Saturday, November 1, 2008

I am Opinionated and Have Discriminating Taste, but am in No Way a Bigot

When I make a grilled cheese sandwich, I choose cheddar cheese over all the rest. When I sleep, I pick the left side of the bed over the right. When I have to wear shoes, I go with flip-flops over slip-ons. Those who know me, know that I am set in my ways as to the above, and I have millions of wonderful arguments as to why I am the way I am.

Does this mean that I am a bigot?

Apparently, according to ALL of the "No on Prop 8" people, it does.

For some reason, my "discrimination" over marriage has made me a bigot, but my discrimination over cheese doesn't. Discrimination isn't an all encompassing no-no. It is necessary in life in order to make decisions. If I don't discriminate, I get no where. Affirmative action was nothing more than a way to discriminate against one race of people who had discriminated against another race before. Just because I say marriage is for one man and one woman does not make me a bigot.

The dictionary defines "bigot" as follows:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

bigot. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.Retrieved November 1, 2008, from

For those of you too lazy to look it up, the word "obstinately" means to stick to your opinion in spite of logic and reason.

Logically, marriage has alway been the institution from which future generations come. Reason (proved by history) tells me that the natural reason to get married is to have children. People practice arranged marriage all over the world, even in California. That tells me that marriage isn't just about a formal commitment to a person you love.

With that being said, I have overcome the first part of the real "bigot" definition

Part two, however, may be more difficult--oh wait, I don't hate the LGBT community and don't want any of them thrown in jail for their lifestyle. In fact, there are quite a few LGBT people I know that get irritated by me because I won't point out that they are "different" from me. I guess that is my problem; I don't look at people's differences as a reason to classify them. I learned long ago that everyone is different and that life is much better if you focus on the commonalities instead of the differences.

Alright, I have proved that I am not a bigot.

Now, can YOU prove that you are not a bigot?

Step 1:Do you have a well reasoned, logical argument for your opposition to traditional marriage and desire for same-sex marriage?

Step 2: Do you tolerate me and my belieifs, or do you hate me and throw things at me when I stand on the corner waving my signs? Do you spit on my car in the parking lot because of my bumper sticker? Do you assault me when I am out polling the neighbors? Do you methodically strive to take away my right to speak my mind? Do you commit crimes against me when you trespass on my property and steal my signs?

If you can answer "yes" to the first step and "no" to the second, then you too have passed the test and are not a bigot. Of course, in order to get your "I'm Not a Bigot" card, you will need to give your argument for "step 1", and also prove that you have not been in any way involved in any act outlined in "step 2" or any similar act.

By the way, I don't call people bigots because I feel that "bigot" is a hateful word, and I don't want to hate anyone--I guess its just part of me not being a bigot.

Dear Mr. Thurston...

I have received multiple emails and comments on Mr. Thurston's diatribe against prop 8. This is just a quick look into his excellent lawyering and absolute disregard for logic, reason, and morality. I have pasted the majority of this from an email I composed which has been passed on to many of our readers. Mr. Thurston's intended audience is LDS (Mormon) so I have spun my analysis to the same audience. For those of you who are not LDS, read on, you will understand most of this anyway.

First of all, Mr. Thurston is an excellent intellectual property attorney. That means that he is really good at copyrights, trademarks, and to some extent patents. In fact, Mr. Thurston is one of the best copyright attorneys in the nation. Mr. Thurston, however, does not practice constitutional law, and from his superficial one-sided "analysis" (if one can even call it that) it is very clear to even the simpleton with a JD and a love for constitutional jurisprudence that the paper isn't worthy of a passing grade in a first year law school legal research class.

Lemme 'splain...

