Thursday, November 27, 2008

Mormon is the New Black - A Thanksgiving Story

Tonight (or I guess I should actually say last night) I watched Glory Road. Based on a true story, the inspirational movie chronicles a 1960's Black college basketball team who, against all odds, wins the NCAA Championships. The team was not completely made up of African American players, but after several incidents of racism, discrimination, and intimidation aimed at the Black members, Coach Haskins and "the White" teammates got fed up and turned the fight for the NCAA Championship over to their Black Brothers. In doing so, the NCAA win became a sort of "stick-it-to-the-man" victory.

Rising out of obscurity in a racist world, these Black basketball players were viciously targeted by White supremacists. At one point in the movie the players returned to their motel room after a game to find racial slurs, threats, and profanities splattered on their walls in blood. At another point, one of the players was surrounded by three White men in a bathroom, brutally beaten, and dunked in a toilet almost to the point of drowning.

In the wake of Proposition 8, a popular phrase has sprung into being and is being widely circulated on the Internet and throughout media outlets. I have heard it often alleged that "Gay is the new Black." Supposedly gays are the oppressed, battered, African-American sequels. I protest that comparison and would suggest a more accurate one. In a near-perfect echo of the horrific monstrosities played out against the Black Texas Western basketball players, I propose that in truth, "Mormon is the new Black." Seeing those blood-splattered motel walls immediately brought to mind the graffiti-littered LA Temple walls and angry, anti-Mormon epithets hoisted up on homemade signs, swaying to and fro above a seething, volatile crowd. "Ban the Mormons!" This is the current and beloved call of gay rights activists. Watching that Black basketball player being beaten senseless in a filthy public bathroom reminded me of the elderly couple beaten mercilessly by their neighbor for exercising their freedom of speech by placing Yes on 8 signs in their yard, and the young Hispanic women attacked by gay rights activists while trying to remove vulgar signs from sacred temple property, and the elderly woman in Palm Springs who endured the mockery and rage of a vicious crowd who promptly snuffed out her freedom of speech as they ripped her cross from her hands and crushed it under foot. The anger of this mob knows no bounds and the religious - Mormon, Evangelical, and Catholic alike - are the unfortunate victims.

The gay "rights" movement is steam-rolling forward powered by blood-lust and rage, leaving in its wake a carnage the likes of which this country has not seen since Blacks were sent to the back of the bus. While this new, millennial movement claims love and equal rights as its objectives; lying in its wake is the antithetical and conspicuous reality - the tattered remains of freedom of speech and religion. At the end of the rigidly pointing homosexual fingers stand the Mormons, being sent to the back of the bus for equally unfair reasons as their beloved African American brothers - they voted.

Mormon is the new Black.

Today, Thanksgiving 2008, I recognize and express gratitude for many wonderful things in my life. And at the same time I watch the steady vanquishing of freedoms so dear and so sacred. It's clear our country is in need of a Religion champion in the same way Lincoln championed Blacks.

["Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church.

Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?" - Neal A. Maxwell]

["When they came for the gypsies, I said nothing, because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, because I wasn't a homosexual. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Catholic......then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me." - Neimoller in Nazi Germany]

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Another One Bites the Dust

Los Angeles, CA -- Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, resigned over the weekend. Not wanting to bring the Film Festival any more negative publicity or reaction, he stepped down from his post due to overwhelming harassment and intimidation he was receiving for his $1500 personal contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign.

"After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.

Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, "No on 8" supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted.


Raddon's support for Proposition 8 has sparked debate within both the gay community and Hollywood, as many publicly worry about punishing people for free speech, even speech they deemed hateful, and his departure has already provoked ambivalence."

Read the full story here at the LA Times.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

CTEN - California Teachers Empowerment Network

Are you a California teacher? Are you fed up with the CTA spending your dues on issues unrelated to education? You can find a world of information and help here at the California Teachers Empowerment Network. You are not alone. You do not need to flounder in a state of disgust anymore, not knowing how to counteract the disregard of an association that claims to represent you. Visit the CTEN website and start reclaiming your voice today!

Monday, November 24, 2008

"Awakening a Slumbering Majority"

This is so powerful.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Sacramento Protest, Cho Blasphemy

Sacramento, CA -- On Saturday, Nov. 22, California's state capitol was the gathering place of a large crowd of disgruntled gay rights activists protesting Proposition 8. Featured headliners wooing the crowd were Gloria Allred, Hollywood attorney, and Margaret Cho, comedian. Below is a clip of the song Cho sang for the minority mass.

When Cho sings that "Jesus was probably gay," it reminds me of when The Beatles once claimed that they were "more popular than Jesus." To hope that she'll get the same kind of backlash is futile since media bias won't condemn the comedian and the public will probably wave a disgusted hand at her and move on. Argh. And, of course, the whole song is aimed entirely at the Mormons, preferred Proposition 8 scapegoat, spitefully mocking sacred beliefs and practices. It's disgusting that people were laughing and clapping at this stuff.

It's also getting old that the gay community is whining about needing minority protection from the government when it's obvious that it's not equality they want, but complete acceptance - a societal embrace of their lifestyle. This practice of foot-stomping demand is now resulting in overindulgence and unwarranted concessions. Take eHarmony, for example; they are an Internet dating group that was created for the purpose of matching Christian singles and creating long-lasting marriages. This business is designed around a compatibility model that does not service homosexuality. Just days ago, however, eHarmony settled a ludicrous lawsuit with a homosexual man, essentially agreeing to change their business model to include him and others who subscribe to his lifestyle. eHarmony will now offer a website called "Compatible Partners," and adjust their match finding technology to service men seeking men and women seeking women. So the next time you're eating at a vegetarian restaurant, just threaten to sue if they won't serve you meat, because now the precedent has been set. Or, if you want a hair salon to wash your car, or a hospital to make you sick, or a podiatrist to deliver your baby, or a food manufacturer to build you a car, and the list could go on and on. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY DO! So, why are they being forced to include homosexuality? Because after years of lawsuits, the kind, little old man who created eHarmony has been beaten down, heckled and prodded into catering to a group of people his business model was not created for. That, my friends, is ridiculous - shouldn't ever have happened. There is a gay agenda. There is, and it goes something like this: "Accept me, embrace me, cater to me, or else...."
["The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens."
From The Homosexualization of America, by homosexual activist Dennis Altman.]
To see a comprehensive list of "or else's" that have already occurred, click here.

