But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!
Announcement for tomorrow
To watch on and live tomorrow or archived for later viewing: http://www.thecall.com/Articles/1000039798/TheCall/news/Tune_In_to.aspx
Also, if you missed an important voter update teleconference from pro-life and values voter perspective and encouragement check out http://www.instantteleseminar.com/Default.asp?eventid=4520154.
Hypocrisy from the left in California and a challenge from the right
Yes: Other side's hypocritical argument-"It is simply amazing how the "No on Prop. 8" campaign is unwilling to stand up for what it believes. For a week now the campaign has said one thing; yet it believes something else.
What do I mean? Well, the "No on Prop. 8" campaign maintains that, if Proposition 8 fails, kids will not be exposed to same-sex marriage instruction in school; yet it maintains that gay marriage is a fundamental right. Huh? If gay marriage is a fundamental right, then it should be taught in school. Can you think of another fundamental right that is not taught in school? The campaign's dirty little secret? They know gay marriage will be taught in school and they are desperate to say anything so that we don't figure it out on our own.
In an effort to make sure we don't figure this out, they have now paraded the state education chief, Jack O'Connell, out to say that schools don't have to teach about marriage. Sadly, Mr. O'Connell hasn't told the whole truth. According to California Education Code Section 51933, if a school decides to teach a comprehensive sex education class to K-12 graders (and which school district doesn't?), "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Thus, marriage is taught in California schools.
Moreover, the California Safe Schools Coalition asserts that children will be taught in class about homosexuality and gender identity (read confusion). Please note that many of the members of the California Safe Schools Coalition are also supporters of the "No on Prop. 8" campaign, including the California Teachers Association, the ACLU (which actually argued in the Massachusetts case that the court should require the teaching of same-sex marriage in schools) and numerous other gay and lesbian organizations.
Interestingly, according to the coalition's Web site, the Capistrano Unified School District, Escondido Union High School District, Monterey Unified Peninsula School District, Palm Springs Unified School District, San Francisco Unified School District and the Ventura County Office of Education are all members of this coalition.
According to the coalition's Question and Answer Guide on California's Parental Opt-out Statutes, the coalition asserts that parents do not have the right to notice about and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation or other controversial topics.
The coalition describes how a school district can develop a plan that will preclude parents from opting out of such teachings. According to the coalition, so long as the purpose and content of these diversity programs are "carefully articulated" and do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions), parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out.
In essence, the coalition's reasoning is precisely the same reasoning successfully used against the parents in the Massachusetts case where a federal appeals court held that the parents could not opt their kindergartner out of a class discussing tolerance of gay marriage. According to this reasoning, if Prop. 8 fails, same-sex marriage will be taught in schools.
We don't need to look any further than our own state to see how this will work. The implementation of this coalition's goals is already in progress in a charter school in Hayward. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, parents of a kindergartener at the Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" was to be celebrated at the school Oct. 23. The school chose not to tell parents ahead of time. The school is celebrating Gay and Lesbian History Month. During this celebration, the parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families.
Gay marriage will be taught in schools if Prop. 8 fails. Why doesn't the "No on Prop. 8" campaign come clean and say what it really believes will happen if Prop. 8 is defeated? If the campaign is so confident in its position that gay marriage is a fundamental right, then why lie? Now ask yourself: do you really want to support a campaign of this type of hypocrisy? If the answer is "no," then just vote "Yes" on Prop. 8."
YES ON 8 CHALLENGES SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JACK O’CONNELL TO LIVE DEBATE-"The Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign today challenged Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and the No on 8 campaign to a live, televised debate this weekend so voters can learn the truth about the issue of gay marriage being taught in California public schools."
CLAIMS BY NO ON PROP 8 GROW MORE DESPERATE AS POLLING NUMBERS SINK-"Claim One: Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools.
Truth: A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.” That sure sounds like same-sex marriage instruction in schools.
This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out, but instead had to keep their children home from school.
As we have clearly demonstrated, California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. And under the Supreme Court’s ruling, current California law means teaching about marriage includes instruction on gay marriage. Thus, gay marriage is already part of the curriculum. Perhaps because of these simple facts, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell refuses to debate..
Claim Two: Proposition 8 would have no effect on a church’s tax-exempt status.
Truth: The No on 8 campaign used a classic lawyer trick, rolled out a group of lawyers yesterday to falsely state our concern about the impact of same sex marriage on religious freedoms, and then saying our concerns are false. For the record, the Yes on 8 campaign has never said that churches, acting as churches, would be forced to perform gay marriages. However, it is clear that where churches interact with the public square, in providing social services or even conducting business, their tax exempt status is at risk.
In one well publicized case, Catholic Charities in Boston ran adoption facilities that managed 700 cases since 1987, most involving children with special needs. Catholic Charities placed such children into parents in traditional marriages, according to their faith. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the state told Catholic Charities it had to place children with gay marriage couples as well. Faced with such a decision, Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop providing adoption services.
