daily Mail- UK, By Richard Simpson and Diana Pilkington, November 21, 2008
Guy Ritchie and superstar wife Madonna's marriage is officially over, after a judge rubber-stamped the couple's decree nisi in London today. The film director took his sons out for a celebratory meal last night ahead of today's 'quickie' divorce, while Madonna performed in Philapdelphia. What began as a fairytale wedding nearly eight years ago came to an end at the clinical Principal Registry of the Family Division in High Holborn, London, this morning. And a sworn statement released by the court showed that it was Madonna who petitioned for divorce on the grounds of Ritchie's unreasonable behaviour. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Guy Ritchie turns down Madonna's millions for joint custody of sons in divorce settlement NY Daily News, By Korin Miller, November 20th 2008
Madonna and Guy Ritchie may have reached a divorce settlement, with the British director walking away with ... zilch. Ritchie has reportedly thumbed his nose at his estranged wife's millions, opting to focus instead on obtaining joint custody of the couple's two sons Rocco, 8, and David, 3. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The sexless marriage: no need to live like a virgin The Times Online- UK, By Dr. Pam Spurr, October 23, 2008
As Madonna and Guy Ritchie's marriage fails because of an alleged sex drought, our expert says that they are not alone - sexless relationships are a modern phenomenon. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Guy said I looked like a granny,' Madonna accuses husband of cruelty The Daily Mail- UK, By Richard Simpson, October 17, 2008
Madonna is building an extraordinary divorce case against Guy Ritchie, claiming he was a cruel and verbally-abusive husband who would belittle and ridicule her in front of others. Lawyers for the singer, who was widely believed to be the dominant partner in the marriage, are putting together a dossier of incidents. They include allegations that he told her she 'looked like a granny' on stage compared with her younger backing dancers. He is also alleged to have declared that she could not act, and was 'past it' after she turned 50. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: ITALY: Couple face jail for harming son with divorce The Telegraph- UK, By Ben Leach, November 8, 2008
Prosecutors in Milan have asked a judge to charge the couple with ill-treatment of a minor. The case is believed to be the first of its kind in Europe. The prosecutors claim that repeated arguments between the parents, who cannot be named under Italian privacy laws, induced a "syndrome of anxiety and depression". This led to problems of concentration and him falling behind with his school work. The child was apparently left confused and with the conviction that his parents hated each other. A Milan prosecutor brought the case after a health visitor reported that the child was "disturbed". Antonio Sangermano, the magistrate who is conducting the case, said that the mother and father had blamed each other for their break-up in arguments carried out in front of the child. . . .Cesare Tacconi, a Milan judge, will decide early next month whether to send the case to trial. . .

Lindsay Lohan: I'm not a lesbian (Photo Courtesy: Harper's Bazaar)

Lindsay Lohan: Myth vs. Reality
In a revealing interview, the newly grounded young star opens up about her love life, family drama, and relaunching her acting career Harper's Bazaar, By Marshall Heyman
It's a Saturday night in early October and Lindsay Lohan is sitting at the Chateau Marmont drinking a Shirley Temple. . . ."I think it's pretty obvious who I'm seeing," Lindsay admits after much, much prodding. "I think it's no shock to anyone that it's been going on for quite some time. ... She's a wonderful person and I love her very much." Has she previously been with a girl? She laughs and says, "I don't know. Maybe." Has she ever been embarrassed about being attracted to a woman? "No." Would she classify herself as bisexual? "Maybe. Yeah." Lesbian? "No." She goes on, "I don't want to classify myself. First of all, you never know what's going to happen — tomorrow, in a month, a year from now, five years from now. I appreciate people, and it doesn't matter who they are, and I feel blessed to be able to feel comfortable enough with myself that I can say that." She sees herself getting married "eventually," but whether to a man or a woman, "I don't know." Her family — save for her father, Michael, who has publicly railed against Ronson — has been especially supportive. "It's never really come up as an issue," says Lindsay. "We're close; we've been through a lot. They're supportive of me whether I'm with a guy or a girl. They're just supportive of me as a person." . . . . . As for her father's behavior, "I would love to say it's surprising, but it's not. It doesn't bother me as much as embarrass and hurt me. And put a knife in my back," she says, on the verge of tears. "And it's hard because I was flipping through channels and someone on E! called him a loser. And that's my f*****g father!" The two are not speaking at the moment, though Lindsay insists, "He's not a bad guy. He's just making bad choices. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Homosexuality: it isn’t natural: Ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ‘gay gene’, says Peter Tatchell: gay desire is not genetically determined Spiked.com, By Peter Tatchell, June 24, 2008
There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t.
[Editor's note: Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party.]

RELATED ARTICLE: College taught her not to be a heterosexual Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, April 19, 2008
Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Hetero-flexible Gene Townhall.com, By Jennifer Roback Morse, February 20, 2006
There is actually plenty of data that supports the position that sexual orientation is not a fixed trait. I know, I know, I can hear the howls already. Everybody knows that homosexuality is genetically determined. Actually, everybody who knows anything about the subject knows exactly the opposite. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): Female Homosexual Development NARTH.com
It is often claimed that sexual orientation is an innate and normal variation of sexuality and therefore immutable or unchangeable aspect of a person's core self or identity. But there is no conclusive evidence that female homosexuality is innate or solely genetic or biologically based. Most respected scientists agree that homosexuality is due to a combination of social, psychological, and biological factors. . .