And while I'm busy airing out my concerns about the existence of a gay agenda, let's add 'secular coup' to the list. Check out this comment on another marriage blogger's latest post about raising our voices and standing up for marriage, and the fantastic response by another defender:

C Smith said,
Where does it say that marriage is between one man and one woman?

Don’t go down the Bible path - its a slippery slope.

Lil' Beebop said,

“Don’t go down the Bible path - its a slippery slope.”

Wow. Wow. Hang on a sec, I’m still reeling from this. Millions upon millions of people around the world believe the Bible to be the word of God and you just completely disregard their opinion/belief because, as you claim, it is a “logical fallacy?” Like I said, wow.

You just brilliantly proved what MJ Sobran once said two decades ago, “Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it….What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds….A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it.”


Friday, November 21, 2008

Martyr McGehee

Fresno, Calif -- There is, in the world of communication, a specific style of unhealthy conversation, aptly named "one-upping," in which the speaker embarks on an emotional telling of his tragic story and, instead of validating it (or in this case, even acknowledging it), the listener tries to trump it. This is the case with Lesbian mom, Robin McGehee, who is being raised up as a martyr for the No on 8 campaign.

Robin, whose 5-year-old son, Sebastian, was enrolled in St. Helen's Catholic School in Fresno, attended a publicized "No on 8" candlelight vigil, on Nov. 6th, following the vote that reestablished marriage as a union between one man and one woman. She is also the Central Valley program coordinator for the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and has been interviewed several times on television. And while she never walked around campus sporting a "No on 8" pin, McGehee was, nonetheless, open about her sexuality.

After her appearance on television and her "No on 8" rally attendance, she was approached by Father Salvador Gonzalez, Jr., of the Fresno diocese, and asked to resign from her volunteer post as president of the PTO (Parent Teacher Organization). Her visibility as an opponent of traditional marriage was seen to be in direct conflict with the Catholic Church's teachings that marriage is between one man and one woman.

That's it. That's the story folks. However, if you read it here, you will get an earful of sentimental background fluff, building up and lauding McGehee for her participation in school projects, her donations to fund-raisers, and her various volunteer efforts with walk-a-thons and holiday-themed parties - efforts that many mothers in this state make on a regular basis for the enhancement of their child's education. We get it, we do; she is a great mom. But this blatant immortalization effort is a transparent attempt to build up a martyr for future, inaccurate claims of victimization. Oh, and let's not forget where the story conveniently breezes over the fact that darling little Sebastian has two mommies AND two daddies:

"[McGehee and her recent bride Kathy Adams] have two children 5-year-old Sebastian and 2-year-old Jackson. Also, two fathers, William 'Aj' Kruth and Aaron Olson, are a part of the family."

Homosexuality or Polyamory? Honestly, I don't know. But it's obviously a hugely altered definition of a family. And this is what we have to look forward to with legalized same-sex marriage. Suddenly we live in an "anything goes" society. I think even those in favor of gay marriage might take issue with this. But, setting random and unsettling redefinitions of family aside, let's forge onward with McGehee the Martyr.

Contrary to popular gay belief, McGehee's story does not compare to the intolerant and bigoted targeting of Scott Eckern which lead to his resignation as artistic director for the California Musical Theater over a $1000 personal donation to the Yes on 8 campaign. Let's take a look at these two cases in a side-by-side comparison, shall we?

Scott Eckern
25 years at the California Musical Theater.
Robin McGehee
Six months as president of the PTO.

Scott Eckern
Forced to resign from his paid position, his job, his livelihood.
Robin McGehee
Asked to resign from her volunteer position.

Scott Eckern
Publicly targeted and forced to resign for the personal, legal donation he made to a cause he believed in.
Robin McGehee
Privately asked to resign from a leadership post for not only living, but championing a lifestyle that is in direct opposition to the teachings of the church she was volunteering for.

Scott Eckern
Vilified for participating in a democratic process and having an opinion.
Robin McGehee
Has not been vilified.
Has not received hate mail or slanderous accusations aimed at her.
Is still free to live her homosexual lifestyle and be involved in her child's education, just like any other parent...just not in an authoritative, leadership role. The church even asked her to keep her son in school, but she and her partner made the decision to pull him.

This is a case in point for the "six consequences" which caution that, following legalization of same-sex marriage, churches will be accused of hate speech and discrimination simply for standing behind their beliefs that homosexuality is immoral. It is already happening even with Proposition 8's success. Robin McGehee was not asked to resign for being homosexual, she was asked to resign for being a vocal opponent of Proposition 8 and a highly visible proponent of the No on 8 Campaign. The Catholic Church is well within its rights to monitor the teaching and volunteer activity and leadership of the children attending its private schools. Thus, the real victim here is the falsely vilified, unjustly slandered Catholic Church, not Ms. McGehee.

And yet....

...notice the "bleeding heart" title of the latter?

The Catholic Church is misrepresented, and yet the gay community cries foul and promptly writes a heartrending, fervor producing, purely sentimentalist story that is conspicuously lacking in thoughtful reasoning. But that is, and always has been, their platform; "It feels good, we feel good, help us to feel good and you'll feel good too. Forget thinking, it's not important. Just feel (*imagine lulling, hypnotic music and the pungent smell of incense*). What we do in our lives won't hurt you in yours." Mm hmmm. Zzzzzz.


Wake up, people of America! Wake up and step away from your collective Id for a moment. Give your Super-ego the chance to sound that warning bell that's saying: "ERRR. Wrong! Wrong! Warning! Warning! Don't try to fix something that's not broken. Don't tamper with marriage!" Marriage between a man and a woman works. The traditional family unit is what society relies on to exist and survive and thrive. Evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be dangerous and destructive. Now is not the time to be Id-driven, allowing our feelings to govern and control us. We must give research it's day in our cranial courts. We must allow logic and self-restraint to temper passion and emotion. We must protect marriage to protect our little ones, our innocents, and to ensure the continuation of our society and government.