Mr. Thurston begins his written apostasy with a wonderful disclaimer that this letter he has found, which I had never heard of nor seen before Thurston's rebuttal came about, has been passed around by "overzealous volunteers" and is based on "misinterpretations of law and fact." I respectfully disagree (thats legalese for "liar liar pants on fire")

Law is always being interpreted, and where no law is written, there is no misinterpretation. Mr. Thurston, by providing his credentials is trying to coax the reader into believing that he is on the reader's side and that his paper contains the truth and is presented as a tool to help the church and the prop 8 effort. This is the ONLY place in the entire paper where Mr. Thurston's skills as an attorney shine. The substance of the paper is worthless statute citing and fact "checking" mixed into his biased interpretations of current existing law not taking into account the fact that since May, a family and marriage in California no longer means husband and wife.

OK, on to the actual meat and potatoes

1. Education
Mr. Thurston's opinion is that no school teacher will teach that gay marriage is ok, when they already have to teach about sexuality and families. The problem with the facts, as outlined by Mr. Thurston, is that if gay marriage is normal, then it can't be excluded from being taught and that this code section does in fact mandate that gay marriage is included in the teachings. Additionally, this is only one of many laws in California that speaks to what MUST be taught to school children. This is not an opt out thing, it is mandated. By accepting gay marriage, it must be taught as normal and right to school children.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), when discussing why we can't teach religion in school, said, "children are like sponges". That is why we can't teach them anything that would sway their beliefs towards any religion, nor against any religion. Teaching that gay marriage is ok goes directly against the logic of the SCOTUS in their holdings on what can and can't be taught in public school. Mr. Thurston is half-right in saying that prop 8 won't change the law here, but he is masking the full truth, which is still lying. The full truth is that if Prop 8 passes, then no one can say gay marriage is normal and no one will be mandated by the state teach about gay marriage. If Prop 8 doesn't pass, then schools MUST teach that gay marriage is ok.

In addition to this one weak little bill, the state assembly is very pro-gay agenda and anti-religion or morals. Every year we get three or four bills to expand homosexuality education in the state. The big kicker is that if gay marriage is ok, then there are no more arguments against those bills and they will eventually pass.

2.Tax Exempt
Oh boy. Mr Thurston totally changes the subject here. In fact, he brings in an entirely moot argument, on purpose, so that he can distract the reader from the real argument about discrimination. The big problem is that if the government gives tax breaks to a religious organization who openly discriminates against a protected class, then that class has standing to sue both the government and the religious organization. The In Re Marriage case in California is only the first winner in a line of cases to make sexual orientation a protected class. That means that your choice of preferred genitalia is protected just like your skin color or national origin. However, your right to free exercise of religion is on the chopping block.

The major problem in this arena is that if you have wide acceptance of homosexual marriage, and a church preaches against it, then that church is going to be sued and the government will probably in the "separation of church and state" fear-mode not do anything to step up and protect the church but will probably take the plaintiff's side. MY interpretation is based on recent US and California supreme court cases and the trend of those respective courts to limit religion and increase "privacy" rights.

3. Gay Adoption mandates
Do I need to even explain the internal contradictions of Mr. Thurston's argument here? Yes, the adoption agency voluntarily stopped placing children because they were going to spend millions of dollars fighting lawsuits. That is what I call a good business decision. Yes, we all know that LDSFS currently does not take any government money, which allows them to discriminate against unprotected classes. NO ONE, other than religions for religious purposes, can discriminate against any protected class in California. Passing Prop 8 will close the door to the fight for standing (see above genitalia reference) by homosexuals.

This isn't an issue of rights. The family code (section 297) in California gives domestic partnerships all the same rights married couples have. The issue here is that a homosexual couple or individual will actually have more rights that a normal person. I use the word "normal" because there is no other term that should be used to describe people who are not homosexuals. If you don't know that what you are doing is sin, then how can you ever repent of it? We have been counseled to reach out to our homosexual brothers and sisters, embrace the sinner, not the sin. The fight against prop 8 is in direct conflict with so many basic principles of the gospel. The adversary knows that we are always looking for the words, "eat, drink, and be marry" that he will never put that phrase forward. Instead, he uses that tactic with other issues, like homosexuality. If homosexuality is embraced, then how will anyone be able to repent?