The Ex Factor: I've been voted out Simon Cowell's life forever, confesses a devastated Terri Seymour The Daily Mail- UK, By Lina Das, November 8, 2008
. . . .Terri talks so warmly about Cowell that it comes as rather a shock when she admits that they separated a few months ago. Despite constant speculation about the state of their relationship, the couple had been together for six years, which, for a man with Cowell's self-confessed attention span deficit, 'was probably a record'. They remain good friends, with none of the Madonna-Guy Ritchie post-relationship acrimony and, says Terri, 'I know he'll be a good friend forever.' Terri moved out of the home she shared with Cowell in August and into her own hillside pad in Los Angeles, 'It's beautiful,' she beams. 'The pool is in the centre and the house is built around it.' . . . . Because their work schedules had been so busy, she was used to living on her own, 'so moving out wasn't such a big deal,' she says. 'One of the problems was that he'd be working in London while I'd be working here, so we never got to see each other. We started to drift apart and were leading separate lives. 'But I never even considered not working so that we could spend more time together,' she shudders. 'I've been working since I was 12, when I started modelling, and I think one of the reasons we lasted as long as we did was because I was independent and earned my own money. Even when I had to travel to New York to interview him for American Idol, which I had to do a lot, it felt weird, like I was following him around, which I didn't like at all.' Had their relationship become more like a brother-sister one? 'No, I wouldn't say that, but we didn't feel like a couple any more. You know in your heart when it's over - and we both knew.'. . .

The Ex Factor: Simon Cowell and long-time girlfriend Terri Seymour have split

RELATED ARTICLE: Golden goodbye: Simon Cowell hands ex-girlfriend Terri Seymour £6million The Daily Mail- UK, By Simon Cable, November 2008
On television he revels in his role as Mr Nasty.But away from the cameras it looks as if Simon Cowell is in danger of turning into Mr Nice Guy. The X Factor judge and music mogul has reportedly handed over almost £6million as a 'parting gift' to former girlfriend Terri Seymour. . . . Their relationship ended over his reluctance to marry and have children. Cowell said earlier this week: 'I know some find it hard to fathom, but it's who I am. 'Bottom line is, I'm married to my job. She wants a different path in life, I totally respect that.'. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 7 Signs It's Time to Split   AOL Personals— By eHarmony Advice, October 17, 2008
In any relationship, there are good and bad days, but when do you know that it's time to break up? The easy answer is when the bad days outweigh the good, but it's more complicated than that. Knowing what the signs of a rocky relationship are can help both of you avoid wasting time. If you aren't getting what you want or need from the other person, it's time to move on and find someone who will make you happy. Here are seven signs that will clue you in on knowing when it's time to split. 1) You aren't spending time together. . . . 2) You don't discuss your future. . . . . 3) There is a lack of effort. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 7 Terrible reasons to break up with someone   AOL Personals— By eHarmony Advice, September 22, 2008
For many of us, it's clear when a relationship has run its course, but far too many fold before they've really tried to make it work. Not every bad day has to spell the end and not every problem is insurmountable. But how do you know when you're giving up too soon? Here are eight terrible reasons to break up with someone... 1. You Had a Big Fight . . . . 2. Your Partner Doesn't Like Everything you Like. . . . .3. Your Partner Finds Other People Attractive. . . . 4. You Don't Have Time for a Relationship. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 8 Signs You Are Dating The Wrong Person   AOL Personals— By eHarmony Advice, October 2, 2008
Is there a nagging voice inside you? Something telling you that maybe this person you're spending time with isn't the best person for you to be with? That there's someone better? That your current relationship isn't what you had dreamed for yourself? If so, then these are probably feelings you want to explore further. Here are eight signs that you are dating the wrong person. . . .1. You're not Happy. . . . . 2. You don't feel good about yourself. . . . .3.The people you trust urge you to get out. . . . .4. You find yourself constantly thinking about someone else. . .

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up
The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continue to march outside churches across California. Los Angeles Times, By Michael Rothfeld and Victoria Kim, November 9, 2008
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative. "It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area." With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue. In past statements, he has said he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts. Following that position, he publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." The governor's comments came as protesters took to the streets for a fifth day in a row, sometimes marching to Catholic and Mormon churches that supported passage of the ballot measure with public pronouncements and campaign donations. . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Are Gay Marriages Before Election Valid? Associated Press

RELATED VIDEO: Prop 8 Protests Continue CBS News

RELATED ARTICLE: In California, Protests Over Gay Marriage Vote New York Times- AP, November 9, 2008
— Reaction to the passage of a measure banning same-sex marriage continued to sweep across California on Sunday, with hundreds of protesters rallying outside an Orange County megachurch whose popular pastor brought the presidential candidates together last summer for a “faith forum.” A large protest against the measure, Proposition 8, at the Mormon Temple in Oakland led the California Highway Patrol to close two nearby highway ramps. A patrol dispatcher said the ramps had been closed to protect pedestrians from traffic. In Pasadena, the pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Church spoke out against the measure, calling the religious community’s support of it embarrassing. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Thousands protest gay-marriage ban San Diego Union Tribune, November 8, 2008
– Frustration and outrage over the passing of a ban on same-sex marriage intensified in San Diego yesterday as thousands of protesters took to the streets and vowed to continue the fight for equal rights. An estimated 8,000 to 10,000 people marched from Hillcrest to North Park behind a giant rainbow flag in protest of Proposition 8. The measure, approved Tuesday by 52 percent of voters, overturns the state Supreme Court ruling in May that legalized gay marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Protests Over Gay-Marriage Ban Escalate in California FOX News, November 7, 2008
Angry gay rights activists in California continue to protest the Election Day passage of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman. . . .Supporters of same-sex marriage are aiming their wrath at the Mormon church, which raised $20 million of the overall $75 million that was spent to promote the California initiative. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also encouraged its members to volunteer their time for the campaign. . . A group of protestors plans to rally Friday in front of the headquarters of the Mormon church in Salt Lake City. Protestors demonstrated Thursday outside a Mormon temple in Los Angeles. About 1,000 gay-marriage supporters waved signs and brought afternoon traffic to a halt. . .

