Proposition 8

I live in California, and an issue has arisen that opposes everything I stand for. In 2000, voters passed a proposition by 61% that stated a marriage is only between a man and a woman. In 2007, 4 California Supreme Court judges overturned that decision. There is a proposition on the ballets for November (Proposition 8) that is a motion to overrule this invalid decision made by these power hungry fiends. I am in full support of this proposition. Here are a few reasons why:

First of all, I am morally opposed to same sex marriage. I believe, down to my very core, that marriage is sacred and is only between a man and a woman. The problem is not with people who practice the gay/lesbian lifestyle. I do not approve of the lifestyle, but this is not an attack on them.

Secondly, who the heck are these judges to overrule what the people voted? Are they better than 61% of the population? Doesn’t that defeat the point of voting, the point of living in America? We vote because it is our right to, and those judges had no right to overturn what the people of California already expressed.

The third reason I am in staunch opposition of this is because of the things that are included in the proposition. These hidden stipulations will change our lives dramatically. Let me just enlighten you about the ways our lives will change if this proposition does not pass.
• In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code §51890.) If the same-sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
• Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
• Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
• Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
• Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: "traditional marriage," or "family values" because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is "hate speech."
• It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages; doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.

Seriously, this is such a huge deal. Please check out www.protectmarriage.com or www.whatisprop8.com for more information.