4.Gay housing
Whoa. BLATANT LIES. Do you remember the story about wolves in sheep's' clothing? This guy is one of those. If prop 8 does not pass, then married housing will have to take gay couples and even religious schools will have to comply. Notice that Mr. Thurston does not give any backing to his arguments other than a link to mormonsformarriage reciting the article. This is because he has none. Even a Luddite knows that change is right around the corner. Furthermore, homosexuality as a violation of honor code will be attacked and suits will be filed at BYU. It is only time before enough states follow California. In fact, if California fails, then 19 states will have their marriage definition statutes overturned as well and a case will be brought before SCOTUS to give homosexuals the protected status they have been longing for. One of the biggest factors The Court looks at when deciding difficult social issues is what the states have already decided. If the majority of the states are for gay marriage, than the SCOTUS will uphold it as well.

5.Ministers in Jeopardy
I think that it is funny that Mr. Thurston doesn't even say what constitutes hate speech in the US and what is and isn't protected. Instead, he focuses in on Canadian law (which is moot) and a California case that didn't come anywhere close to deciding anything to do with homosexual rights (again totally moot). The real issue is that a whole new class of people may sue civilly for defamation and religions will be ostracized and eventually become as the Jews were to the Nazis. If you want a full analysis of Christianity as the new Jew, I can send it to you another time. Suffice it to say that everyone is always looking for a scape goat, and it just happens to be that Christians in America fit the mold that Jews in Germany fit in the 1930s. It is also the same justification the Lamanites used to slaughter the Nephites.

I have NEVER seen this particular argument, and I actually believe it might be a total fabrication so that Thurston could skirt the issue.

6.Money, Fear, Activist Judges
Quoting what Attorney General "almost disbarred" Brown wrote as the fiscal impact does not help. The fiscal impact is that there will be more lawsuits, complaints, and general fights. Nothing has ever stopped domestic partners from having elaborate ceremonies celebrating their love. Just because it will be called marriage does not mean that they will all the sudden spend money. Mr. Thurston deliberately hides the facts in the only case that has anything to do with California, the insemination case. In the case, which was in Oceanside, the Doctor explained his beliefs and referred the couple to his colleague (followed the law), who successfully performed the procedure. The couple then sued anyway. The big problem is that there are lots of legal non-profit groups that are pro-gay. As a non-profit, you get funding from outside sources, and then also get to keep your attorney fees when you win the case. In other words, it costs you nothing to go after someone in the name of gay-rights, but the defendant gets put out of business protecting his or her good name. It is a total racket and no one is more effective at using it than the gay-rights people.

As far as engendering fear is concerned, all I can really say is that this whole paper stinks of an attempt to lull us away in to carnal security. Engendering fear of what? Fear of my loss of rights to teach my children? Fear of my tax dollars going to promote homosexual lifestyles? Fear of being sued because I believe the Word of God? Fear of practicing my religion and sharing the Gospel? You bet I'm fearful. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand the scriptures or has forgotten to read them. The arm of flesh can be corrupted, and I believe that Mr. Thurston is corrupted.

Activist Judges
Chief Justice Ronald George is a RENOWNED activist justice. Just about every decision that comes from his mouth is new law, not interpretation of law. The In Re Marriage case is the biggest heap of crap I have ever read, and I have read the IRS income tax code. J. George bases his opinion on a legislative bill that says that gays are protected under privacy laws and that because of that protection, if a person asks a gay person in a domestic partnership if he/she is married, that person's privacy is breached because he would have to then say no or lie, and the question alone is unjust. That is it. 120+ pages condensed into one sentence. J. George failed to acknowledge that the legislative bills that get passed do not take precedence over initiatives passed by the people, as prop 22 was. Therefore, not only was his argument circular, it was flawed in its fundamental concept of conflicts of law. Had J. George not been an activist judge, he would have actually read the law and found it constitutional based upon current existing law. Instead, he is a KNOWN pro-gay and anti-religion judge (he wrote the decision striking down the parental consent to abortions for girls under 14 law, even though you need parental consent to get your ears pierced) and viewed this case as a way for him to push his own ideals and not do his job of judging. The dissents are scathing, he should be ashamed."