Image: "Female Martyr" by Jacob van Oost the Elder, oil on canvas.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Dr. Phil - Friday 11/21/08

So there's been all this talk about Dr. Phil's show tomorrow, 11/21, on CBS. I finally went and watched the preview here, and all I can say is...ugh. I don't know if I can actually bring myself to watch that show tomorrow. I got the most awful feeling just watching the preview; the few seconds of heated debate with members of the audience popping up and yelling at each other. This is what that short segment reminded me of, a quote from Elder James E. Faust, late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:
["Who has not heard and felt the enticing of the devil? His voice often sounds so reasonable and his message so easy to justify. It is an appealing, intriguing voice with dulcet tones. It is neither hard nor discordant. No one would listen to Satan’s voice if it sounded harsh or mean. If the devil’s voice were unpleasant, it would not persuade people to listen to it....Some of Satan’s most appealing lines are 'Everyone does it'; 'If it doesn’t hurt anybody else, it’s all right'; 'If you feel all right about it, it’s OK'; or 'It’s the ‘in’ thing to do.' These subtle entreaties make Satan the great imitator, the master deceiver, the arch counterfeiter, and the great forger."]
I can guarantee you'll hear some of those very same phrases tomorrow if you can stomach the show. Here's what Pastor Jim Garlow said of the experience as a guest for the Yes on 8 side:
["With these guests, plus a fired-up studio audience that hassled, yelled, catcalled and tried to drown us out at times, it made for an (how do I say this?) interesting experience. It was so intense that Dr. Phil- after the hour taping ended- decided to keep us there for another taping, for another show to be aired (we are told) in December"]

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Gas and Same-Sex Marriage

What? Seriously? What could gas and same-sex marriage possibly have in common? Well, I'll tell you if you can sit still for a minute (or 10). Tonight as I drove toward Mexican food, like a mosquito heading for light, I noticed the local gas station prices and narrowly avoided crunching the car in front of me while doing double takes. Hallelujah (!), I thought, but my elation was short-lived as I pondered the reason for the gas price plunge. With gas, we've won a battle, but the war against our failing economy is far from over. The declining gas prices are a symptom of a larger problem. With the economy taking hit after hit and consumerism at an all-time low, it's a given that prices (i.e. gas) will also fall. I tremble to think what the future holds for our economy and that, sadly, there might come a time when I won't even be able to afford gas at the price it stands now, in all its deflated glory. But, that's another conversation for someone else's blog.

This same sense of winning a skirmish then falling back to regroup applies to the same-sex marriage issue. The demand for legalized gay marriage is a symptom of a greater societal problem. With Proposition 8, we have won a battle, but it is ever-increasingly apparent that the war against moral relativism is really just beginning (or, if we're being honest, began with the 1960's Hippie movement). Regardless of when moral decline began, however, it is definitely rearing its ugly head with this homosexual movement that is threatening to redefine marriage and wreak havoc on the fundamental unit of society - the family.
["When you stop and think about it from a diabolically tactical point of view, fighting the family makes sense. When Satan wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he doesn’t poison the world’s peanut butter supply, thus bringing the Church’s missionary system to its collective knees. He doesn’t send a plague of laryngitis to afflict the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He doesn’t legislate against green Jell-O or casseroles. When Satan truly wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he attempts to confuse gender and he attacks God’s plan for His children....That’s all it takes, because Satan knows that the surest and most effective way to disrupt the Lord’s work is to diminish the effectiveness of the family and the sanctity of the home....Lucifer is the enemy of the family!" -Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]
The successful outcome of the Prop 8 vote on November 4th felt a mite bit empty as I ruminated on the slim margin of victory, evidence of a shifting cultural perception toward and acceptance of homosexuality in general. And the victory, quietly and humbly celebrated by good people all over the country, became even more bitter-sweet in the terrible, violent, anarchical backlash that followed from the opposition.

Now, ask any defender of traditional marriage what they think the future holds for same-sex marriage, and you may be surprised to discover how many readily admit that legalized same-sex marriage is not only likely, but inevitable. We are optimistic, not dumb. We won't soon forget how the interpretation of four judges overturned the will of millions. We aren't blind to the upcoming new voters - the MTV educated, A-list influenced, slogan screaming, automated, entitled young people of America. We won't soon forget the incredible sham of media bias and slant displayed during these 2008 elections - teaching us more about Gov. Sara Palin's clothing expenditures and personal life than we know about President-elect Obama's political platforms and plans. This same media is guilty twice over on the marriage front for first perpetuating lies such as Jack O'Connell's empty promises, then hiding behind a conspicuous silence as the world watches the gay community openly ferret out and attack one religion for the part its members played in a free and democratic process and vote. Religious bigotry has gone not only unimpeded, but largely unacknowledged by the mainstream media. More than shameful, it's alarming! We democratic people of the world are watching in shock as all three branches of the government here in California brazenly disregard the will of the people whom they claim to represent, urging instead the reversal of Proposition 8 and crying the acceptance of a destructive lifestyle in the name of equal rights and...wait for

Again I say, this war is far from over. It's a war that has come and gone in cycles since Adam and Eve were escorted out of the Garden of Eden. Trying to keep people from forgetting God in times of wealth and prosperity is like trying to herd cats. For some reason, money and God are like oil and water. Money tends to create and then influence the slinky little folk like pride and corruption and greed. We were doing great, we were feeling good, economy was thriving, then BAM, we're back at the bottom of the world economic food chain and begging the Lord to remember us when we've forgotten Him. This happened with 9/11, too - we remembered God in a very unified manner after those attacks, praying and mourning together. Then slowly, ever so slowly, we forgot Him again once we had moved beyond feeling threatened, once complacency and economic success replaced fear and re-engaged our consumer-driven, self-gratifying, greedy impulses.

