If Prop 8 does not pass there are serious legal consequences for us and the California that our grandkids will live in--->

Below is an article by NPR (well-respected National Public Radio) that I read recently. It outlines the true consequences currently being faced nationwide concerning same-sex or gay marraige. It is not fueled by emotion or opinion but by an analysis of the true consequesces to the choice we'll make in just days as we vote. I found it worthy enough to post on my perosnal blog.

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

California gain of Gay Marriage opens slow door for gay rights to sue Federal Govt for rights to marry

Below is a document that is from the ACLU to gay couples on how California is the trendestter for the nation on the Gay Marriage front.


http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/camarriage_joint_20080609.pdf

"Marriage in California will transform the national debate on the freedom to marry. It will do that because the decision is well-reasoned constitutional law from the most influential state court in the nation. It will do that because California is an American trendsetter. But marriage in California will do those things only if we can hold onto it."

Parents cannot opt kids out of Gay Marriage Education by CA law

I am big on sources and documentation and indeed Gay Marriage will be taught as EQUAL to Traditional Marriage in schools if Prop 8 passes. Here is the link to accurate information showing that parents CANNOT opt their children out of classroom topics on Gay Marriage and that schools cannot ask for parental consent either.

http://ifprop8fails.org/DNA/LetterToParents.pdf

SB 71 is the current California law that mandates that marriage be taught in schools.

"The law does not permit parents to remove students from anti-harassment programs or trainings. This includes programs that covers gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or family life."

This is a document that shows that we should indeed vote YES on 8.

Please pass this link on to all friends to help balance out the ad falsly spoken by Superintendent of Education Jack O'Connell.

It is logical to think gay marriage won't be taught in school but indeed logic fails us this time. This video shows what is taught in Massachusetts schools.

BUT IT'S BEGUN IN CA TOO. A Hayward California elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day" last week http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6467358 and first graders were taken on a field trip as thier female teacher and female partner were married in San Francisco this very month on October 10th, 2008.

Gay marriage WILL be taught to be just as good as same-sex marriage if we do not Pass Proposition 8. Please vote YES on 8.

Maryland court states Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules

Courts in Maryland ruled that discrimination does not take place nor are constitutional rights denied in thier laws that prohibit same-gender marriage, but rather protect the state's interest to have and protect children. See Washington Post article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091802177.html
Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld; Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto; Washington Post Staff Writers;
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01

Is marriage really taught in schools and will Prop 8 affect that?

As for Marriage being taught in schools, perhaps you are not familiar with the case in Massachusets where a Kindergartner was taught that same-sex marriage was an equal choice to traditional marraige through the book, "A King and a King," which shows two men kissing on the last page. THe child came home and told mom and dad about this "silly book" at school.

The family requested to be notified next time the topic was taught so that they could also have a family discussion.

The school refused, the school board and the family lost a court case as well, because as a state the society decided that marriage had a new definition.
A video with a source on this exact case can be seen at:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815820715/bctid1822459319

SAN FRANCISCO in our own California has another example where a first grade field trip was taken to a lesbian wedding. The news article from TV that day can be seen at:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=10199821

Cheer it or boo it - there are deep consequences to ponder before you vote on Prop 8.

I am YES on 8.

Will churches loose rights if Prop 8 doesn't pass?

I recently had a conversation with someone who said that churches can't be forced to marry someone if Prop 8 doesn't pass. I agreed.

However, it is very probable that THERE WILL BE WAYS TO MAKE A CHURCH DECIDE BETWEEN CANNON AND A NEW DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BY THE STATE. Gay couples are calling for tolerance. But if, under the new definition/law, a church who holds a traditional marriage view will be termed as intolerant and there will be the same fired-up people in this debate that will then ask,
"Why are tax-exempt benefits going to this church that teaches and practices discrimination?"

I fear that the cries for tolerance will be reversed and that churches that hold differing beliefs of marriage will feel like they are not being tolerated instead.

The legal cases that I cite elsewhere in my blog indicate that while churches cannot be forced to marry anyone, there are real-life and serious consequences to a redefining of the term marriage.

I CARE FOR ALL MY NEIGHBORS OF ALL LIFESTYLE CHOICES, and I am convinced that they have the rights they need and deserve under the California Domestic Partnership laws (adoption of a partner's child, hospital visitation, retirement at the death of a partner, etc) and that California will be it's strongest without redefining marriage.

I will vote YES on 8. To learn more please visit http://www.protectmarriage.com/

How will you vote on Prop 8?

This video is simple and respectful of both sides. Please take a moment to watch it to be the informed voter that we all want to be.

Are you deciding how to vote on Proposition 8?

Now is the time to decide what standard we want to set together as a group of citizens in a state. I am convinced that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is best for the whole of society, even if not as accommodating as one social interest group would like.

I like ___THE PEBBLE IN THE POND ANALOGY___ because the waves that hit the shore and where they hit are the real issue here.
America is great! I spoke with my 9 year old today because of an unkind act to a neighbor on this issue. He clearly understood that if we lose our FREE SPEECH, we lose one of the greatest things about being American.

I am ALSO grateful to be able to excercise my Freedom of Religion. It is becoming evident that a failure to Pass Prop 8 would begin to encroach on that very right.
Gay couples are calling for tolerance. But if, under the new definition/law, a church who holds a traditional marriage view will be termed as intolerant and there will be the same fired-up people in this debate that will then ask,
"Why are tax-exempt benefits going to this church that teaches and practices discrimination?"

This intolerance-in-reverse and the lawsuits that have already begun one type of wave that will hit the shore long after the rock has been thrown.

Quoting NPR (National Public Radio)
“Same-sex couples are challenging religious organizations' policies that exclude them, claiming that a group's view that gay marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. So far, the religious groups are losing.”

Below I cite an article done recently by NPR that shows the real legal cases that are happening now related to gay relationships and society. The article shows that we need to foresee the waves that will hit the shore before we throw the rock, as so many people are trying to point out. Summarizing NPR:


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191


There are consequences to a failure to pass Prop 8.

Families are the Legos of society. When families are strong and practice kindness and hard work and other desired attributes, then the society exhibits these traits.

I support YES on Prop 8 because of this underlying belief.

Now this doesn’t mean that same-sex couples can’t raise loving children that contribute great things to society. Indeed they can. However I do not see a need to redefine marriage away from the only biologically capable union that can bear children.

I am so glad that California already ensured to gays the rights they need and deserve under the California Domestic Partnership laws (adoption of a partner's child, hospital visitation, retirement at the death of a partner, etc). Therefore this issue is not about rights.

It is about the definition of the word __marriage__.

I BELIEVE CALIFORNIANS CAN CHOOSE THIER LIFESTYLES AND THE WAY THEY TEACH THE NEXT GENERATION without redefining “marriage.” The consequences of that new definition will change what California is for me and for my grandkids.

I will vote YES on 8.

Who is voting YES on 8 and why?

Don't gay couples deserve to be happy?

Will gay rights be changed if Prop 9 passes?

I can be kind to my neighbors, no matter their lifestyle, and still vote Yes On Proposition 8.

There is an automatic conflict between religous freedom and gay rights that is unavoidable.

A response to a discussion on Prop 8:

I think religion and religious liberties are being confused here.

There is an automatic conflict between religous freedom and gay rights that is unavoidable. Kindness and respect belong there and should be bettered by some. Nevertheless, there is a conflict. The very fabric of one's life is based upon standards and values that are at the core of the decisions he/she makes. If the term _marraige_ becomes redefined, many will be forced to choose between the deep values they hold or tolerance. To heed the cries of tolerance, they will have to actually condone the choice and sacrifice deep personal values.

There are really two diasadvantaged groups here.

I can indeed give "one negative effect Prop 8 will have on society." or a few.

It comes in the form of lawsuits over this emotional conflict between core standards and this possible new definition.

An posting quoted in a similar thread states:

"__An article by NPR, National Public Radio, which is not fired up by emotion or opinion, cited many examples happening NOW that show the consequences of the choice we make on NOVEMBER 4TH:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Excerpts:
Not only did Catholic Charities stop ADOPTION SERVICES they had done for generations (a loss to the New York community indeed) because they would not place children in same-sex homes, but a similar case IN CALIFORNIA has already take place. The name of the group is Adoption Profiles and they no longer facilitate adoptions in CA.

