Doesn't Zoe look like Cindy-Lou Who?
She wasn't going for the whole Santa thing though...this is a funny picture how far away she is from him.
Doing the crafts with Uncle Brenan. She thinks she's 12...already!
Too Cute!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Cindy-Lou Who
Doesn't Zoe look like Cindy-Lou Who? She wasn't going for the whole Santa thing though...this is a funny picture how far away she is from him. Doing the crafts with Uncle Brenan. She thinks she's 12...already! Too Cute!
The Grinch Stole Christmas
It was a great evening for our Ward. We had roast beast for dinner, enjoyed "The Grinch Stole Christmas" play, visited, exchanged christmas cards, and felt the Christmas spirit. How do you like the Grinch's cave?
This is Who-ville on the stage and the audience. It was absolutely beautiful. It took an army, but was worth every minute.
The children had a magical night interacting with noise-makers booing the Grinch...so fun! The cast and director went all out and totally engaged the audience with their awesome acting skills.
The food committee did an awesome job along with the decorating committee. This will be a night to remember for years to come...
Who-ville flyer for Ward Christmas Party
We are the Activities Chair for our Ward and planned a Who-bilation for our Christmas Party...When the Grinch discovered there was no way, To Keep Christmas from coming on Christmas day, He devised a new plan... though not quite as mean.
Read along now 4th Who-Ward, and you’ll discover the scheme.
Welcome Christmas bring your cheer,
Dec. 5th – 4:30pm Santa will be here.
Dinner @ 6pm…yes we’ll have a fine feast,
full of yummy potatoes, who-pudding, and roast beast.
Every Who down in Whoville liked Christmas a lot,
So Please dress up like a who, even your tiny tot.
It’s time for giving, just a tiny little present,
Bring a book for UCI Child Life this would be most pleasant.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before,
I must RSVP so we can keep score…
Every Who down in 4th Who-Ward from the tall to the small,
Come celebrate Christmas everyone every-all!!!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store." Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!" - The Grinch
No SANTA? ---Christmas with Grandma
I remember my first Christmas adventure with Grandma. I was just a kid. I remember tearing across town on my bike to visit her. On the way, my big sister dropped the bomb: "There is no Santa Claus," she jeered. "Even dummies know that!"
My Grandma was not the gushy kind, never had been. I fled to her that day because I knew she would be straight with me. I knew Grandma always told the truth, and I knew that the truth always went down a whole lot easier when swallowed with one of her "world-famous" cinnamon buns. I knew they were world-famous, because Grandma said so. It had to be true.
Grandma was home, and the buns were still warm. Between bites, I told her everything. She was ready for me. "No Santa Claus?" she snorted .... "Ridiculous! Don't believe it! That ru mor has been going around for years, and it makes me mad, plain mad!! Now, put on your coat, and let's go." BRR!"Go? Go where, Grandma?" I asked. I hadn't even finished my second world-famous cinnamon bun.
"Where" turned out to be Kerby's General Store, the one store in town that had a little bit of just about everything. As we walked through its doors, Grandma handed me ten dollars. That was a bundle in those days. "Take this money," she said, "and buy something for someone who needs it. I'll wait for you in the car." Then she turned and walked out of Kerby's.
I was only eight years old. I'd often gone shopping with my mother, but never had I shopped for anything all by myself. The store seemed big and crowded, full of people scrambling to finish their Christmas shopping. For a few moments I just stood there, confused, clutching that ten-dollar bill, wondering what to buy, and who on earth to buy it for. I thought of everybody I knew: my family, my friends, my neighbors, the kids at school, the people who went to my church. I was just about thought out , when I suddenly thought of Bobby Decker.
He was a kid with messy hair and clothes that never seemed to fit. He sat right behind me in Mrs. Pollock's grade-two class. Bobby Decker didn't have a coat. I knew that because he never went out to recess during the winter. His mother always wrote a note telling the teacher that he had a cough, but all we kids knew that Bobby Decker didn't have a cough; he didn't have a good coat. I fingered the ten-dollar bill with growing excitement. I would buy Bobby Decker a coat! I settled on a red corduroy one that had a hood to it. It looked real warm, and he would like that.
"Is this a Christmas present for someone?" the lady behind the counter asked kindly, as I laid my ten dollars down." Yes, ma'am," I replied shyly. "It's for Bobby." The nice lady smiled at me, as I told her about how Bobby really needed a good winter coat. I didn't get any change, but she put the coat in a bag, smiled again, and wished me a Merry Christmas.