ELECTION ROUNDUP 2008: Gay Marriage banned in 3 states; other ballot measures decided

ELECTION ROUNDUP: Gay marriage banned in three states; other ballot measures decided WikiNews, November 8, 2008
Voters in California, Florida and Arizona voted on Tuesday to ban gay marriage, bringing about a victory for conservatives on a day which did not bring many conservative wins. Meanwhile, voters in Colorado, South Dakota and California voted on measures which would have restricted abortion in those states. In Massachusetts and Michigan, voters passed measures that loosen marijuana laws. Finally, in the state of Washington passed a measure that allows physician-assisted suicide. . . . . . Also in California, voters rejected a measure which would require parental notification for a minor to receive an abortion. The measure was rejected with the same percentage as Proposition 8, 52% to 48%. Meanwhile in Colorado, voters rejected a measure that would define life as beginning at conception, the measure did not mention abortion, however, it would have required legislators and courts to confront legal rights for fetuses and if the measure actually bans abortion. The measure was defeated in a wide margin, 73% to 27%. In South Dakota, voters also defeated an anti-abortion measure which would have outlawed abortion in all cases except in the case of rape, incest or if the mother's health was in serious question. If passed, the law would most likely been challenged as unconstitutional. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ballot Initiatives: No to Gay Marriage, Anti-Abortion Measures Time magazine, By Tiffany Sharples, November 05, 2008
Alongside the historic ballot for the Presidency, 36 U.S. states presented 153 ballot initiatives to voters on Nov. 4, according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute of the University of Southern California. Many of the measures tackled social issues ranging from gay marriage and affirmative action to prostitution and assisted suicide. Despite high Democratic voter turnout, not all socially progressive issues fared well in the voting booth. Here's how Americans voted on some of the most contentious issues. . .

Yes, we did. But we're not ready to throw confetti Editorial: The Real Proposal magazine, November 08, 2008
The people of America have spoken. And who among us could not feel pride at this transcendental moment in American history when we, the people, elected the first African-American president of the United States of America? To not acknowledge and savor this historic moment in a nation that once considered blacks property would be churlish. Indeed, Mr. Obama is to be sincerely congratulated. It is a historic accomplishment for him to become the first African-American to be elected to the highest office in the land, and we can understand the nation's pride and jubilance in this achievement. Many of us desired to vote for Mr. Obama not just because of its historical significance but because, to be sure, on several other levels he is qualified for the office of the presidency. But we couldn’t. And, instead, many of us find ourselves in a grieving process of sorts, not because of Mr. Obama's victory but because his advent represents a potential threat to what many in this country revere as core foundational principles that have been the cornerstones upon which our great nation has been built, and upon which we have thrived to become, certainly, one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on this planet. . . . . .We have no interest in deciphering Mr. Obama's "nuances" such as when he states his belief that marriage is "between a man and a woman," and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage," while, at the same time, reiterating his clear opposition to Proposition 8 — the California ballot measure which has, at least for now, restored to the state of California the traditional definition of marriage that was usurped by a renegade State Supreme Court to include same-sex couples. Let's just look at the facts. . .

RELATED SITE & VIDEO: How Obama Got Elected
On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job. On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not. . .

Marriage Unites as Politics Divides the Nation Townhall.com, By Janice Shaw Crouse, November 7, 2008
In the midst of a far-left Senator's sweeping victory to become the first black president of the United States, voters in three states stood on moral principle to solidly support the institution of marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman. Ironically, many of those who voted for liberal president-elect Obama also voted to support traditional marriage. In fact, analysts report that the marriage measures would not have passed without black voter support - seven in 10 black voters supported the ballot initiative. To me, that fact indicates that many citizens voted to support a black candidate in this historic election rather than to support Obama's liberal policy positions. Further, it indicates Obama's success in keeping his policy positions in the background and his statements about his personal faith and commitment to bipartisanship in the foreground. . . . .The message to politicians seems quite clear. Voters remain conservative on social issues and strongly support protecting marriage and the traditional family. They liked Barack Obama and believed in his promised "change" and "hope" for a bright future, but they did not buy into a liberal agenda that would fundamentally change the structure of the family, nor did they vote for a liberal domestic agenda. . . . .All those who claim that the election of Barack Obama signals the end of conservatism in America and sidelines the values voters need to look at the facts. The success of the marriage initiatives in California, Florida and Arizona, and the rejection of Proposition K in San Francisco, indicates that conservative Christians are still a powerful force for good in America and still exert strong influence in the political arena. Conservatives can echo Mark Twain's words and declare, "Rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated."

Election Paradox: Marriage unites as Politics divides the nation in historic election (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Same-sex marriage bans paradoxical in historic election CNN.com, November 7, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Progressivism's Achilles Heel Townhall.com, By Jonah Goldberg, November 7, 2008
Behold the cultural contradictions of progressivism. Barack Obama's victory was a huge win for self-described progressives. Arguably the most liberal presidential nominee in American history, Obama has given some very old ideas an aura of new coolness. Congrats on all that. Hope it works out for you. But something interesting happened on Election Day that didn't get much attention. Bans on gay marriage were on ballots in several states, and they all won. In fact, gay marriage bans have ultimately passed in all 30 of the states in which they were on the ballot. . . . In other words, Obama had some major un-progressive coattails. The tidal wave of black and Hispanic voters who came out to support Obama voted in enormous numbers against what most white liberals consider to be the foremost civil rights issue of the day. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-sex marriage bans paradoxical in historic election CNN.com, November 7, 2008
Story Highlights
Solomon Brown voted for Obama and supports Proposition 8
Maggie Cassella upset that black president elected, gay marriage opposed
Pat Wright rushed marriage to partner in light of the upcoming vote
iReport.com: What do you think? Share your thoughts on the issue

Gay-Marriage Ban Sets Up Host of Battles

Gay-Marriage Ban Sets Up Host of Battles
California's Proposition 8 Is Challenged in State Court; What Happens to Previously Wed Couples? The Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008
California voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 8, which adds to the state constitution the following sentence: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." While the wording is simple, the situation quickly became complicated. For example, what happens to those same-sex couples who married before the ruling? Legal challenges filed Wednesday raised other questions: Was the referendum process itself lawful? Does the new language conflict with other parts of the state constitution? Separately, should Proposition 8 opponents have filed challenges saying the proposition violated the U.S. Constitution? David Cruz, a constitutional-law expert at the University of Southern California, has some answers.