Friday, October 31, 2008

Three Arguments AGAINST Prop 8...and the truth

I just read an article on prop 8 and it had four arguments against prop 8. Here are the first three, the fourth was a waste of my time to even address.

1. "Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity
and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay couples that same dignity and respect."

Key discrepancy: "of any couple" and "lesbian and gay couples" are not the same thing. By making the statement that "marriage any couple" you are encompassing all couples, whether they are legally able to get married or not, this includes couples where one man loves one woman in city A and another woman in city B. Currently, he is known as an adulterer. If he attempts to marry both women, he is a bigamist. Bigamy is illegal.

Tolerance means not imposing criminal penalties. Therefore, we are intolerant of bigamists (and polygamists) but are tolerant of gays, lesbians, monogamists, adulterers, and animal lovers (lifetime commitments do not have to include sex--which with an animal is cruelty and illegal).

By stating that marriage conveys dignity and respect on any couple, you are excluding couples that are legally barred from marriage, and couples that should, under your premise, also be married. However, Justice George said no to polygamy in his decision and implied that humans and animals can't get married either.

Therefore, this argument has nothing to do with respect for any couple, but everything to do with same-sex marriage only. Even though your argument is a good sound bite, it lacks logic and therefore must be thrown out. Sorry.

2. "The freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech. The government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives."

Nope. Totally wrong. Go read both the US and California constitutions and the cases that flow from them individually.

First, this is a state issue right now. Federally, we have the right to speak, which you, as the "No" side of the issue do not understand because you have torn down every sign I have put up and silenced me in every debate. YOU have done nothing but censure me and trample mine and my colleagues' rights. Yet, as a true hypocrite, you continue to shout that you are protecting people's rights.

Second, we don't have a freedom of religion, we have a promise that the government will not interfere with our individual exercise of religion and will not establish a government church and will not require any religious test for public office. However, here we have a judge (Justice George), an actor for the government, come in and tell me that I can no longer preach my religion because I believe that marriage is divinely instituted as being between a man and a woman. Furthermore, you don't let me fight to defend my express constitutional right, because if I do fight, you call me a bigot and a hater. The only reason the terms bigot and hater exist is to have them ready to throw at a person in order to censor that person's speech.

Third, nowhere does there exist any right to get married. Loving v. Virginia was about discrimination based on race. The state was denying marriage licenses based on race. The US Constitution expressly protects race as a suspect class and will almost 100% of the time not allow a government to use race as the reason to deny anything to anyone. Limiting the "protections" of sexual orientation to people who are gay, lesbian, or transgendered is violative of equal protection, because there are other sexual orientation categories out there, such as man-boy love, parent-child love, polygamy, beastiality, etc. Again, this has nothing to do with rights for all, but just a small special interest trying to take over government and change the populace to agree with the minority.

Fourth, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the government should not be able to tell you that you can't marry more than one person at a time, that you can't marry certain close blood relations, that you can't marry a minor, and that you can enter into and exit marriage agreements whenever you want. Oops, there are laws for all of this already. Marriage is licensed by the state governments. Licenses are not given out for "rights" but for "privileges." Marriage is a privilege reserved for the purpose of uniting man and woman to build society. Marriage has always existed, but when it is abused and morals decline, the society fails. Look at Rome.

Finally, the government does tell us what we can and can't watch on tv, what we can and can't read, and what we can and can't do in our private lives. I can't watch porn on channel 4, the New York Times can't print the blueprints to the Pentagon, and I will go to prison if I build a pipe bomb in my bedroom.

I love your arguments, they sound good, but are worthless.

3. "Domestic partnerships are not marriage."