That evening, Grandma helped me wrap the coat (a little tag fell out of the coat, and Grandma tucked it in her Bible) in Christmas paper and ribbons and wrote, "To Bobby, From Santa Claus" on it. Grandma said that Santa always insisted on secrecy.
Then she drove me over to Bobby Decker's house, explaining as we went that I was now and forever officially, one of Santa's helpers. Grandma parked down the street from Bobby's house, and she and I crept noiselessly and hid in the bushes by his front walk. Then Grandma gave me a nudge. "All right, Sant a Claus," she whispered, "get going."
I took a deep breath, dashed for his front door, threw the present down on his step, pounded his door and flew back to the safety of the bushes and Grandma. Together we waited breathlessly in the darkness for the front door to open.
Finally it did, and there stood Bobby. Fifty years haven't dimmed the thrill of those moments spent shivering, beside my Grandma, in Bobby Decker's bushes. That night, I realized that those awful rumors about Santa Claus were just what Grandma said they were ridiculous.
Santa was alive and well, and we were on his team. I still have the Bible, with the coat tag tucked inside: $19.95. May you always have LOVE to share, HEALTH to spare and FRIENDS that care...And may you always believe in the magic of Santa Claus!
My Grandma was not the gushy kind, never had been. I fled to her that day because I knew she would be straight with me. I knew Grandma always told the truth, and I knew that the truth always went down a whole lot easier when swallowed with one of her "world-famous" cinnamon buns. I knew they were world-famous, because Grandma said so. It had to be true.
Grandma was home, and the buns were still warm. Between bites, I told her everything. She was ready for me. "No Santa Claus?" she snorted .... "Ridiculous! Don't believe it! That ru mor has been going around for years, and it makes me mad, plain mad!! Now, put on your coat, and let's go." BRR!"Go? Go where, Grandma?" I asked. I hadn't even finished my second world-famous cinnamon bun.
"Where" turned out to be Kerby's General Store, the one store in town that had a little bit of just about everything. As we walked through its doors, Grandma handed me ten dollars. That was a bundle in those days. "Take this money," she said, "and buy something for someone who needs it. I'll wait for you in the car." Then she turned and walked out of Kerby's.
I was only eight years old. I'd often gone shopping with my mother, but never had I shopped for anything all by myself. The store seemed big and crowded, full of people scrambling to finish their Christmas shopping. For a few moments I just stood there, confused, clutching that ten-dollar bill, wondering what to buy, and who on earth to buy it for. I thought of everybody I knew: my family, my friends, my neighbors, the kids at school, the people who went to my church. I was just about thought out , when I suddenly thought of Bobby Decker.
He was a kid with messy hair and clothes that never seemed to fit. He sat right behind me in Mrs. Pollock's grade-two class. Bobby Decker didn't have a coat. I knew that because he never went out to recess during the winter. His mother always wrote a note telling the teacher that he had a cough, but all we kids knew that Bobby Decker didn't have a cough; he didn't have a good coat. I fingered the ten-dollar bill with growing excitement. I would buy Bobby Decker a coat! I settled on a red corduroy one that had a hood to it. It looked real warm, and he would like that.
"Is this a Christmas present for someone?" the lady behind the counter asked kindly, as I laid my ten dollars down." Yes, ma'am," I replied shyly. "It's for Bobby." The nice lady smiled at me, as I told her about how Bobby really needed a good winter coat. I didn't get any change, but she put the coat in a bag, smiled again, and wished me a Merry Christmas.
That evening, Grandma helped me wrap the coat (a little tag fell out of the coat, and Grandma tucked it in her Bible) in Christmas paper and ribbons and wrote, "To Bobby, From Santa Claus" on it. Grandma said that Santa always insisted on secrecy.
Then she drove me over to Bobby Decker's house, explaining as we went that I was now and forever officially, one of Santa's helpers. Grandma parked down the street from Bobby's house, and she and I crept noiselessly and hid in the bushes by his front walk. Then Grandma gave me a nudge. "All right, Sant a Claus," she whispered, "get going."
I took a deep breath, dashed for his front door, threw the present down on his step, pounded his door and flew back to the safety of the bushes and Grandma. Together we waited breathlessly in the darkness for the front door to open.
Finally it did, and there stood Bobby. Fifty years haven't dimmed the thrill of those moments spent shivering, beside my Grandma, in Bobby Decker's bushes. That night, I realized that those awful rumors about Santa Claus were just what Grandma said they were ridiculous.
