Citizens of California will vote on Proposition 8 this fall, a measure that would amend the California State Constitution in the wake of an activist court decision that ruled gay marriage permissible. Proposition 8 would amend the California Constitution such that marriage will be defined as being between a man and a woman. It would effectively reverse the court’s decision, which contradicted popular sentiment. In 2000, California voters passed a law banning gay marriage with a 61% majority of the vote.

Barack Obama recently came out in strong opposition to Proposition 8, and any similar measures in other states. In a letter to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club (LGBT) of San Francisco, Obama stated that he wanted to “join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course
that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law.” He goes on to enumerate his support of gay marriage, hate crimes legislation, and new laws against employment discrimination.

He would, in effect, make super-citizens of people living a homosexual lifestyle. Professed homosexuals would have more rights than ordinary Americans. If Obama gets his way, gays will be protected by stronger laws than other citizens. Hiring quotas would likely be his means of further promoting homosexual interests in the workforce, since federal laws already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Obama further states that “I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy” of our military. Obama, who seeks to be Commander in Chief of our military, would reject the wisdom of our military leaders past and present, by letting gays openly profess their homosexual lifestyle in the military. Colin Powell, along with other military leaders, strongly condemn the idea as being in opposition to
standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion in the military.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was supported by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law during the Clinton administration, has two key provisions. (1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. (2)The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Some Californians who support proposition 8 still feel that a vote for Obama on the national level is unrelated to their support of traditional families and marriage. Obama’s opposition to Proposition 8 does have some consequence. It tells us about how he might vote on similar issues on the national level. Proposition 8 is important because families are the core unit of society. Allowing gay marriage would weaken the institution of the family, and radically change American society. The legal implications of gay marriage affecting child education and daily life, which will surely follow, would be enormous. Dennis Prager discusses this at more length here: Link

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable… Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become… Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance. And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.”… Our children… will pay the price.

The California Supreme Court’s Decision to supplant the established will of the people with their own sentiments is in reality tyrannical, and it was not based on constitutional principles. As stated by Justice Baxter in his dissenting opinion, the California Court ignored “crucial restraints upon the overreaching exercise of judicial authority in violation of the separation of powers” and it supplanted the will of the people by “judicial fiat”. Also, that judges with limited accountability infringed “upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.” Overturning a recent law passed by the majority of the citizenry without a sound constitutional basis for the decision, as the California Court did, is subversive to constitutional government.

Proposition 8 would fix the disastrous decision of the California Court by amending the California State Constitution. It would re-establish the will of the people. In that sense, Proposition 8 is about much more than gay marriage, it is also about upholding the rule of Constitutional law. It would send an unmistakable message to the courts- that they should reconsider before attempting to subvert the rule of constitutional law in the future.

If elected President, Obama would have the opportunity to nominate one, if no two, U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Liberal (or “Progressive”) justices do not respect the Founder’s careful determination that the States- not the Federal Government- should have power to determine the nature of family relationships. A liberal activist court could turn gay marriage into a national issue.

By making the decision to legalize gay marriage on the national level, the Court would not only weaken society in the obvious respect, but they would rip away essential State’s rights and disrupt the careful balance of power that has been the genius of our national constitution. As John McCain likes to say- “Elections have consequences.” They determine the make-up of the Supreme Court. In the long run, who a President nominates to the court may affect society much more than the policies they initiate during their short tenure in office.

If you are a social conservative, or a constitutionalist, you may want to think long and hard before voting for Barack Obama. Besides, McCain is the democrat in this election. Obama is a socialist whose careful campaign rhetoric paints him as a deceptively moderate progressive.

Too many Americans fail to see the danger that lurks in Barack Obama’s candidacy. His internationalist point of view puts America second to other interests . His socialist economic agenda promises to circumscribe our liberties. His far left social views would contribute to the further disintegration of America’s moral fiber.

Clear thinking Americans need to speak out against Obama, because choosing to remain silent means choosing to accept curtailed freedoms. Choosing to remain silent means accepting societal decline. Choosing to remain silent is patriotism abrogated.