I agree with you; they are not marriage, they are domestic partnerships. Domestic Partnerships, however, have all the same rights and privileges of marriage under the laws of California.

Apparently you understand at least that marriage is not just some list of rights you receive from a piece of paper, but it is something more. Then again, that special aspect of marriage, which is not legal in any way shape or form, is what makes marriage marriage. The sacredness of marriage is that it is a symbol of the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. It is a unification for the purpose of creating posterity.

Homosexual is not the same as heterosexual either. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE WILL CALL ME A BIGOT--YET I AM ABSOLUTELY TOLERANT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, I AM JUST MAKING A STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS. Homosexuality has no evolutionary purpose. Heterosexuality has a very clear and highly proven purpose to procreate, i.e., further the human race and allow our specie to continue to evolve. Homosexuality removes people from the future gene pool, thus limiting the potential of the human race.

This whole marriage thing has nothing to do with rights, because all the rights are already there under current statutes in California.

You lose on this one as well.

Really? You expect us to BELIEVE that?

No on 8 campaign has come out with ads that claim the Yes on 8 campaign is lying about the impact that gay marriage will have (and is ALREADY having) on public schools.

Remember the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the wizard is controlling the machine and says, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"

That's exactly what is happening here. Acceptance of gay marriage and gay lifestyle is being taught, not only in Massachusetts, but right here in California. (Class "field-trip", "coming out day") It's not a question of WILL it happen. It IS happening. No amount of "pay no attention to that" will make it untrue.

The other argument, nay lie, that is being put forth, is that parents will be able to "opt out" of these situations. Mmhmmm, right. Did you see the "coming out day" article?

With the way the CTA is supporting the No on 8 campaign, do we even have to wonder whether the gay special interest groups will have a problem with pushing their curriculum plans on districts across the state??

Have you seen what the CA Association of Teachers of English (CATE) came up with for their 50th Annual Convention? The theme: "Voices at the Epicenter of Change" will offer a special "Program Strand" (one of seven) entitled "LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)." Their brochure states the following: "Explore various approaches to incorporating GLBT units into the traditional curriculum."

Also, doesn't anyone else remember the Palmdale court case from 2005 addressing this issue? Here's a little refresher:

Writing for a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel, Judge
Reinhardt affirmed. The court, noting that many courts have
upheld state actions that intrude upon parental interests,
that a parent does not have an exclusive right to control
the upbringing of his child
. Like the district court, the
Ninth Circuit panel relied heavily on Brown, adopting from it
the principle that parents “have no constitutional right . . . to
prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever
information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise,
when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do
The court construed Meyer and Pierce as
permitting parents
to determine a child’s forum of education—but not the
education within that forum
—and held that the Meyer-Pierce
right “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school

door.” Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, the school’s
actions did not impinge on any liberty interest protected by
substantive due process.
Fields, 427 F.3d at 1203 n.6.
21. Fields, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 1220.
22. See id. at 1222.
23. 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995).
24. Fields, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 1223 (quoting Brown, 68 F.3d at 533).
25. See id.
26. See Fields, 427 F.3d at 1204–05 (collecting cases).
27. Id. at 1204.
28. Id. at 1205–06.
29. Id. at 1207.

The court rejected the notion that parents have a right to exercise control over the public school curriculum, holding instead that Meyer and Pierce merely permit parents to choose an alternative to public schools for their children. So essentially, unless you can afford private school or can make arrangements to home school your children, you don't have a say in what your children will or will not be taught.

Tell me again about gay marriage not being promoted or taught in the public schools? And what was that about parents having a say, or it being a "district by district" issue? Oh, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just keep believing what the no on 8 campaign tells you.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

More Deception...

I had a water polo coach who told me, "you know you are winning when the other team starts scratching and biting".

Well, the scratching and biting is in full force.

Today, I was notified that the web domain "" was purchased and is being run by the opposition to proposition 8 and that they are using it to drive traffic away from the site and give out misinformation.