Santa was alive and well, and we were on his team. I still have the Bible, with the coat tag tucked inside: $19.95. May you always have LOVE to share, HEALTH to spare and FRIENDS that care...And may you always believe in the magic of Santa Claus!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
California-Prop 8 What's Next? Treading lightly...
The Protect Marriage coalition is gratified by yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling on the legal challenges to Prop 8, where their three major requests were granted.
First, the California Supreme Court agreed to review legal challenges to Prop 8. Ron Prentice, leader of Protect Marriage, said, We have asked the California Supreme Court to set a hearing to decide on the challenges that have been filed against Prop 8 because we are confident that the Court will do the right thing and uphold our right to enact the measure by initiative. By encouraging the Court to hear and decide these cases now, we are hoping to avoid years of costly litigation over Prop 8 as the cases would normally wind through the court system."
Second, the Supreme Court refused to stay Prop 8, meaning that same-sex marriages will be halted in California pending a ruling from the Court. This was seen as an important victory.
Third, the Court has granted the request of the proponents of the initiative and their campaign committee to intervene in the litigation as Real Parties in Interests. This ruling grants the backers of Prop. 8 full legal standing to submit written arguments and appear in oral argument before the Court.
"Granting the backers of Prop. 8 intervention in these cases means that voters can be certain that there will be a thorough and vigorous defense of Prop. 8, " said Andy Pugno, Protect Marriage General Counse. "Voters will not have to solely depend on Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend the measure. Since the attorney general was an active opponent of Proposition 8, we did not want the fate of the measure to rest in his defense of it."A verdict in this case will probably be given some time in March.
Recall—No Need for Discussion Now
The major efforts of the Protect Marriage Coalition now will be legal. However, Prentice said, b "Because we fully expect to prevail in court, we expect that, at some point, we will need to defeat a ballot proposal by advocates of same-sex marriage. Our opponents have threatened such a proposal as early as 2010. We are already beginning the planning process to lay the groundwork to defeat a future proposed initiative that would legalize gay marriage. What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us. We are fully confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, even if some members of the Court disagree with the issue. We encourage all supporters of Proposition 8 to set aside any discussions about the possibility of recalling any justice of the Court. We see no need for such discussion.
Regarding counter protests, Prentice also has advised, "Many of our supporters have asked about holding events to offset the numerous protests that have been held by our opponents...We do not encourage supporters to organize local demonstrations or counter-protests. Doing so will only spawn further protests from our opponents and potentially spark street corner confrontations. Criticism of our opponents' tactics is mounting daily and they would dearly love to provoke our supporters into a confrontation that makes us look like aggressors. Every protest our opponents launch features angry gays screaming at California voters. They call voters bigots and homophobes, and many of them have used racially derogatory terms in referring to African Americans and their strong support for Proposition 8. Their protests are doing great harm to their public position."
Obama Signals Things to Come President-elect Obama has made his frightening intentions for family values crystal clear with his appointment of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human services. As Majority Leader, Daschle was an avid opponent of every pro-life measure-voting for tax-payer-funded military abortions, supporting a measure that would have forced Americans to pay for the distribution of the morning-after pill to young school girls and blocking the partial-birth abortion ban.
Look out, we are sailing into rough weather.
This is a direct contrast to the work that has been accomplished by Michael Leavitt, current Secretary at HHS. The department is just finishing up a rule that would protect health care providers who object to providing abortions or other procedures on moral grounds. The new regulations would bar anyone who receives federal funds from discriminating against pro-life doctors or other medical personnel because of their beliefs. Pharmacists, who make that decision, would also be exempt from dispensing drugs that could end a life. These important conscience provisions have taken months of work, and we hope will be a lasting legacy for Secretary Leavitt and President Bush.
First, the California Supreme Court agreed to review legal challenges to Prop 8. Ron Prentice, leader of Protect Marriage, said, We have asked the California Supreme Court to set a hearing to decide on the challenges that have been filed against Prop 8 because we are confident that the Court will do the right thing and uphold our right to enact the measure by initiative. By encouraging the Court to hear and decide these cases now, we are hoping to avoid years of costly litigation over Prop 8 as the cases would normally wind through the court system."
Second, the Supreme Court refused to stay Prop 8, meaning that same-sex marriages will be halted in California pending a ruling from the Court. This was seen as an important victory.
Third, the Court has granted the request of the proponents of the initiative and their campaign committee to intervene in the litigation as Real Parties in Interests. This ruling grants the backers of Prop. 8 full legal standing to submit written arguments and appear in oral argument before the Court.
