Our Work Cut Out for Us

30 07 2008

It’s no secret really. California politicians are liberal and don’t like family values. They are doing everything in their power (and some outside it) to be intolerant of any worldview contradictory of their own. After four judges gave the left a gift in May and legalized gay marriage, activists attempted to have a marriage amendment taken off the ballot in order to prevent their marriages between June and November from being invalidated. That effort failed, but homosexual lobbyists did succeed in getting the language on the amendment changed that dealt a blow to pro-family advocates in California. 

The ballot title originally approved for Proposition 8 described the proposal as an amendment “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  But after homosexual activists failed to get the initiative removed from the ballot, Secretary of State Debra Bowen changed the title to describe the proposal as amending the state constitution to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  The description also claims, with no supporting evidence, that the state will lose “several tens of millions of dollars” if the measure is passed.

Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been working to support the proposed marriage protection amendment. He believes that most people entering the voting booth will have only thing on their mind — and it will not be Prop. 8.

Consequently, says Dacus, pro-family forces have their work cut out for them in educating the voters. “We’re just going to have to work twice as hard to get the information out so that people aren’t confused and [so] they understand that marriage – as it has been defined for centuries, including as it has been defined throughout California history – has always been between one man and one woman,” he states. “This alleged ‘right’ recognizing homosexual ‘marriage’ is something that was just newly created by a few activist judges…a few months ago and is not to be treated as something that is long and established in the State of California.”

This presents a wonderful opportunity for churches to design and distribute literature educating voters in their communities on the facts on the amendment.




One response

2 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

I’m just curious where the discrimination is in a law, or proposed law, that defines “marriage” as a union between “man” and a “woman.”

Isn’t everybody covered by the terms “man” and “woman”? Is anybody left out?

Does the law say that the man must be heterosexual? No, it doesn’t. Does the law say that the woman must be heterosexual? No, it doesn’t.

Except that members of a third sex are excluded, against whom is the law discriminating?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: