From our friend Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families and their SaveCalifornia.com website:

California Homosexual “Marriage” Alert: What to Do Right Now

Campaign for Children and Families, Updated May 26, 2008

People are outraged that the California State Supreme Court has ruled to destroy the institution of marriage and to trample the people’s previous vote on marriage. [In 2000, California citizens voted by 61 percent for a statewide ballot law to preserve the age-old definition in the state as between one man and one woman.–Ed.] They’re asking what they can do.

Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) has a battle plan, and you need to be part of it. This is your generation’s war for marriage, children and the very foundation of society. Please scroll down for specific instructions and the four ACTION STEPS:

1. Write Chief Justice Ron George
2. Call and email Governor Schwarzenegger
3. Call Dr. Mark Horton of the Office of Vital Records
4. IMPORTANT: Call your county clerk in California

From the website of Rob Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and probably the world’s foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. I have heard Prof. Gagnon present on several of these topics and suffice it to say that it is no mystery why “gay” revisionist theologians are loathe to debate him. I highly recommend that you order and study this important resource. (You can also order his book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, on Amazon HERE.) I also commend Gagnon’s work to those homosexual activists who claim to be in pursuit of truth, and those who want to truly understand the heart of God on this vexing issue.–Peter LaBarbera.

“Love, the Bible, and Homosexual Practice”: A 4-Hour 3-DVD Presentation by Robert Gagnon (2008)

… with excellent high-definition picture and sound, along with slides; taped professionally at Grace Chapel in Franklin, Tenn. on Apr. 12, 2008 for Mastering Life Ministries (see online sites at www.MasteringLife.org and www.purepassion.us/Home.asp), along with an hour-long CD. $35 plus $7 shipping and handling. To order click HERE or go to http://www.purepassion.us/OnlineStore.asp.

DVD 1: What’s at Stake & What Are the Closest Analogies (83 min.)

Treats why we disagree in the church about homosexual practice; what’s at stake in this debate; why the oft-cited, alleged analogies to Gentile inclusion, slavery, women in ministry, and divorce and remarriage are not in fact good analogies to the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice; what the main problem with homosexual practice is; why adult-committed incest and polyamory are the closest analogies; and responses to audience questions.

Columnist: Triangle Foundation’s Kosofsky says business owners should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly”

Detroit homosexual activist Sean Kosovsky (left) says media who criticize homosexual “marriages” as illegitimate should be sued for libel and “slapped around publicly.” Kosovsky has also recklessly and falsely accused Gary Glenn’s American Family Association of Michigan of supporting the murder of homosexuals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 21, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

By Gary Glenn, President, AFA-Michigan

LOS ANGELES — Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News reported Monday.

Statements attributed in the column to homosexual lobbyist Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, were denounced Wednesday by American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004 to constitutionally reaffirm the legal definition of marriage in Michigan as only between one man and one woman.

“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.

Pro-family attorney Jan LaRue offered the following analysis for Americans For Truth readers on the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of “same-sex marriage” (click HERE for a PDF of the court’s decision):

Californians must pass the marriage amendment in November in order to preserve traditional marriage. However, the amendment will not necessarily undo the consequences of the court’s holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class, akin to race, sex and religion, and, therefore, subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This is the first court in the nation to do that.

The lower courts will apply the ruling and rationale, knowing that the Supremes will uphold their rulings. It means that any restriction on “sexual orientation” will be presumed by courts to be unconstitutional unless the court is convinced that there is a compelling governmental interest that justifies the restriction.

It will be devastating for schools, businesses, religious organizations, individuals, the state national guard, freedom of speech and religion, association, etc. It can hardly be overstated.

Jan LaRue is a member of the California and U.S. Supreme Court bars and a member of the Board of Advisors of the Culture and Media Institute. She served as Chief Counsel at Concerned Women for America, Director of Legal Studies at Family Research Council, and Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families.

Photo appearing on homosexual group Equality California’s website. The group will be leading efforts to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage as one-man, one-woman in that state.

By Peter LaBarbera

One of the factors that makes the homosexual activist agenda so peculiarly evil is its habit of glomming on to humanity’s most noble institutions and truths — parenting, marriage, love, honesty, justice and “equality” — and putting them in the service of its starkly ignoble cause of winning acceptance for immoral and unhealthy homosexual behavior.

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Either I’m going nuts or the sentence in blue below is one of the strangest ever to begin an opinion piece — especially one titled, “Ordinary, Like Us.” Lesbian writer Jennifer Vanasco writes in the homosexual newspaper Chicago Free Press:

Young gays and lesbians want to be married. And have kids.

That’s what the first survey of the aspirations of gay and lesbian youth discovered.

Rockway Institute reported that more than 90 percent of the lesbians and more than 80 percent of the gay males they surveyed “expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30.”

About two-thirds of the males and just over half of the females said they thought it was very likely they’d have children.

What’s extraordinary about this is just how very ordinary it is….

Gay and lesbian youth want stable marriages and children?

Of course they do.

Because they have grown up in an America where being gay is starting to seem unremarkable. Where being gay doesn’t need to mean living a particular way. Where being gay doesn’t have to mean putting limits on your future.

Young gays and lesbians don’t want to destroy “traditional marriage” the way social conservatives fear. They want to be traditional – and one state, Massachusetts, allows them to do that. Hopefully others will follow. … [Click HERE to read the whole piece reprinted on the Independent Gay Forum website]

Now, Vanasco’s entire piece deserves a response point-by-point, but here I only want to discuss the calculated semantic distortion by her and fellow homosexualists of using the words “having kids.”

Think about it: what’s the phrase we use regarding infertile couples? “Oh, have you heard? John and Nancy can’t have children.” In this context, to “have” means to beget, to produce, to procreate, through God’s wonderful plan of conception and pregnancy. The context is always people who normally could produce children, but something has gone awry preventing Nature from taking its course.

Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), writes in a May 16 NOM email:

California’s four judges ruled that there is a fundamental human right to same-sex marriage.

Worse, for the very first time a U.S. high court has specifically ruled that “orientation” should be treated exactly the same way that race is in U.S. law.

We warned you this was coming: California’s highest court now says that if you disagree with it about same-sex marriage, you are the moral equivalent of a racist.

That’s right, those of us who see marriage as a sacred union of husband and wife are just like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. The California Supreme Court just declared the 4.6 million Californians who voted for Prop 22 no better than racists.

As I told my wife, “I can’t believe it but they really said it: my Christian faith is a form of bigotry.”

I don’t know about you, but to me them’s fighting words!

Indeed. Of course, homosexual activists have been pushing the same misguided analogy between racism and opposition to homosexuality for years. They do have a problem, however, with the rise of African Americans to the forefront of nationwide efforts to prevent marriage from being radically and “queerly” redefined. The California Supreme Court decision is available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Dissenting justices called the ruling a ‘startling’ act of ‘legal jujitsu’ that “’oversteps judicial power’

California Supreme Court

By Jan LaRue, Esq.
Culture and Media Institute, May 15, 2008

I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?

By one vote, the California Supreme Court today rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California’s recognition of same-sex “marriages” consummated elsewhere. In a decision derided by a dissenting California justice as “legal jujitsu,” the Supreme Court majority held that the ban on same-sex marriage is an infringement of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry.

California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to “marry.” But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don’t recognize same-sex “marriage” from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages—and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AT ITS WORST: This will always be immoral. California’s highest court has created a “fundamental” marriage right out of behavior — homosexuality — that is fundamentally wrong and destructive. At left is a homosexual male kissing scene as it appeared on the CBS soap “As the World Turns.” Everywhere Americans turn — TV, media, schools, in corporations and the courts — this unhealthy and immoral behavior is being promoted.

California’s highest court has just invalidated California’s Proposition 22, creating a legal “fundamental” right to homosexual so-called “marriage” out of thin air, under the guise of equal protection. We’re reading the 172-page decision — available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF — now, but as we suspected, the court’s majority made use of the fact that in California, homosexual couples already have been given most of the same rights as normal couples — including the right to adopt children.

Footnote 72 on page 117 of the California decision is key:

Contrary to the contention of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the
Campaign, the distinction in nomenclature between marriage and domestic partnership cannot be defended on the basis of an asserted difference in the effect on children of being raised by an opposite-sex couple instead of by a same-sex couple. Because the governing California statutes permit same-sex couples to adopt and raise children and additionally draw no distinction between married couples and domestic partners with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities relating to children raised within each of these family relationships, the asserted difference in the effect on children does not provide a justification for the differentiation in nomenclature set forth in the challenged statutes.”