WSJ: Please explain the grounds upon which Proposition 8 is being challenged in court.

Mr. Cruz: The lawsuits challenge the procedure by which the referendum was passed. Under California law, there are two categories of changes that can be made to the state constitution: amendments and revisions. Amendments are more minor changes; revisions are larger in effect. This is important because each has its own process for taking effect, essentially different ways they go before the voters. An amendment can go in the form of a ballot initiative, which requires a certain number of signatures to make its way on. Constitutional revisions, however, have to have a two-thirds blessing from each house of the state legislature to make the ballot. Now, the problem, at least from the point of view of Proposition 8 supporters, is that the legislature had previously indicated a willingness to support same-sex marriage. So the proposition's supporters were unwilling to treat this bill as a revision and send it to the legislature, opting instead to treat it as an amendment. So the Proposition 8 opponents are arguing that this change actually constitutes a revision, not an amendment, and therefore needed to go through the legislature. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Thousands protest after California bans gay marriage AFP, November 6, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Melissa Etheridge to California: 'You Can Forget My Taxes' People magazine, By Melody S. Wells, November 06, 2008
No same-sex marriage, no more tax dollars from Melissa Etheridge. That's the defiant stand taken by the 44-year-old singer in a new blog post on The Daily Beast following the passage of California's Proposition 8. Etheridge declares that if she's not "allowed the same right [to marry] under the state constitution as any other citizen. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Samantha Ronson: Defeat of Gay Measures 'Frightening' People magazine, By Mike Fleeman, November 06, 2008
Lindsay Lohan's gal pal Samantha Ronson expressed shock that voters approved an animal-rights initiative but rejected measures for gay marriage and adoption. "I guess people care more about farm animals than they do their fellow man, that's really sad to me," Ronson, 31, blogs on her MySpace page. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: John McCain’s Disappointing Defense of Marriage Townhall.com, By Paul Edwards, May 28, 2008
Ellen denies these fundamental principles of marriage, arguing for same-sex marriage on the basis of erotic love, grounding her argument in the mistaken idea that marriage is a civil right denied to gays and lesbians in the same way this country denied the freedom of slaves and the suffrage of blacks and women. . . . .There is absolutely no correlation between the equality denied blacks and women and marriage being denied to gays and lesbians. All humans, regardless of ethnic or gender differences, have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights on the basis of their common humanity. When Ellen argues that “we are all the same people” she is absolutely correct that, in terms of our humanity, we are all equal. But she misapplies the equality standard to sexuality, insisting that there is no difference between the erotic love and relational commitment of homosexual persons versus that of heterosexual persons. She couldn’t be more wrong. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay "Marriage" Townhall.com, By Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy
The indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. The Weekly Standard- By Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson, June 1, 2006
It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?. . . . . People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law's refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting traditional, monogamous marriage, the law does not violate the "rights" of people whose "lifestyle preferences" are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children. . .

Michelle Obama: America's next First Lady
As the eulogies wash over Barack Obama today, he can at least rely on his wife Michelle Obama - America's next First Lady - to bring him down to earth. The Telegraph -UK, By Tom Leonard, November 5, 2008
Others may gush over her husband but Michelle Obama, not only the first black First Lady but one of the youngest presidential wives since Jackie Kennedy, likes to be brutally honest about him. Unlike some First Ladies, the 44-year-old Princeton and Harvard Law School graduate, and working mother of two, is certainly her own woman. In her words, she doesn't want to be "so tied to all that (Barack) is that I don't have anything for me". Critics have labelled her arrogant, haughty, cold and an "angry black woman". Supporters portray her instead as independent-minded, unafraid to speak out and a devoted mother who puts family firmly before career. During the campaign she would give a standard 45 minute stump speech, which she wrote herself and delivered without notes. While other would-be presidential wives traditionally stick to sunny, uncontroversial topics, Mrs Obama would tackle issues such as education and inequality. And, of course, she talked about her husband. Thanks to her, we now know that the president elect never puts the butter away, cannot make beds and tends to be a bit smelly in the mornings. Such tidbits might have helped humanise the Obama image but critics claimed she emasculated him. . . . . . Disillusioned with "corporate America", she left after three years to work for the mayor's office - but not before she had met her future husband there. Female colleagues told her about the good-looking addition to the office whom she had been assigned to mentor during his summer work attachment. "I figured that they were just impressed with any black man with a suit and a job," she later told him. But she took him under her wing. "She took me to one or two parties, tactfully overlooking my limited wardrobe, and she even tried to set me up with a couple of her friends," her husband wrote. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Michelle Obama: new style of first lady Reuters, November 5, 2008
- Michelle Obama brings the skills of a corporate lawyer to the White House as first lady to President-elect Barack Obama, but she says her priority will be her role as "mom-in-chief" to the couple's two daughters.

RELATED ARTICLE: Malia Obama and Sasha Obama: level headed girls facing a big change The Times Online, By Sarah Vine, November 5, 2008
More than any presidential candidate before him, Barack Obama has fought his campaign on a family ticket. His wife, Michelle, has of course been crucial; but the role of the couple’s two girls, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, cannot be underestimated. They have provided some of the best moments of the past 18 months, whether waving at their father from the stage, falling asleep during his speeches or asking, somewhat crossly, whether Daddy’s half-hour infomercial was going to interfere with their own cartoon-watching habits. As they wake up to their first day as First Family, one thing has to be top of the agenda: how are those two little girls going to have any semblance of a normal life when their father is not just the American President, but also the first black American President? Not much pressure, then.