PRIVATE CHURCH SCHOOLS are impacted. NPR cites one case underway for a suspension of a lesbian couple at California Lutheran High School and another has concluded that the Orthodox Jewish College, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, must be forced to allow same-sex couples in their married dorms. Without cheering or booing the outcome, it is clear that there are legal consequences to Prop 8.

CONSEQUENCES TO MEDICAL FIELD - A gynecologist with North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, CA refused inviter treatments to a lesbian couple for religious beliefs and is currently being sued. According to NPR, "legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business." Another case involving counseling to better a lesbian couple's relationship ended with a fired counselor and a lost court case. There are LeGAL ConsEQUENcES to Prop 8.

YOUTH GROUPS are being denied facilities such as the Boy Scouts of America in Berkeley, California and San Diego. The California Supreme Court has been asked to review the Boy Scouts' leases, and similarly, in Philadelphia the Boy Scout lease on a city building has been revoked.

So again I say that while churches cannot be forced to marry anyone, there are real-life and serious consequences to a redefining of the term marriage.__"

There are serious consequences to the choice we make.
A short, kind video worth watching to help make this decision is found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA

I have already voted YES on 8. To help make your decision please visit http://whatisprop8.com/

Summer 2008

Our summer began with lots of work, both on campus for Scott and work on the ranch for all of us - trying to paint the house, finding dry-rot and not being able to paint the house, weed abatement, teaching a Pysical Geog summer course, lots and lots of watering for the ranch, running pipe in the new Scout campground, special care of the grapevines that really paid off, and more. But we also had alot of fun.

We began a very long, ongoing game of Monoploy that still hasn't finished, enjoyed our outdoor barbecue dinners, had a spontaeous night of sleeping bags under the stars, and lots of swimming lessons that we all did together. (Scott swims quite well now, he says:)) Acutally it was just the kids, but we all went as a family each day and built up some fun memories. The kiddie mushroom pool doesn't fit adults very well but our kids enjoyed our company. We also discoved that you need to be able to swim when you get to the bottom of the water slide (long story that JD can tell another time).

At the end of summer came our only vacation - 10 fun filled days with Brenda's parents and participating in the 2008 Salt Lake City Ride For Kids.

We traveled first to Elko, (Yes, a destination for some people) and spent a few days there. Scott got some motorcycle coaching from Walt and a great ride up Lamoille Canyon. He bought Rick's bike just before the trip, a sad and happy moment all in one, and is now has a confused identity between a geographer who wears sandals on some days and a motorcycle jacket on others. After a few days in Elko, the kids took turns riding in Walt's side car to Salt Lake with Scott on the back. Brenda and Donna rode in the car over the Salt Flats, after which we enjoyed fabulous strawberry shakes, sponsored by Brenda's dad and scowled upon by her mom. We waited patiently for mom's Can-Am (cool bike!) that she eventually rode in the Ride and then we all made it to Salt Lake.

The first morning, (with a one-hour time change, mind you) Donna called at 5:45am SLC time and invited us to join her for breakfast. Scott enjoyed that time with her.

While in Salt Lake, we met up with one of Scott's favorite missionary companions, John Barfuss, and his great family at Hogle Zoo. After not seeing each other for over 15 years, it was great to see that he was still Scott's Brother in the Lord.

The ride was not unlike many others. However this year, in fear of being late, we arrived even before the entry gate opened. After waiting until (once again, local time) 6 AM, (yes, it's still dark at that hour) the gate was then opened and set-up began. Our role this year was to set signs out along the road, and then we headed to the end of the ride before the bikes and were able to see them pull in for the first time instead of sending them off with a wave and trailing behind. Walt was feeling under the weather and another friend rode his bike for him. Donna rode the snazzy Can-Am with Lindsay, a young woman who is attending BYU that we love to see each year. She is a sweet girl who Laura would like have as her babysitter even though we live in California.

Before leaving Salt Lake, we visited Temple Square for our Sunday worship and enjoyed every square foot that we explored, once again. We helped mom and dad move all the bikes around back in Elko, no small task mind you, and then bid our goodbyes the following day and returned to find the homestead save and sound.

The RFK creates special memories for us each year, to see family and to see the fabulous motorcycle community of the Salt Lake region make a real difference for Pediatric Brain Tumor research! This year, Mom and Dad contributed $8,013?

And that's Summer 2008.