Here's a little lesson from the scriptures (The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ). Read Alma Chapter 1 and Helaman Chapter 4, in the Book of Mormon. It's like reading about this very situation we're experiencing right now. While some in the gay rights camp use the "history repeats itself" card against the Church and bring up Blacks and the Priesthood, Polygamy, etc., I say, historically more noteworthy is the repetition and effect of "altering" and "trampling" and "corrupting" the laws the Lord has commanded us to live by, and the denial of "the spirit of prophecy" and "the spirit of revelation." But don't take my word for it, read it yourself!

Alma 1:3-4 (Note: Nehor is an anti-Christ)
["And he {Nehor} had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church...."

"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life."]
Alma 1:6
["And he began to be lifted up in the pride of his heart, and to wear very costly apparel, yea, and even began to establish a church* after the manner of his preaching."]
*Establishing the church of irreligion as described by syndicated columnist, M.J. Sobran:
["The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law 'respecting' the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge 'the free exercise' of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it."]
This new church of unbelief is also discussed by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a 1978 discourse:
["This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened."]
1978, people! This man, an apostle of the Lord, special witness of the Savior Jesus Christ, prophesied the moral decline of this nation. He knew the path we were walking down then would lead to where we are now. And people wonder why we put our faith in the leaders of this Church. There you have it - continuing revelation through the Lord's Prophets and Apostles. Okay, back to the scriptures....

Alma 1:7,9
["And it came to pass as he {Nehor} was going, to preach to those who believed on his word, he met a man who belonged to the church of God, yea, even one of their teachers; and he began to contend with him sharply, that he might lead away the people of the church; but the man withstood him, admonishing him with the words of God."

"Now, because Gideon withstood him with the words of God he was wroth with Gideon, and drew his sword and began to smite him.* Now Gideon being stricken with many years, therefore he was not able to withstand his blows, therefore he was slain by the sword."]

* whose response does this remind us of? "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to draw my protest sword and climb the walls of your temples, vandalize your property, and spew slanderous and false accusations at you, intimidating you into giving me what I want or else...."

So, Nehor is sentenced to die according to the law Mosiah had established. But with his death, the spreading of priestcraft did not end. Those who enjoyed his teachings of "eat, drink, and be merry," continued to spread that false doctrine under the inaccurate pretense that their teachings were a system of "belief." Because, as it says in Alma 1:17
[" the law could have no power on any man for his belief."]
But, it wasn't enough for these malcontents, members of the Church of Irreligion and Unbelief, to co-exist with the members of the true church of God.

Alma 1:19-20
["But it came to pass that whosoever did not belong to the church of God began to persecute those that did belong to the church of God, and had taken upon them the name of Christ."

"Yea, they did persecute them, and afflict them with all manner of words, and this because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes, and because they did impart the word of God one with another, without money and without price."]
It's so interesting to me that many in the gay community are tossing around this "live and let live" bit, yet when you read something like this last passage, it becomes obvious that the irreligious are never satisfied with just co-existing. The ultimate goal (whether conscious or subconscious) is to bring down the religious, the humble, the moral. Now, let's switch gears and take a look at Helaman, Chapter 4, where the Nephite society suffers defeat after defeat (at the hands of the Lamanites) because of its own citizens' wickedness and failure to remember God.

Helaman 4:11-13, 21-23
["Now this great loss of the Nephites, and the great slaughter which was among them, would not have happened had it not been for their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea, and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church of God."

"And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away in the the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites--"

"And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands."

"Yea, they began to remember the prophecies of Alma, and also the words of Mosiah; and they saw that they had been a stiffnecked people, and that they had set at naught the commandments of God;"

"And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people, insomuch that they were wicked even like unto the Lamanites."

"And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face."]
So, gas and same-sex marriage. I promise this all ties back together somewhere here. In essence the gist of this super long post is that we are waging a war here, one of epic proportions the likes of which you'd see in, oh, Lord of the Rings. Despite all the demands for facts and proof and philosophical debates on the relative merits of the homosexual lifestyle, this war is truly a simple one. It is classic Good vs. Evil. Heterosexual love vs. Homosexual love. Now before you walk away in disgust (that is, if you haven't already, my nemesis readers), hear me out. I am not calling gays evil. Let's clear that up right now. I am calling homosexual love/sex evil. I don't believe that homosexuals are "born with it" insomuch that they are left without choice. That would be Satan's plan and we all know that Satan didn't win in the pre-existence. I believe that homosexuals are born with strong feelings of attraction for the same sex, feelings that can and should be denied and, in some cases, can even be overcome and replaced with appropriate attractions for the opposite gender. Satan, however, being his usual cunning and wily self, has placed into the hearts of men a thought, simple yet powerful in its ability to cut the traditional family structure to the core. "Why?" That's it. "Why should I deny my feelings?" By planting the seed of entitlement to self-gratification in these individuals' hearts and minds, Satan is effectively working toward the destruction of that which he desires above all, but can never have - to be a father and have a family. If all people began to demand concessions based on self-gratification, government would disintegrate and anarchy would rule the day. Black is still black and white is still white, people, and even if the entire population of the world were to scream that black is acceptable, that evil is good, it would still be untrue. Good is the family as the Lord has outlined it to His Prophets and Apostles in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Evil is any other definition of the family, including same-sex marriages. It's truly as simple as that. So, for now, a battle is won, but the war wages on. And for the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would plead that we all make a special effort to stay close to the spirit and follow the chosen and anointed Prophet of the Lord, for therein lies safety and truth.

To wrap this all up nicely, I am including my own father's powerful testimony and a prophetic quote below.
["I bore my testimony to my students today. Those who claim that 'prophets ought to keep their noses out of politics' have never read the Old Testament! Think about Moses, and Elijah, and Isaiah, and Amos, and others; they went directly to their respective political leaders and told them what the Lord wanted them to do, what course to pursue. (Can we limit what God can say about anything?)"

"I testified that the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles is the wisest group of leaders on earth (!), and not just from their cumulative intellectual prowess (world-class heart surgeon, nuclear physicist, judge and legal mind, etc., etc.) but because of their direct connection with Heaven, and living by the Spirit every day. I testified that the sifting has begun. And I encouraged them to remember that we’re on the winning team – the Lord’s Team. In all other dispensations the truth has been lost; there has always been an apostasy; but not anymore. The truth is restored to stay. It will never again be lost or taken away from this sphere. This great Cause, in the end, will triumph. So, I warned them, don’t ever quit the Team! In the future, stay with this wisest group on earth – whatever the issue."]