RELATED ARTICLE: America Cries: ''Give Us a King!'' The Omega Letter, By Jan Markell, November 05, 2008
There is a story in II Samuel 8 where we see Israel demanding a king. God was not sufficient for them, so they asked for a "real king." They got an evil one -- Saul. America has been in a similar mood. We want a "king" to solve our many problems starting with the economy. So Israel said to Samuel, "Now appoint a king to lead us such as all the other nations have" (II Samuel 8:5). But all the other nations had pagan kings. God lamented to Samuel and said, "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.". . . . The intrigue with this man is global. Newsweek magazine had a headline recently titled, "The World Hopes for its First President." Imagine, a world president! Newsweek states, "In country after country, polls show a record-high fascination with the outcome of the U.S. elections." Newsweek basically said "The international audience really cared less about John McCain, Sarah Palin, or Joe Biden. Somewhere along the road to the White House, Obama became the world's candidate." Even for those with proper eschatology this sounds alarming. But on the positive side, a barometer as to how late the hour is has been revealed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The World Hopes for Its First President Newsweek, By Stryker McGuire, Published Nov 1, 2008—Nov 10, 2008 Issue
The world has never watched any vote, in any nation, so closely. In country after country, polls show record-high fascination with the outcome of the U.S. elections this Tuesday.

RELATED ELECTION COVERAGE: Obama Wins Election in Landslide AOL News, November 5, 2008

RELATED SLIDESHOW: Barack Obama's Election Night: Behind the Scenes

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure San Francisco Chronicle, By John Wildermuth, Bob Egelko, Chronicle— Staff Writers, November 5, 2008
-- After a heated, divisive campaign fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters have approved Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect. With 96 percent of the vote counted, Prop. 8 was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley and carried some Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles County. The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano. The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways - taking important rights away from a minority group - that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge. "A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. "Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiative such revisions.". . .

California: Same-sex marriage ban wins; Opponents sue to block measure

RELATED ARTICLE: Statement on Proposition 8 Passing by Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 ProtectMarriage.com, November 5, 2008
. . .Proposition 8 has always been about restoring the traditional definition of marriage. It doesn’t discriminate or take rights away from anyone. Gay and lesbian domestic partnerships will continue to enjoy the same legal rights as married spouses. Our coalition has no plans to seek any changes in that law. While it will take a few weeks to finish counting all the votes, Proposition 8 takes effect at midnight tonight. Just as it was before the Supreme Court’s ruling, only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed. . . . The outcome of this race is being closely followed in every state in the nation, and in countries throughout the world. California’s vote in favor of traditional marriage should give the silent majority comfort that they do have a voice and can and should stand up for this precious institution in legislatures throughout the world. Marriage is between a man and a woman. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: California voters approve gay-marriage ban AOL News, November 5, 2008
—Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year. The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as well Tuesday. Amendments to ban gay marriage were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. . . . The constitutional amendment limits marriage to heterosexual couples, nullifying the California Supreme Court decision that had made same-sex marriages legal in the state since June. . . Gay-rights legal groups filed a petition Wednesday asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make such a dramatic change in state law without approval from the Legislature. The court refused to hear a similar petition in June, when gay-rights activists tried to knock the measure off the ballot. . .

California: 52.5% Voters back same-sex marriage ban (Click for Related Resource)

Voters backing same-sex marriage ban San Francisco Chronicle, By John Wildermuth, November 5, 2008
-- After a heated, divisive campaign, fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters Tuesday were backing Prop. 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. With more than half the vote counted, the measure was piling up huge margins in the Central Valley, but losing in every Bay Area county but Solano. Six months after the California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay and lesbian couples to legally wed, the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who took advantage of the landmark decision now are wondering if they will be the last. . . . . .The Prop. 8 battle, born in San Francisco, came eight years after more than 61 percent of California voters came out in favor of Prop. 22, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. But supporters had little time to savor the victory. In 2004, Newsom set off a political and social explosion when he ordered marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in the city. Gay and lesbian couples flocked to the city, showing up in wedding dresses and tuxes for the chance to be legally married. Despite outraged reaction from across the state and nation, Newsom didn't back down until a court ordered the city to stop issuing the same-sex licenses. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: California Election Returns: Proposition 8-Same Sex Marriage Ban San Francisco Chronicle, November 5, 2008

RELATED SITE: Yes on 8 Protect Marriage.com (Final Approval 52.5%)

Florida: 62% Voters back same-sex marriage ban by 62% (Click for Related Resource)

Floridians approve ban on gay marriage South Florida Sun-Sentinel, By Josh Hafenbrack, November 5, 2008
- Florida voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage Tuesday, handing a victory to social conservatives who pumped millions into the ballot drive aimed at ensuring the courts cannot legalize same-sex unions in the Sunshine State. After a fierce battle waged on TV airwaves, Amendment 2 was poised to comfortably clear the 60 percent threshold to become law, according to unofficial election results with most precincts reporting late Tuesday night. It defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Voters "don't want what happened in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut to happen here in Florida," said John Stemberger, who ran the Yes 2 Marriage campaign. A well-funded opposition to Amendment 2 sought to portray the ban as overreaching, arguing the amendment's broad, vague wording could cast legal doubt on domestic partner benefits for unmarried, heterosexual couples. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Florida voters pass amendment banning gay marriage AP, November 5, 2008
With 99 percent of the expected vote counted early Wednesday, the amendment had just over 62 percent support. It needed 60 percent to pass. . . Florida will now be one of approximately 30 states with a definition of marriage in its constitution.