Another religious non-profit, Ocean Grove Campground in New Jersey, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status on a rental pavilion because it refused to rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony."
San Diego City Council Votes 6-2 to Declare City Officially Opposed to Pro-Marriage Ballot Measure-"Council members Toni Atkins, Kevin Faulconer, Donna Frye, Ben Hueso, Jim Madaffer and Scott Peters opposed the ballot measure in Monday's vote. Council members Brian Maienschein and Tony Young were in favor.
"It really is wrong to deny civil rights to a person or group just because of what traditions might accept," said Councilman Jim Madaffer.
Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who "married" her lesbian partner last month, agreed. "Democracy includes us [homosexuals] too," she said.
The crowded council chamber hosted an open forum before the vote, with seven out of twelve voicing their support for the marriage amendment, according to the Union-Tribune.
Prior to the vote Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, auxiliary bishop of the San Diego diocese, had written to Mayor Jerry Sanders and the city council warning that the city would be ignoring the wishes of the majority of San Diegans if they chose to officially oppose Proposition 8.
“Those of us who favor preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman in California are wondering what ever happened to our democracy,” said the bishop.
"Have you taken a survey of the citizens of the San Diego area? The movement in support of Prop 8 began here in San Diego and has spread like an October wildfire all throughout the state," Bishop Cordileone said.
He also complained that elected officials have blatantly ignored acts of vandalism and violence against supporters of marriage.
"Why are our thoughts and feelings not worthy of equal consideration to theirs, especially when we can offer many rational, cogent arguments to justify our position? We support marriage because marriage benefits everyone; we abhor violence and unjust treatment against people who disagree with us.
"Nonetheless, we are accused of discrimination. Who, though, is being discriminated against now?" (To see the bishop's letter in full, see the California Catholic Daily article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/%3Ca%20href=http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=bfdc958c-5987-4892-ba3f-b5b8cae21be0">http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=bfdc958c-5987-4892-ba3f-b5b8cae21be0)"
Temecula: Students miss school in Prop. 8 protest-"The North County Times reports: “More than a dozen students stayed home from Temecula Valley Unified School District campuses on Monday in protest of the state teachers union’s opposition to a ballot measure that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”
California’s fight over marriage hints at changes in the culture wars-"The Economist reports: “Proposition 8’s supporters have assembled an extraordinarily broad coalition. Although much of the campaign’s ideological heat comes from evangelicals, much of its money comes from Mormons. More donations to Protectmarriage.com, the initiative’s chief proponent, have come from Utah than from any other state except California. Orthodox Jewish synagogues have weighed in, too. It is an unusual movement indeed that unifies blacks, Mormons and orthodox Jews. It hints at how cultural conservatives might evolve to meet the challenge of an unfavourable Washington political climate in the next few years.”
Jeff Kent opens his checkbook in support of Cal. marriage amendment-"The LA Times reports: “Jeff Kent, who played second base for the Los Angeles Dodgers this season, has stepped into the emotional world of same-sex marriage, giving $15,000 to backers of the California proposition on Tuesday’s ballot that would ban it.”
Maryland related
ADF: Montgomery County voters ask court to give back their right to vote on controversial ‘gender identity’ law-"Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Counsel Amy Smith and ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks will be available for media interviews following oral arguments in circuit court Friday in Bloem v. Montgomery County Board of Elections. Representing Montgomery County voters, ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit against the board for removing legislation from the ballot without notice to the petition sponsors. The suit also asks the court to stop enforcement of the legislation, which adds “gender identity” to the county’s anti-discrimination ordinances.
“A democratic government should not silence its people. The board had no legal authority to disenfranchise 900,000 county voters who have the right to voice their opinion on this controversial law,” said Smith. “The voters did exactly what the county told them to do, and are now being unjustly punished for it.”
The lawsuit is a response to a decision by Maryland’s highest court to disenfranchise 900,000 county voters in a different lawsuit, Doe v. Montgomery County Board of Elections. In Doe, a group of activists had filed suit to challenge petitions submitted by Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government to put the “gender identity” bill on the Nov. 4 ballot. Even though the board certified the petitions—and the number of signatures collected greatly exceeded the requirement—the high court reversed a lower court’s ruling to let the petitions stand.
The Bloem lawsuit contends that the board improperly removed the referendum from the Nov. 4 ballot. ADF attorneys are seeking a temporary restraining order against Montgomery County to keep the “gender identity” law from being enforced, since citizens were denied the opportunity to vote on the measure (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4696).
A fact sheet on the lawsuit Bloem v. Montgomery County Board of Elections is available at http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/10/30/adf-montgomery-county-voters-ask-court-to-give-back-their-right-to-vote-on-controversial-%e2%80%98gender-identity%e2%80%99-law/www.telladf.org/UserDocs/BloemFactSheet.pdf."