"Granting the backers of Prop. 8 intervention in these cases means that voters can be certain that there will be a thorough and vigorous defense of Prop. 8, " said Andy Pugno, Protect Marriage General Counse. "Voters will not have to solely depend on Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend the measure. Since the attorney general was an active opponent of Proposition 8, we did not want the fate of the measure to rest in his defense of it."A verdict in this case will probably be given some time in March.
Recall—No Need for Discussion Now
The major efforts of the Protect Marriage Coalition now will be legal. However, Prentice said, b "Because we fully expect to prevail in court, we expect that, at some point, we will need to defeat a ballot proposal by advocates of same-sex marriage. Our opponents have threatened such a proposal as early as 2010. We are already beginning the planning process to lay the groundwork to defeat a future proposed initiative that would legalize gay marriage. What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us. We are fully confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, even if some members of the Court disagree with the issue. We encourage all supporters of Proposition 8 to set aside any discussions about the possibility of recalling any justice of the Court. We see no need for such discussion.
Regarding counter protests, Prentice also has advised, "Many of our supporters have asked about holding events to offset the numerous protests that have been held by our opponents...We do not encourage supporters to organize local demonstrations or counter-protests. Doing so will only spawn further protests from our opponents and potentially spark street corner confrontations. Criticism of our opponents' tactics is mounting daily and they would dearly love to provoke our supporters into a confrontation that makes us look like aggressors. Every protest our opponents launch features angry gays screaming at California voters. They call voters bigots and homophobes, and many of them have used racially derogatory terms in referring to African Americans and their strong support for Proposition 8. Their protests are doing great harm to their public position."
Obama Signals Things to Come President-elect Obama has made his frightening intentions for family values crystal clear with his appointment of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human services. As Majority Leader, Daschle was an avid opponent of every pro-life measure-voting for tax-payer-funded military abortions, supporting a measure that would have forced Americans to pay for the distribution of the morning-after pill to young school girls and blocking the partial-birth abortion ban.
Look out, we are sailing into rough weather.
This is a direct contrast to the work that has been accomplished by Michael Leavitt, current Secretary at HHS. The department is just finishing up a rule that would protect health care providers who object to providing abortions or other procedures on moral grounds. The new regulations would bar anyone who receives federal funds from discriminating against pro-life doctors or other medical personnel because of their beliefs. Pharmacists, who make that decision, would also be exempt from dispensing drugs that could end a life. These important conscience provisions have taken months of work, and we hope will be a lasting legacy for Secretary Leavitt and President Bush.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
When you thought I wasn't looking...
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw you hang my first painting on the refrigerator,
and I immediately wanted to paint another one.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw you feed a stray cat,
and I learned that it was good to be kind to animals.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw you make my favorite cake for me,
and I learned that the little things can be the special things in life.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I heard you say a prayer,
and I knew that there is a God I could always talk to,
and I learned to trust in Him.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw you make a meal and take it to a friend who was sick,
and I learned that we all have to help take care of each other.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw you give of your time and money to help people who had nothing,
and I learned that those who have something should give to those who don't.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw you take care of our house and everyone in it,
and I learned we have to take care of what we are given.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw how you handled your responsibilities,
even when you didn' t feel good,
and I learned that I would have to be responsible when I grow up.
When you thought I wasn't looking
I saw tears come from your eyes,
and I learned that sometimes things hurt, but it's all right to cry.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I saw that you cared, and I wanted to be everything that I could be.
When you thought I wasn't looking
I learned most of life's lessons that I need to know to be a good
and productive person when I grow up.
When you thought I wasn't looking,
I looked at you and wanted to say,
'Thanks for all the things I saw when you thought I wasn't looking.'
Sunday, November 16, 2008
29 years and counting...
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Life Scout it is...Court of Honor
Last night Brenan received 8 more merit badges equaling a total of 25...Way to go Brenan! On a side note- Brenan went camping to San Jacinto Mountain just above Palm Springs on Monday night. They were told they would be sleeping in tents, it would be 40 degrees at night and have a wonderful hike in. I think he was expecting to play capture the flag or something. WELLLLL, They got off the tram and hiked in 7 miles with snow on the ground. It was pitch black by 6pm with no tents to sleep in. They laid out their bags with a thin pad and ground cloth having about 1/2 inch between the snow and the sleeping bag. They would be sighted if they built a fire. The entire party were in their bags by 6:45pm and tried to go to sleep. Needless to say they all froze the entire night. One of Brenan's quote's after he arrived home was "that was the worst camp out I have EVER been on". So I'm waiting for him to either get sick and/or boycott, I mean investigate the next camp out. One of the requirements for the camping merit badge (required for eagle) is to sleep in the snow. We can check that one off the list. I think this tops it for his "Bear Grylls" wilderness survival event. After having a very warm shower and falling asleep at 8pm he began his recovery! I didn't make him unpack his hiking pack until after school the next day. I had to show some sympathy here...