RELATED SITE: Yes on 2- Yes2Marriage.org
(Final Approval 62%)

Arizona: Voters (56.5%) back same-sex marriage ban (Click for Related Resource)

Gay-marriage ban OK'd; other amendments mixed The Arizona Republic-AZ Central, By Mary Jo Pitzl, November 4, 2008
The second time around proved the charm, as Arizona voters approved a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage. Proposition 102, the Yes for Marriage campaign, proposed a 20-word amendment to the state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It's an attempt to do what backers couldn't do in 2006: ensure that Arizona's existing law banning same sex marriages will not be overturned by a judge. “Prop. 102's victory shows that a simple and timeless value like marriage unites people of all ethnic, religious an political backgrounds,” said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which lobbied heavily to get lawmakers to refer the matter to the ballot. In 2006, Arizona voters rejected a same-sex marriage amendment, making it the only state ever to turn down such a ban. However, that measure included a provision that would have barred state and local governments from offering domestic-partner benefits to their employees, and many felt that doomed the measure two years ago. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Az voters OK ban on gay marriage, reject payday loan reform Tucson Citizen- AP, November 5, 2008

RELATED SITE: Yes on 102— Yes For Marriage.com
(Final Approval 56.5%)

Outrageous No on 8 Commercial Sinks to New Lows, Utterly Condemned for Religious Bigotry and Intolerance ProtectMarriage.com, November 03, 2008
The ProtectMarriage.com- Yes on 8 campaign today condemned as “bigoted and intolerant” a new ‘No on Proposition 8’ television commercial scheduled to run on TV stations tomorrow and demanded that No on 8 campaign leaders, including US Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and California Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell publicly denounce the ad and urge television stations to refuse to run it. The ad, produced by a group called ‘Courage Campaign Issues Committee’ [viewable here] , depicts supposed missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conducting a home invasion of a lesbian couple’s home to steal their wedding rings and rip up their marriage license. “This ad reaches new lows of religious bigotry and intolerance,” said Yes on 8 Chairman Ron Prentice. “We hope that the leadership of the No on 8 campaign – including Senator Feinstein, Mayor Newsom and Superintendent O’Connell -- as well as all Californians regardless of their position on Proposition 8, will not only condemn the ad but join us in asking television stations to refuse to air it. After all, the No on 8 campaign has been running their own television commercials saying we must all oppose discrimination and intolerance whenever we see it. The bigotry this ad shows to members of the LDS church demands action now.”. . .

Outrageous No on 8 Commercial Sinks to New Lows, Utterly Condemned for Religious Bigotry and Intolerance (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: No on Prop 8: Home Invasion YouTube.com

RELATED ARTICLE: California Anti-Prop 8 Commercial Depicts Mormon Missionaries Invading Home KUTV, By Dan Rascon, November 3, 2008
A new commercial against proposition 8 in California is expected to fuel the fire of an already heated debate over gay marriage. The commercial depicts two Mormon missionaries invading the home of a same sex couple. In the commercial they knock on the door, say they are from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tell a lesbian couple “we are here to take away your rights.” They enter the home take the women’s rings, ransack the house looking for their marriage license, find it, and then tear it up. At the end, the missionaries was away saying, “that was too easy, yeah, what should we ban next?”. . . . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not happy with the tactics used in this commercial. Scott Trotter with the Church released this statement, “The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.”. . .

Traditional marriage is in society's best interest

Traditional marriage is in society's best interest Salt Lake Tribune, By Paul Mero, November 2, 2008
There are several key questions at the heart of gay marriage.

What is the compelling state interest in marriage? Why does the state even recognize a private matter such as marriage?

Answer: The state ("we, the people") naturally seeks to perpetuate its existence and its own welfare. America must encourage the best arrangements for people to reproduce and rear generations that most benefit society. In pursuing these ends, the state has chosen to recognize male-to-female marriages.

What is the rational basis for this decision?
Answer: What humans have known intuitively is backed by mountains of empirical evidence that "traditional" marriage does the best job of child-bearing and child-rearing. Even so, the "best job" is a relative concept among imperfect humans.

Why not encourage other marital relationships, such as gay marriage? Indeed, in a Hawaii Supreme Court, gays argued that, empirically, they are at least as good as the worst heterosexuals in raising children. So why not let them marry and adopt children? Answer: "As good as the worst" is a pretty low standard to codify. All children deserve the best standard - the complementarity of a male father and a female mother. . . . .

Perhaps the best case for gay marriage comes from conservative gays who argue that there is a state interest in domesticating promiscuous gay males. Doesn't society want to encourage responsible gay relationships?
Answers: 1) Marriage doesn't domesticate men, women do, and 2) Laws don't make people good, people do. Our laws reflect our collective prevailing morality, plain and simple. Our laws reaffirm what we endorse. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Calif. Gay Marriage Under Fire CBS News- YouTube.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2! The Real Proposal magazine, October 22, 2008
Arizona and Florida have similar proposals on their ballots - Proposition 102 and Proposition 2, respectively - which seek to amend their state constitutions to define Marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While it is vital that these propositions pass decisively, in some cases like Florida by more than a 60% majority to ratify that state's constitutional amendment, the situation in California is, perhaps, the most critical. Indeed, Proposition 8 represents the only option at this stage to return democratic governance to the people of California who already voted by a 61% majority in 2000, through Proposition 22, to preserve marriage in state law as the union of one man and one woman. Conservative commentator and scholar, Dennis Prager, summarizes the California situation: "...What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create. And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society...". . .

Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif. ABC News.com- Political Radar, ABC News' Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, Tahman Bradley, and Rigel Anderson report, November 2, 2008
Barack Obama's nuanced position on same-sex marriage is on full display in an MTV interview which is set to air on Monday. Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage." At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state's Supreme Court recently recognized. "I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about." "Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them," he added. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Your Questions About Gay Marriage, Paying For College, More MTV.com, By Chris Harris, November 1, 2008
For all of the senator's answers -- and your reactions -- check out 'Ask Obama' on Monday at 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET on MTV.