I really don't care about any argument for gamesmanship or strategy. This is pure deceit. Just like the commercial about marriage that was broadcast during the Olympics.

Deceit keeps people from exercising their right to choose. People need the right to choose. But if you keep material information away from people, the right to choose is taken away from them. A choice is made, yes, but it is based upon misinformation and is therefore not the person's choice.

Knowledge is power, and limiting the people's knowledge is the most powerful weapon in a tyrant's arsenal. Look at every dictator, fascist, or tyrant. They all limited the knowledge of the people, so that the people were easier to control.

Yes, I am drawing a line in the sand and the no on proposition 8 people are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, and Peron. The irony is that those same "no" vote supporters accuse me of burning books and being a fanatic, yet they don't want anyone to read, hear, or see anything contrary to their opinion.

This country is on the brink of collapse. We need to act now!

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Dialog with a critic

Statement: You are a hypocrite. How can you be for smaller government and less regulation yet vote for prop. 8 that is forcing your morals down other people's throats?

Answer: The government, through four San Francisco justices on the California Supreme Court, has decided that the practice and legal definition of marriage can not be left to the people to define but must be defined by the government. Proposition 8 limits government from any further meddling in what predates natural law. It is not regulating the people, but blocking the government's interference in people's personal lives. This proposition takes the actual definition of marriage as it has always been known and gives it a legal status just the same as was done eight years ago. This proposition is limiting government power.

Statement: No, you are just trying to force your ancient morals on what we as an advanced society have progressed to become tolerant of.

Answer: Democracy can only exist where the society is moral (look at ancient Rome). There must be established morals commonly held by the people, otherwise laws have no meaning and war ensues. Yes, marriage is ancient, that is the whole point. Its definition has always been the same. To change marriage is to reconstruct familial relationships and deny not only what we see in nature, but some of the basic assumptions of Darwin.

to be continued...

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Dear Chino Blanco...

Dear Chino Blanco:

Thank you for posting a comment on this blog. For purposes of clarity, I have quoted your comment here:

"Considering that has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don’t see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?
If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?
Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!"

First of all, your bias, intended or not, is very clear. Let me 'splain...

1. The in re marriage case recently decided by the CA Supreme Court, The Court based its entire opinion on a legislative bill guaranteeing privacy to Californians and a circular argument that such privacy is being denied when a person asks a homosexual person if they are "married".
The legal problem with this argument is that the four judges who wrote The Court's opinion forgot that legislation in California is superseded by ballot propositions when there is a conflict of laws. The ENTIRE LGBT community is basing a "right" of same-sex marriage on flawed logic and incorrect law.

2. There is always a loser and a winner. People are fighting to get Prop. 8 passed because to change the definition marriage, not only in the way in which it was changed in California less than 4 months ago, is to deny the fundamental tenants of civilization as well as the first amendment of the US Constitution. Marriage has always been a union of man and woman. In diverse cultures and ages, this has and still does exist between a man and multiple women. Never, in the history of man, or nature, has marriage been between two persons of the same sex.

Considering that the Attorney General is a gay-lesbian alliance supporter as well as more than half of the CA supreme court, this isn't a fair fight, and the list of constitutional violations against supporters of prop. 8 are mounting. This isn't something that "religion" is mandating, yes, it affects the free exercise of religion in California, a direct violation of the US Constitution, and yes, this is something religion is heavily involved in. What is wrong with religion being involved? Unions and lobby groups pay for the electricity in Sacramento, why can't a religion try to stand up for its fundamental tenants?

As far as money, people donate KNOWING that they may lose. Every Saturday in fall, a college football team goes to their game for which they have practiced all week, knowing that they may lose. It is part of the fight. To advocate defeat, however, is only preparing for self fulfilling prophecy.

I personally have been walking precincts every week, and have found in my diverse community that it is about 50-50 for Prop 8. Too close to call.

Thanks for commenting, ignorance isn't bliss.