This is Roger his Scoutmaster who actually wasn't able to go on the trip.
New patches for his sash and shirt pocket...The silver ones in the middle are required for Eagle. (4 more to go)Saturday, November 8, 2008
More Quilts
This is "Springbrook".
This is now owned by my sister Teri called "Indian Corn".
Love the cheetah fabric, this is "Crazy Hearts".
Civil War, I need to check on the name. It's in a box in the garage. Any of these quilts are for sale at the right price...Quilts, Quilts, Quilts!!!
I've been quilting for 27 years now, and still find things to learn. I've given well over 200 quilts away. The last few years I decided to keep the quilts that I make but a few. (spousal pressure) Unfortunately, I don't have all of them on record but Iwill share what I do have. This is a hobbie. I'm careful not to make it a job, that would take all of the fun out of it! I hope you enjoy....
This is "Wahine" I made for the Stake President's daughter Elizabeth...this was special circumstances.
This is "Wahine" I made for the Stake President's daughter Elizabeth...this was special circumstances.I have yet to name this fall quilt ....
This is my personal design "Harlequin" featured in McCall's Magazine in October 2005 issue.This is a baby quilt I designed for Rachel Procuniar called "With Love" January 2005.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Persecution Continues
Today there were protestors at the LA Temple from "invalidate Prop 8". We've been warned they will appear at the Newport Beach Temple as well. This reminds me of Alma 2:4 where Amlici speaks to destroy the Church of God. So I've been pretty vocal on my blog lately as to make my voice known to those who chose to listen. I usually am content to enjoy my family, friends, and life. There's nothing better then standing on a corner waving signs for Prop 8 and watching all of the Waste Management Trucks honk as they drove by with their horns in support.
"The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done" (History of the Church, 4:540).
John said it best: > 'Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.' - John 14:27
I've had a personal request to post some of my quilts on my blog, so I share with you "Diamonds in Bloom" which I made for Brenan's Scout Auction in May. It was stolen for $500. Not literally, but my friend Mychele Barlow now owns it. Got to love it!
"The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done" (History of the Church, 4:540).
John said it best: > 'Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.' - John 14:27
I've had a personal request to post some of my quilts on my blog, so I share with you "Diamonds in Bloom" which I made for Brenan's Scout Auction in May. It was stolen for $500. Not literally, but my friend Mychele Barlow now owns it. Got to love it!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Prop 8 Victory!!! Hoorah for Israel...52% Yes
Not to spoil the victory, but words of caution:
First, millions of people in our state did not vote with us. While we had 61% with Prop. 22, we had markedly less than that this round. And our high schoolers can tell us how the up-and-coming voters are likely to approach this issue. While these folks lost today, they have only to look a few years down for strong support.
Second, given the aforementioned decline in proponent votes, today the No folks are already planning the next round. We picked the battleground for the fight to win this election -- the classrooms -- so I would guess that's where they go next. Our state superintendent, who appeared on the No ads, will likely be quickly crafting an updated curricula to implement diversity education in all our schools -- "whether you like it or not." Our kids in the classrooms may not be taught a liberal definition of "marriage," but there are another couple of provisions in the state Education Code that refer to diversity education, including "sexual orientation." If you google "California Code," you'll get a website that allows you to search the Code. Check the Education Code box and type "sexual orientation" in the search box. Note that there are no parental notification and opt-out provisions for diversity education.
Third, there is a giant snake out there that reared his head on Monday to reveal one of its intended targets -- us. My guess would be that the idea for the "missionary" ad has been around for awhile and allowing it to be released, in limited form, on Monday was to gauge how it would be received. The proverbial seed has been planted. In the next round, I think we might be prepared for very pointed attacks at our faith.
Fourth, while we had some support from other churches on this matter, it paled in comparison to the sacrifices and efforts made within our church. Yes, we are geographically organized which helps with these efforts. Yes, we have a lay clergy that is removed from other churches' pastors' concerns about church finances. But we need to have other churches be much more involved next time if the other side decides to make our church a focus....Because next time will come.