Obama says he is AGAINST same-sex marriage but also AGAINST ending its practice in California (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Barack Obama Talks "Proposition 8" MTV.com, November 1, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: If Obama Loses, Who Gets Blamed? His loss would be disastrous for the media and political establishment. Slate.com, By John Dickerson, November 2, 2008
—If Barack Obama wins the election, it will be historic. And if he loses, it will be pretty historic, too: It would mark the biggest collective error in the history of the media and political establishment. An Obama loss would mean the majority of pundits, reporters, and analysts were wrong. Pollsters would have to find a new line of work, since Obama has been ahead in all 159 polls taken in the last six weeks. The massive crowds that have regularly turned out to see Obama would turn out to have meant nothing. This collective failure of elites would provide such a blast of schadenfreude that Republicans like Rush Limbaugh would be struck speechless (another historic first). This situation lends a feeling of unreality to the proceedings as we begin to measure the time until Election Day in hours. It is the elephant on the campaign plane. No one is letting on. Journalists aren't supposed to. Plus, we've been wrong so often, and politics can be so unpredictable, it would be dumb to say that Obama is going to win big. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: No Access For Hollywood? Townhall.com, By Brent Bozell III , November 1, 2008
Hollywood celebrities campaigning and cavorting with national contenders is a staple of presidential politics. . . . So what's happening in The Year of the One, with all of Barack Obama's charismatic appeal to the liberal stars? You'd expect a mass levitation, so smitten are they by this man and his message. Instead, there's, relatively, an eerie silence. Yes, Tinseltown titans have been furiously active with fundraising, but much of that is very hush-hush, behind closed doors, like Barbra Streisand's $9-million soiree in September. . . . . The celebrity aversion to adding their glitzy names to the list of famous people associated with Barack Obama shows something obvious. Celebrities are out of touch with mainstream America, and they know it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama's Spiral of Silence Townhall.com, By Wynton Hall , October 31, 2008
If Sen. Barack Obama loses the presidency or wins by far narrower margins than the double-digit lead some mainstream media polls predict, his weak performance will not be the result of the so-called “Bradley Effect,” which holds that black candidates underperform at the polls due to latent racism. Rather, the true culprit will be something public opinion scholars call the “Spiral of Silence Theory.” In the 1970s, German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann introduced a provocative and startling theory of mass communication she called the “Spiral of Silence.” Noelle-Neumann argued that when mass media create an impression that the majority of society holds one view on a topic, those who hold minority opinions are cowed into a “spiral of silence” for fear of reprisal or isolation from those in the majority. Since Noelle-Neumann introduced the Spiral of Silence, many studies have confirmed her theory. In fact, some scholars have discovered that her theory seems even more accurate when applied to the Internet than television alone. Whether Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has knowingly leveraged the Spiral of Silence phenomenon is unclear. However, with more than willing accomplices in the liberal mainstream media, Mr. Obama has ridden a mediated tidal wave of support through the jaw-dropping imbalance of positive news coverage his campaign has received. If the Spiral of Silence thesis is accurate, this means that the lopsided liberal coverage—not Mr. Obama’s race—will have been responsible for silencing support for Senator McCain in national polls. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: John McCain or Barack Obama? For us, there's only one option The Real Proposal, August 18, 2008
Obama has also continued to spout belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, knowing fully well that he has promised homosexual lobby groups that, as President, he will support a complete repeal of both sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Essentially, the DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. So, he doesn’t want federal law to limit marriage to a man and a woman, and he doesn’t want federal law to protect the right of the states to decide for themselves. Is this the position of a man, especially one trained in Constitutional law at Harvard, who believes that marriage is “sanctified?” Further, it is Obama that is being hypocritical when he stands before a black church on Father's Day admonishing black fathers for absconding their financial and parental responsibilities to children they have fathered, and extolling the virtues of intact families and the critical role that fathers play in maintaining the foundation of the family while, at the same time, giving support to lesbians that want to adopt children and create families, which by their very nature remove a father from the equation. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Where Obama and McCain Stand on Social Policy Issues US News & World Report, August 24, 2008

RELATED RESOURCE: On the Issues- Every Political on Every Issue: Barack Obama

RELATED RESOURCE: On the Issues- Every Political on Every Issue: John McCain

The law and Proposition 8: Voters are being asked to reinstate the people's will, not make a decision about morality

The law and Proposition 8:
Voters are being asked to reinstate the people's will, not make a decision about morality. LA Times, By Richard Peterson, November 1, 2008
Proposition 8 is not about the morality of homosexual lifestyles. It is not designed to diminish comprehensive rights already guaranteed to same-sex couples by law in California. It is not motivated by bigotry, discrimination or intolerance. Proposition 8 is a reinstatement of the people's will as expressed by the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000 by 61% of California voters. That measure was cast aside in May by a vote of 4 to 3 on the California Supreme Court. In a dissenting opinion, state Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter wrote: "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will." Proposition 8 in no way diminishes the legal protections or status already granted to same-sex couples. As California Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan wrote in her dissenting opinion: "Domestic partnerships and marriages have the same legal standing, granting to both heterosexual and homosexual couples a societal recognition of their lifelong commitment.". . .

RELATED STUDY & REPORT: Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles Princeton Principles.org- Sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute
The "Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good" are the result of scholarly discussions that began in December, 2004 at a meeting in Princeton, New Jersey, sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute. This conference brought together scholars from History, Economics, Psychiatry, Law, Sociology and Philosophy to share with each other the findings of their research on why marriage is in the public interest.

Why 'yes' on Proposition 8? 'Biology, not bigotry' is the foundation for the traditional form of marriage Los Angeles Times, By Maggie Gallagher, November 1, 2008
As I travel across California and the country making the case for Proposition 8, I'm often asked, "Why do you care about restoring marriage?" It's a good question, and not just for me. Why are so many Californians rushing to street corners to hold up "Yes on 8" signs, enduring petty vandalism, and even pettier insults, to make the case for voting yes on Proposition 8? It's simple: Government did not create marriage. Marriage is older than the U.S. Constitution, older even than the Bible or the Koran. Marriage's deepest roots are in human nature and human experience. Marriage, as a judge on the Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in his compelling dissent to that court's recent ruling allowing gays to wed, is rooted "in biology, not bigotry.". . . . Why do so many diverse societies arrive at this core marriage idea? There is something special about unions of husband and wife. The answer is not hard to see. When a baby is born, a mother is bound to be somewhere close by. But if we want fathers to be there for children, and the mothers of their children, biology alone will not take us very far. We need a cultural mechanism to connect fathers to the mother-child bond. We also need an institution that communicates to the next generation -- in the throes of its own erotic and romantic dramas -- how seriously society takes the need to discipline those dramas so that children do not get hurt. The word for the way society makes this connection, not only in California but in virtually every known human society, is "marriage." Marriage is a union of husband and wife because these kinds of unions are distinctive and necessary to the whole society. . .

