Tag Archives: Traditional Marriage

Traditional marriage supporters sue California over harassment and intimidation

Supporters of traditional marriage are being harassed and intimidated by opponents of the pro-marriage Proposition 8 initiative that passed recently in California. Anti-traditional-marriage activists used public lists of donors to put up web sites with maps showing the names and addresses of people who donated to support traditional marriage.

Here is an excerpt of the Washington Times article: (H/T John Lott)

After giving $10,000 to California’s Proposition 8 campaign last year, Charles LiMandri began receiving some unexpected correspondence.

“I got about two dozen e-mails and hate phone calls,” said Mr. LiMandri, who lives in San Diego….Those e-mails are now among hundreds of exhibits in a landmark case challenging California’s campaign-finance reporting rules, which require the release of the names, addresses and employers of those who contribute $100 or more to ballot-measure committees.

The lawsuit argues that those who contribute to traditional-marriage initiatives should be exempt from having their names disclosed, citing the widespread harassment and intimidation of donors to the Proposition 8 campaign.

…Intimidation tactics range from letters and e-mails to death threats, proponents say. A Sacramento theater director was fired after opponents of the initiative publicized his Proposition 8 campaign contributions.

“Anybody who’s in California knows that it’s very widespread,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the biggest contributors to Proposition 8 and a joint plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Every donor has a story. I talked to a $100 donor the other day who had a note in his mailbox that said, ‘I know where you live and you’re going to pay.’

I don’t think it’s right for anyone to force their views on others by using threats and intimidation. Maybe we need a Human Rights Commission to protect the rights of supporters of traditional marriage.

Why fiscal conservatives should care about marriage

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Free Canuckistan! Thanks for the linky, Binky!

The percentage of out-of-wedlock births is now 40% of all births. Does this have an effect on the size of government? FOX News has a story on the breakdown of the nuclear family. (H/T Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)


…births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

…And more women – especially those in their 30s and 40s – are choosing to have children despite their single status.

For some reason, and I know what that reason is, society has decided that men are unnecessary to the task of raising children. A man’s job is just to supply sperm and money. And that money is taxed away from men by the government and redistributed, via expensive social programs, to unwed mothers. And this is how the state takes over the traditional role of men as protector and provider.

The House Ways and Means Committee knows about the effect of raising children without fathers.

US House Testimony on Child support and Fatherhood proposals (Hearing 107-38).  June 28, 2001, online House version; http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/6-28-01/record/chillegalfound.htm) — Father absence, a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for; filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders.

So then why does the government continue to subsidize out-of-wedlock birth? When you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you tax something, you get less of it. Is this so hard for social progressives to understand? Too much compassion, without standards, costs society in the long run, (see Jewish scholar Dennis Prager’s piece here).

More statistics on the cost of fatherlessness here at Fathers for Life..

Connecticut Democrats introduce bill to re-organize Catholic church hierarchy

Yes, it’s fascism – the deliberate intrusion of the state to impose their worldview and values onto people with different, individual worldviews and values. You see, the state’s religious and moral views are more important than those of individuals. Any organization that teaches different values needs to be taken over by the state – it’s the progressive way.

Gateway Pundit cites this post from The Corner:

The [Democrat]-controlled Judiciary Committee has introduced Raised Bill 1098, a bill aimed specifically at the Catholic Church, which would remove the authority of the bishop and pastor over individual parishes and put a board of laymen in their place.

Hot Air notes that the government cannot legislate against religious organizations with voluntary membership. It is illegal:

According to the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, the government has no business dictating to religious organizations how they should structure themselves.

Hot Air goes on to explain what the effects of the bill would be:

In other words, bishops would no longer have power over the actions of the parishes.  That’s the Connecticut legislature’s vision of Roman Catholicism, but in America, government doesn’t get to structure religious organizations to suit itself.  That, in fact, is a form of fascism that we routinely decry in other countries.  The State Department objects to China’s insistence on picking Catholic bishops itself to suit their political oppression of religion, and Lawlor’s motion would find a welcome in Beijing as another means to the same end: state control of Catholicism.

So many people toss around the word fascism without understanding what it means. Having the state control churches is fascism.

RedState.com notes that Connecticut’s own Constitution forbids single out any one sect or denomination in legislation.

Before we go any further, let me quote from Article Seventh of the Connecticut state constitution: “It being the right of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and to render that worship in a mode consistent with the dictates of their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed or associated with, any congregation, church or religious association. No preference shall be given by law to any religious society or denomination in the state. Each shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges, and may support and maintain the ministers or teachers of its society or denomination, and may build and repair houses for public worship.”

LifeSiteNews has an article explaining that this bill is an attempt to pay Catholics back for supporting traditional marriage as the best environment for children. The Maritime Sentry agrees. The left-wing northeastern states have been very hostile to Catholicism lately, even going so far as to effectively ban Catholic adoption agencies for failure to comply with politically correct dogma.

A majority of the Catholic voters voted for Democrats in 2008. They voted 54% to 45% in favor of Barack Obama. What I would like my Catholic readers to explain to me is – Why? How?

UPDATE: I just saw this post over at Deborah Gyapong: Catholic hospitals must perform abortions or be shut down.

UPDATE 2: Nice Deb has ways to take action here.

UPDATE 3: Welcome visitors from the Anchoress! Thanks for the link. More religious liberty here (conscience rule for abortion dissenters) and here (fairness doctrine would affect religious radio broadcasts) and here (stimulus bill discriminates against religious schools). Bonus: free speech in Canada.