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him: I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. . . .Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'" [In Conference Report, October 1960, 78]]

Marriage Will Revisit the CA Supreme Court

[SACRAMENTO, Calif., Nov 19, 2008 -- The official proponents of Proposition 8 and - 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.

"This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California," said General Counsel Andy Pugno. "This order means that voters will get their day in court and ensures that voters will have a vigorous defense of Proposition 8 before the California Supreme Court. We are profoundly gratified with the Court's order and are confident that Proposition 8 will be upheld."]

Well, at least there's that. Now the citizens of this nation will hold their collective breath while we wait to see if a single digit overturns the will of seven digits...again.

eHarmony Crumples Under Discrimination Lawsuits

New Jersey - eHarmony has caved today under mounting pressure and lawsuits from the homosexual community. This morning, the Internet dating phenom announced its plan to create a new website called "Compatible Partners," for GLBT users.

["eHarmony, which was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren in 2000, said the settlement was triggered by a Law Against Discrimination complaint filed by McKinley against the online service on March 14, 2005. As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership."]

Not only is the e-dating powerhouse settling this case by creating "Compatible Partners," but, as reported in the excerpt above, they are also paying the plaintiff $5,000, giving him a one-year free ride, and offering free one-year memberships to the first 10,000 users. They have assured the GLBT community that the same technology used to match heterosexual couples will be altered for same-sex couples. Photographs of same-sex couples will be featured in the site's "Diversity" section and used for advertising purposes as well.

Theodore Olson, legal counsel for eHarmony, made this statement today, "Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case. eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships."

As indicated by Olson's statement, this lawsuit is not the first of its kind to be aimed at eHarmony. In 2007, Linda Carlson, LA County resident, filed a lawsuit against the dating guru claiming that it violated discrimination laws by failing to provide accommodation for same-sex users. Carlson had become frustrated with the site when she'd tried to use the service to meet another woman, but was refused membership based on sexual orientation.

In a statement provided to, eHarmony Vice President of Legal Affairs, Antone Johnson said, "
We believe that this case is now essentially moot, and we're confident that we will prove that in court. Now that we're entering the same-sex matching market, we fail to see what the Carlson plaintiffs could achieve through further litigation."

Read the full story at

Alice in Queensland

Have you ever seen Alice in Queensland? Well, it's not really a movie, it's just a part of a movie, but if you haven't inserted that DVD in your machine for a while, don't worry, you've been watching its live remake on the news for the past couple of weeks. See what I mean....

Queen of Hearts Campaign

Moral of the story: It's generally better to "campaign" before the vote, not after.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The "Right" to Win

Thomas Sowell has done it again. The man is brilliant. In a world where grey is the new green, Sowell re-emphasizes that white (free and democratic election) and black (anarchical aftermath) still exist.

The Right to Win
by Thomas Sowell

[Among the many new "rights" being conjured out of thin air, a new one seems to be a "right" to win.

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don't win.

Hillary Clinton's supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats' nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the "glass ceiling" holding down women was still in place.

Apparently, if you don't win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling. The more obvious explanation of the nomination outcome was that Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that she would have been the nominee if the votes in the primaries had come out her way.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called "gay marriage," which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

Blacks and Mormons have been the main targets of the gay activists' anger. Seventy percent of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, so racial epithets were hurled at blacks in Los Angeles -- not in black neighborhoods, by the way.

Blacks who just happened to be driving through Westwood, near UCLA, were accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, "You better watch your back."

Even blacks who were carrying signs in favor of gay marriage were denounced with racial epithets.

In Michigan, an evangelical church service was invaded and disrupted by gay activists, who also set off a fire alarm, because evangelicals had dared to exercise their right to express their opinions at the polls.

In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco supervisor who said "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs." He added, "This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."

Apparently Mormons don't have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don't vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

There was another gay activist mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in Orange County, California.

In the past, gay activists have disrupted Catholic services and their "gay pride" parades in San Francisco have crudely mocked nuns.

While demanding tolerance from others, gay activists apparently feel no need to show any themselves.

How did we get to this kind of situation?

With all the various groups who act as if they have a right to win, we got to the present situation over the years, going back to the 1960s, where the idea started gaining acceptance that people who felt aggrieved don't have to follow the rules or even the law.

"No justice, no peace!" was a slogan that found resonance.

Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don't stop and think -- and awful if you do.

Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Nobody is in favor of anarchy. But some people want everybody else to obey the rules, while they don't have to.

What they want is not decisive, however. It is what other people are willing to tolerate that determines how far any group can go.

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.]

Monday, November 17, 2008

Mount Hope Church Invaded During Worship Services

[Michigan - During worship services on Sunday, Nov. 9, 2008, gay rights activists invaded Mount Hope Church in Delta Township. Activists interrupted services by standing up, throwing leaflets, and chanting slogans like "It's okay to be gay." Two women kissed each other before scattering more leaflets and running out the door, leaving behind a chapel full of stunned parishioners.]

Come on! Seriously? I am almost finding it in my so-called "bigoted" and "hate-filled" Christian heart to be embarrassed for these people. Almost. However, since the people of California voted Yes on 8, and since the "opposition" has taken that result and thrown a massive, teenage-reminiscent hissy fit aimed at anyone who took part in supporting Prop 8, I'll just say thanks, instead. Thanks to the gay activists who are helping to shoot the No on 8 campaign (or whatever is left of it in the shattered and unorganized wake of failure) in the foot. Thank you. Thanks for showing your true colors. Now I know what the "rainbow" flag really stands for:

Red = Ranting and Raving, Ruthless Rioters
Orange = Over-the-top Opposition Oppressors
Yellow = Yes on 8 "H8ters"
Green = Gay-or-the-highway Guerrilla Tactics
Blue = Bigots Bent on Boycotting
Indigo = Intimidating, Infiltrating, Intolerant Individuals
Violet = Violent, Vindictive, Virulent, Vitriolic, Volatile Vandals

(I know, I know - overboard. They're just making it too easy, for Pete's sake!)