Why 'yes' on Proposition 8? 'Biology, not bigotry' is the foundation for the traditional form of marriage

Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse for legalizing same-sex marriage (Click for Related Video)

Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse Townhall.com, By Frank Turek November 1, 2008
This “born that way” argument is fueling the case for same-sex marriage in California. Is it a good argument? I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but I think the reasonable answer is no. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws. First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because they don’t reproduce. . . . .Second, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something more obvious— they were also born with a specific gender. This raises the question: Why are you following your desires but not your gender? . . . .Third, even if desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So even if a person honestly believes that he’s been born with homosexual desires, he is certainly capable of controlling his sexual behavior. If you claim that he is not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation. Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. . . . Some will say, “But homosexual sex is about love.” One can say that, but what’s loving about sexual activity that creates numerous health problems, increases medical costs to everyone, and reduces the lifespan of homosexuals by 8-20 years? (A homosexual friend of mine fared even worse—he died at age 36 from AIDS.). . .

RELATED VIDEO: Homosexual Activist Says There’s No "Gay Gene" CitizenLink.org, August 7, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad Townhall.com, By Frank Turek , May 26, 2008
“One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”. . . . Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic CWFA.org, By Robert H. Knight, December 21, 2005
Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He contended that people can change their "sexual orientation" from homosexual to heterosexual. Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the ideology that people are "born gay and can't change." Immutability is a central tenet of demands for "gay rights" and "gay marriage.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: College taught her not to be a heterosexual Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, April 19, 2008
Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality: Research Provides Significant Evidence NARTH.com, By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage--which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states--is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle. Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior. A closer look at the research:. . .

School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners FOX News, By Michelle Maskaly, November 01, 2008
A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays. During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners. The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners. Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child's signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents' rights. Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken. . . . Dacus would not comment specifically on whether children who signed the pledge could be held responsible if the school determined that they were not honoring it. He said they are minors and there are certain degrees of limited liability, but from a psychological and emotional perspective, it's a whole different ballgame. "[There is] tremendous peer pressure put on children to accept a pro-homosexual philosophy and attitude," Dacus said. Meanwhile, opponents of gay marriage are up in arms over the incident, which occurred as California voters prepare to vote Tuesday on Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage. "How do you teach a 5-year-old to sign a pledge card for lesbian, gay and transgender issues without explaining what transgender and bisexual is?" asked Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California. . .

School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: California Proposition 8 YouTube.com, October 31, 2008
This new video shows an actual “pledge” card that 5-year olds were compelled to sign in the Faith Ringgold Elementary kindergarten last week.

RELATED RESOURCE: ProtectMarriage.com -Yes on 8 News

RELATED ARTICLE: New You Tube Video Clarifies Yes On 8 Proponents' Concerns: Education and Protection of Children is at Risk ProtectMarriage.com- Yes on 8 Media Advisory, October 31, 2008
– Proposition 8 preserves the rights of parents to decide what lifestyle choices are taught to their children and protects children. The absence of the words “between a man and a woman” which were deleted from our laws this past May by the California Supreme Court, has provided an opening for gay activists to force their agenda of sexual orientation education into our public schools. A new video available on www.protectmarriage.com and on YouTube through the following link, clarifies the issues at stake. This new video shows an actual “pledge” card that 5-year olds were compelled to sign in the Faith Ringgold Elementary kindergarten last week. It commits them to protect and defend gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender relationships. Parents who challenged the teacher were not permitted to “opt out” of this instruction. Since the California Supreme Court narrowly overturned the will of the voters and allowed gay marriage, children as young as kindergarten have been exposed to indoctrination on gay lifestyles while parents have not been allowed to opt out or have a voice in the instruction. California election law requires that children be instructed on marriage. At least 96% of all California schools teach health education curriculum which INCLUDES marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Claims By No On Prop 8 Grow More Desperate As Polling Numbers Sink ProtectMarriage.com- Yes on 8, October 30, 2008
— Polls continue to slide for No on Prop 8 Equity for All, as reports leak out that the campaign’s management structure is in utter disarray. A series of orchestrated, factually false press statements have been issued alleging the sky will fall if Proposition 8 passes on Tuesday. “Clearly, this is nothing more than a floundering campaign grasping at straws to save its effort,” said Chip White, Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign spokesman. “It’s quite sad because those who are hurt most are voters. We invited the No on Prop 8 campaign to debate Proposition 8 this weekend in a live, televised format, but it declined our invitation. If the No campaign is so confident in its arguments, why refuse the debate?” Claims reporting Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools, to Proposition 8 will cause a high-tech brain drain, are being passed off as fact. These claims are nothing but noisy rhetoric and last minute campaign stunts aimed at confusing voters instead of educating them. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Children and Proposition 8 Los Angeles Times, By Alexandra Cole, November 1, 2008
Two weeks ago, when I was carpooling home after soccer practice, we approached an intersection where 15 or so people were standing on all four corners waving "Yes on 8" signs. "What does 'Yes on 8' mean?" asked my 8-year-old daughter, Francesca. I hesitated. I needed to figure out an answer in a way that would be sensitive to her teammate, who I'll call Amy, in the back seat. I've dropped the girl off many times before, and her house has a huge "Yes on 8" banner visible from the street. . .

"Marriage in the News" is not a representation of The Real Proposal magazine...