Not a great track record so far, folks. Honestly, I would like to know how anyone thinks that a culture capable of producing this kind of reaction to the loss of a word, is something children should be learning to accept and embrace. Anyone? Anyone? And if anyone doubts that total acceptance of their lifestyle is the homosexual community's ultimate goal, beginning with the indoctrination of children, then just read this quote from a commenter I was debating with on a friend's blog:

["Yes, your child’s teacher ought to be teaching your child that it’s okay to be gay, it’s okay to have gay parents, because if you won’t, if you want your child to grow up thinking that it’s not okay to be gay, or that it’s not okay for their best friend to be gay - or to have gay parents - then someone must."]

Say what?! Come again? You're suggesting that I'm not fit to guide my child's moral upbringing just because I don't agree with homosexuality?! And you even have the audacity to presume that you, in all your open-minded, equal rights confusion, have the moral high ground. Wow. The intolerance of tolerance. It is a real thing, people. And just for the sake of clarification, I do not think it is wrong to be gay; I think it is wrong to act on those feelings and attractions. Our Church has many celibate gay members for whom I have deep respect and admiration. This difference between feeling attractions and acting on those feelings is a fine distinction that I don't trust a public school teacher to be adequately prepared to teach (or to want to teach, for that matter). I want exclusive rights to that conversation with my child and voting Yes on Prop 8 assured me that, at least for the time being, my child wouldn't be taught about homosexuality under the guise of equal marriage education.

JHOPSF Christians Chased Out of S.F. Castro District

Gay rights activists chase Christians (JHOPSF) out of the San Francisco Castro District. And yet, homosexuals still denounce any studies that indicate a tendency toward violence. Hm. Note the guy who turns aside from hounding for a moment to...that's right...shake a car. Darn car. Wonder what it did to offend the guy? Poor Castro District cops. They've definitely got their hands full escorting people away from ranting mobs.

Here is the account of one of the members of JHOPSF (Justice House of Prayer San Francisco):

"I went to the Castro (the homosexual district of San Francisco) with JHOPSF (I have been with the Justice House of Prayer San Francisco since April 2008.) 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. We played the guitar and sang together and worshiped the Lord. After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did.

Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.
Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.
Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing "Amazing Grace", and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus" and "Oh the Blood of Jesus".) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like "haters" and "bigots". Since it was a long night, I can't even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said "Hey, that's not yours, can you please give it back?". He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said "No, tell him I forgive him." Afterwards, she didn't rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said "I am going to kill you.", and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him.

(This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don't want to be offended.) It wasn't long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.

Soon after, the cops came and stood between us and the mob. When it was getting more heated, the cops were like "You guys should leave." and Roger said "We want to stay." Someone tried to steal my backpack, but I tapped a cop on the shoulder, and said "Hey, that's my bag." and he got it from him and gave it to me. Others weren't so lucky. Probably half our team got their jackets stolen. Eventually, as the crowd was getting more and more uncontrollable, the cops were afraid for our lives, so they escorted us to our van. (The cops were very nice to us from start to finish.)

Our van was parked pretty far because it was hard to find parking that day. As the cops escorted us, the mob followed us, until the cops formed a line, and held off the people so we could drive away. We took the long way home, just in case anyone tried to follow us. When we got home, we prayed and sang more, and then prayed over each-other. Please know my heart. All of what we do is for the Love of Jesus Christ, and the love for those in the Castro. The Bible says to love God, and then love people. We can only love because He loved us first. We can't hate the people because they are just broken and blinded by the spirit of this age. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities and Powers. It's not a political thing, we just love the people."

The Camilla Letter

Camilla, a high school junior with an opinion, took the time to write an e-mail letter to the CTA (California Teacher's Association) concerning her disappointment in their $1 million donation to the No on 8 campaign. Participants in this electronic conversation are as follows: Camilla, high school junior; Barbara, Camilla's mom; Jim Rogers, CTA Coordinator; Debbie, Barbara's Cousin; and David Sanchez another member of the CTA Board of Directors. Just read the following transcript below to see the condescending response Camilla's thoughtful letter received from Jim Rogers (start from the bottom and read up):

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:39 PM

To: Sanchez, David

Subject: RE: Disturbing Communications with Jim Rogers of the CTA Board of Directors

From: Barbara X

Thank you for your prompt e-mail response and especially for your apologies to Camilla and for supporting her rights. We do appreciate that. I would like to reiterate my position at this point on this matter is NOT to debate same-sex marriage issues or the CTA’s political donation but rather to protest Mr. Rogers’ responses to Camilla (and my cousin) and to seek whatever disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the NEA or whatever governing board has jurisdiction in this matter. Please let me know the outcome of your meeting with the Board of Directors and what action(s) are planned.

Regarding your question about whether I was aware that the media had contacted you about this issue, I was not aware that this had transpired and was not contacted by any members of the media myself. As I mentioned in my e-mail to you earlier this morning, I did forward Camilla’s letter and Mr. Rogers’ response to about 25-30 family members and friends to make them aware of this highly inappropriate situation. I had no idea that it would be shared with so many others or that it would become so wide-spread, but this only validates the fact that this issue is of concern and is unacceptable to many Californians. Several of the e-mail responses I received told me that this should be shared with the public via the media. I told those people, after consulting with Camilla, that we would be willing to share this story if they so desired. I have not sought out the media but I do agree that the public has a right to know about this situation and that CTA members who do not agree with the policies of the CTA should voice their protests to your organization.

Barbara X

— On Tue, 11/11/08, Sanchez, David wrote:

From: Sanchez, David

Subject: RE: Disturbing Communications with Jim Rogers of the CTA Board of Directors

To: “Barbara X”

Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 8:51 AM

Thank you for your email and concern regarding communication between your daughter and several of our Board members. You can imagine the number of emails we received from folks from all over the country, surpringly….many of them were non members who had responded to a church call to email our board. Some of the most hateful, vile, un Christlike messages sent to us. It was truly disturbing what some folks wrote and then signed it…yours in Christ.

With regards to your daughters email. It was well done and she was expressing her own viewpoint. I do recall receiving it. Question for you is…how is it that we got a call from the media about it? Were you aware that that had transpired?

If you have a chance to look at a CTA Policy handbook, check out who the State Council of Education is. They are the governing body of the California Teachers Association and they alone set the policy and direction for us. Over 800 educators from throughout California voted by more than 2/3 to take positions on the initiatives we made recommendations on. Same with the funding of those initiatives. It is not the CTA Board who makes those decisions, we are given the task of implementing those actions.

You are right in saying that we might not be in agreement on everything, in particular on issues pertaining to all of our members (remember…Prop 8 folks pay dues as well), but we must do so respectfully and move forward.

I will be seeing the board as a whole and will discuss your concern with them. Again, thank you for taking the time to express your concern in a non hateful manner. Big thanks to you for sticking up for your daughter. She’s lucky to have that kind of support. Please extend my apologies to your daughter and tell her I appreciate the time and effort she took to express her point of view.

David A. Sanchez

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (

—–Original Message—–
From: Barbara X

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 03:04 AM Pacific Standard Time

To: Sanchez, David
Cc: Luckinbill, Mary Ann

Subject: Disturbing Communications with Jim Rogers of the CTA Board of Directors

Mr. Sanchez;

I need to bring to your attention a series of disturbing communications from one of the members of the CTA Board of Directors, Mr. Jim Rogers, the CTA/NEA Coordinator. Following my note to you, I have included a string of e-mails for your review in regards to this matter. The first e-mail was written by my 16-year old daughter Camilla and was sent to CTA Executive Officers and Board Members including yourself on November 5, 2008. So far I have received responses from three of the members of the Board of Directors, including Mr. Rogers. Of the other two responses, one was somewhat condescending but at least informative and mostly civil and the other was professional and appropriate despite the opposing views of this board member. (If you would like me to forward these responses to you as well, I will be happy to do so.)

However, the response received by Mr. Rogers (highlighted in red) was disrespectful, unprofessional, extremely condescending and downright rude. I was so shocked and outraged by his treatment of my daughter that I forwarded her letter and his response to about 25-30 family embers and friends, including many of her former teachers.

One of my cousins, Debbie (I have removed identifying last names and e-mail addresses in the e-mail string in order to protect their privacy) sent a letter to Mr. Rogers and forwarded it to me, along with his ensuing response (highlighted in pink) and her final communication to him in response to his comments. Please note that I did not solicit her letter nor did she consult me prior to sending it. In fact, I have not solicited any of the 40+ e-mail responses we have received from others who received the original letter of Camilla’s along with his response either from myself or forwarded from others. Mr. Rogers’ response to Debbie was ironically hypocritical as well as unprofessional and unthoughtful.

In way of background information, I did not encourage Camilla’s staying home from school and tried to talk her out of doing so because I understood that her missing school would not directly have an effect on the CTA but rather our school district, which already struggles under tremendous financial constraints. I also do not encourage her to miss school for reasons other than illness or emergency medical appointments and her attendance is normally excellent. However, she felt very strongly about this issue and wanted to make her voice heard and felt this was one way she could do so. I finally consented with the stipulation that she had to write a letter to the CTA voicing her protests, which she gladly agreed to do and spent a couple of hours doing. (She actually attended the first two periods that day, so it turned out that the school did not lose her ADA funding for the day.) This was her letter, written in her own words and with much time and effort on her part; I edited it later for proofreading, grammatical errors, etc. prior to sending it, which is the reason for the delay between when she wrote it and when I sent it I sent it for her in order to protect her e-mail address and so that if she received any responses, they would not be filtered out and lost in her spam or trash folder. I have forwarded the responses and numerous e-mails to her.

I am not sure how you view this matter but in my opinion, as well as that of numerous others who have responded on this issue, Mr.Rogers’ actions were way out of line with what should be appropriate behavior for an educator, especially one in his leadership position. He has blatantly violated numerous basic principles and goals outlined in the CTA’s Mission Statement and Code of Ethics (see attachment, emphasis on key points added by red highlights) and should be subject to whatever disciplinary action or remedies as specified by the NEA for his violations of provisions of the Code of Ethics (as noted in the attachment, highlighted in purple).

I understand that my daughter’s letter presents an opinion that is in opposition to Mr. Rogers’ as well as many others on your governing board, as evidenced by CTA’s large financial contributions to oppose Proposition 8.

While I share many of my daughter’s viewpoints and disagree with CTA’s financial contributions on this issue (as do many of the teachers we have heard from), both of us realize and respect that many others disagree with our viewpoint and we respect their right to do so. In return we expect respect for our differing opinions, especially from an organization which claims to be promoting human dignity and civil rights to students and to all members of society, regardless of their background. As I see it, this issue is NOT about Prop 8 but rather about the exercise of a student’s freedom of speech and how her sincere efforts were treated. I would hope that the leaders in your organization would be expected to encourage activism and involvement in the political process from students rather than to belittle or degrade them for doing so simply because of opposing viewpoints, whether professional or personal. The letter Camilla received from Dana Dillon would be a good example of such a response, one which seeks to educate and validate Camilla’s efforts despite obvious differences of opinion.

I know this has been a lengthy letter and I apologize for that, but I wanted to be sure you were made aware of the background and details of this matter in order to appropriately address it. I hope your response will be thorough and fair and I would appreciate your prompt response. Please contact me if you need additional information; thank you for your time and attention to this matter.


Barbara X

— On Thu, 11/6/08, Tony and Debbie wrote:

From: Tony and Debbie

Subject: Re: Preposterous behavior

To: “Rogers, Jim”

Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 2:04 PM

Mr. Rogers,

To call Camilla’s email or my email bigotry or hate is slanderous. I wish not to continue correspondence with you directly because you continue to reduce things to a personal level which is unprofessional. I only hope that you will take your elected position for what it is, a position of service and commence to leave your personal ideals out of the situation. Also, when the youth of America are exercising their right to democracy, please encourage it instead of suppressing it.




On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Rogers, Jim ( wrote:

Such hate and bigotry… Such a shame.

*(emphasis added)*

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (

—–Original Message—–

From: Tony and Debbie

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:57 AM Pacific Standard Time

To: Rogers, Jim

Subject: Preposterous behavior

Mr. Rogers,

Your condescending and pompous email is now being circulated on the internet to friends and family of Camilla. I have already put in a calls to State Council of Education Representatives to discuss your behavior. Regardless of your personal feelings on a matter, Camilla was exercising her rights as an American to discuss her views and opinions with appropriate representatives. The message you are giving reflects your personal and selfish interests (not appropriate as an elected board member) and also sends the message that it is not okay for citizens to express their views.

Camilla’s letter was thoughtful, respectful and eloquently written. Your response showed little to no thought and was not respectful. I will continue to make calls to ensure that this type of behavior is not allowed in the California Teacher’s Association.




From: Rogers, Jim (

Subject: RE: In Protest of CTA’s $1.25 million donation to the “No on Prop 8″ campaign

To: Barbara

Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 11:37 PM

Thanks, Sweetie, but it’s over for now. And it’s really none of your business.

*(emphasis added)*

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (

—–Original Message—–
From: Barbara

Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:27 PM Pacific Standard Time

To: Sanchez, David; Vogel, Dean; Vaughn, Dan; Allen, Larry; Bridge, Don;
Bustos, Michael; Cabell, Tyrone; Cichocki, Mikki; Crummey, Dayton; Dawson,
Don; Dillon, Dana; Groth, Jim; Hasson, Dian; Heins, Eric; Henley, Lynette;
Jackson, Mignon; Meeden, Marty; Melendez, George; Ortega, Mary Rose;
Pena, Cynthia; Porter, Lloyd; Shatun, Bonnie; Stone, Michael; Rogers, Jim

Subject: In Protest of CTA’s $1.25 million donation to the “No on Prop 8″ campaign

My name is Camilla and I am a junior at Folsom High School. On October 21, I stayed home from school to protest the $1.25 million your association donated to the “No on Proposition 8″ campaign. I believe that this is something that CTA, which speaks for all teachers, had no right to do. Did you ask the teachers if this was okay with them? Did they approve this? You can tell me that your board and representatives voted and passed the decision to donate this amount of money for this proposition, but as I understand it, your board should make decision for education, not for political agendas. You spent the teachers’ funds on a very controversial issue with which many of them do not agree.

Marriage between a man and a woman has existed since the beginning of human life on earth. Should Proposition 8 fail, it would cause the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to be diminished and its powerful influence on society to be lessened. The failure of Proposition 8 would result in the meaning of marriage becoming little more than a casual relationship between any two adults and the weakening of the importance of the roles of a father and a mother in a child’s development. Marriage is not just about love or the desires of the parties entering into it. It about providing what is best for children, ideally a mother and a father who love them. Does it really serve teachers and students best to sponsor changing the institution of marriage in this way?

While you have stated that you made this donation because all people should be allowed equal protection under the law, you must understand that many people do not agree that denying same-sex marriage equates to unjustified discrimination. Domestic partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual, already have all the same rights and privileges afforded to them by law as do married individuals EXCEPT that their union cannot be called “marriage”. I believe that this type of “discrimination” is very different from the withholding of basic rights to individuals based on their race or ethnicity, something that cannot be chosen or changed. Even if homosexual individuals do not choose their sexual orientation, their desire for their relationships to be considered equal in all ways does not justify changing society’s definition of marriage, especially when there are already laws in place which give them equal protection and rights.

I thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I hope that I will get a reply. I hope that you understand why I stayed home. It was not to get the day off but to say that I do not agree with this donation and am not for same-sex marriage and do not appreciate the representatives of the teachers in our public education system taking sides on such a controversial issue. I know that my actions did not adversely affect you but I did this as a matter of principle. I do wish to thank you for the good work you do in seeking better pay and benefits for teachers. My teachers make a positive difference in my life and I appreciate anything you do that will truly help them.



Boycott Mania

First El Coyote (read about it here) and now Leatherby's. What these protesters and boycotters can't seem to keep straight is that those who supported Proposition 8 lent their voices and votes to a pro-marriage campaign. They are not anti-gay, they are for protecting the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. The backlash of proud gay rights activist activities, with rainbow flags a-flyin' and cries for tolerance and acceptance of the gay lifestyle, would suggest that they seem to have lost sight of this clear, and important, distinction.

The following article is taken from the ABC News10 website:

SACRAMENTO, CA - The after-church crowd got more than lunch and a scoop of ice cream at Sacramento's Leatherby's Family Creamery on Arden Way Sunday afternoon.

Customers also got an earful from yet another group of Proposition 8 protesters.

Protesters Amanda Booth and Erin Domingo, along with a handful of vocal supporters, said they wanted everyone who eats at Leatherby's to know that the family behind the business donated money to help pass Proposition 8.

"We're protesting Leatherby's because they contributed over $20,000 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign," Booth said. "That money went toward defeating my equal rights."

"We just thought it would be nice to let people know where their money is going when they buy ice cream from Leatherby's," Domingo said.

Despite the turmoil outside, Leatherby's was packed Sunday, filled mostly with people who said they support the family-run business and Proposition 8.

"The people have spoken. We won," said customer Craig Abi-Nader. "The Supreme Court was wrong and they should end it there."

At one point, Dave Leatherby Jr. greeted the protesters and shook some of their hands. Leatherby said he doesn't have any animosity or hatred toward anyone.

"Our vote was not a vote of hate. It wasn't a vote against them," Leatherby said. "It was a vote to support something that we though was good. I have no animosity toward anyone."

Leatherby said since his family's donation has been made public, they've received threats and hate mail.

"Sending mail that said, 'We're going to put you out of business, you're hate mongers, you people are evil,'" Leatherby said. "That was startling."

Despite some harsh words, Sunday's protest was peaceful. Booth said she would not give up the fight for her rights any time soon.

"We just want to make people aware of what's going on in their neighborhoods and communities and that there are those people who don't support equal rights," Booth said.