Fifth and I'll stop spoiling the party here, the laws that are given higher status than our ineffective free exercise rights are still on the books and people will be even keener to enforce them against people who would choose to peaceably live their lives in accordance with their conscience. The battle continues on that front.
So we push along and continue to make our voices clear...
First, millions of people in our state did not vote with us. While we had 61% with Prop. 22, we had markedly less than that this round. And our high schoolers can tell us how the up-and-coming voters are likely to approach this issue. While these folks lost today, they have only to look a few years down for strong support.
Second, given the aforementioned decline in proponent votes, today the No folks are already planning the next round. We picked the battleground for the fight to win this election -- the classrooms -- so I would guess that's where they go next. Our state superintendent, who appeared on the No ads, will likely be quickly crafting an updated curricula to implement diversity education in all our schools -- "whether you like it or not." Our kids in the classrooms may not be taught a liberal definition of "marriage," but there are another couple of provisions in the state Education Code that refer to diversity education, including "sexual orientation." If you google "California Code," you'll get a website that allows you to search the Code. Check the Education Code box and type "sexual orientation" in the search box. Note that there are no parental notification and opt-out provisions for diversity education.
Third, there is a giant snake out there that reared his head on Monday to reveal one of its intended targets -- us. My guess would be that the idea for the "missionary" ad has been around for awhile and allowing it to be released, in limited form, on Monday was to gauge how it would be received. The proverbial seed has been planted. In the next round, I think we might be prepared for very pointed attacks at our faith.
Fourth, while we had some support from other churches on this matter, it paled in comparison to the sacrifices and efforts made within our church. Yes, we are geographically organized which helps with these efforts. Yes, we have a lay clergy that is removed from other churches' pastors' concerns about church finances. But we need to have other churches be much more involved next time if the other side decides to make our church a focus....Because next time will come.
Fifth and I'll stop spoiling the party here, the laws that are given higher status than our ineffective free exercise rights are still on the books and people will be even keener to enforce them against people who would choose to peaceably live their lives in accordance with their conscience. The battle continues on that front.
So we push along and continue to make our voices clear...
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Trick or Treat 2008-
Happy Halloween!!!
Aunt Aubree's turn!
Zoe loved to trick or treat...they had a lot doggies out!
The candy wasn't too bad too...
New concept, I like this!Ms. Incredible with Robert Redford
Once a kid always a kid...Halloween never gets too old!
Aubree made the perfect costume...Ms. Incredible
Is Blake the sundance kid or what? Step aside Robert Redford.
They are out with our Zoe butterfly, trick or treating...Nanna wants to go! Institution of Family untrendy?
In a world of toil and strife I'm given comfort in these words from Neal A Maxwell. This talk was given in 1978 at BYU. Are you in or out of the kingdom? There's no better time to rallie for righteousness! The fight for Prop 8 to save the definition of marriage has been difficult. We must leave our record of the clear choice.
"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of theAuthorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.'
"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. . . . 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....Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened aslumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was,till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, 'summer is nigh.' Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat...God bless you and keep you, my special friends, to the end that you will carry out each and every assignment given to you so very long ago. You have been measured and found adequate for the challenges that will face you as citizens of the kingdom of God; of that you should have a deep inner assurance. Be true to that trust, as all of us must, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.". --- Elder Neal A. Maxwell
"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of theAuthorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.'
"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. . . . 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....Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened aslumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was,till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, 'summer is nigh.' Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat...God bless you and keep you, my special friends, to the end that you will carry out each and every assignment given to you so very long ago. You have been measured and found adequate for the challenges that will face you as citizens of the kingdom of God; of that you should have a deep inner assurance. Be true to that trust, as all of us must, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.". --- Elder Neal A. Maxwell
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Outline for Proposition 8
For those of you who don't know what's going on in California, pay attention! Your state is next...
This is from a friend of my who is an attorney in Orange County, Stephanie Knutson.
PROPOSITION 8
I tried to simplify the issues and the information. While it can be expected that there will be some inaccuracy flowing from simplification, but I did my best not to overgeneralize. As always, I appreciate any contrary analysis or notification of any glaring errors.
I. Civics Review — The hierarchy/pyramid of legal rights from the bottom up:
(1) Statutes are at the bottom of the legal pyramid. They are passed by the legislature and can be amended, revoked or superseded at any time by the legislature. (Family Code section 300 codified man-woman marriage before Prop. 22 was passed.)
(2) Initiative-passed statutes are above legislative statutes on the legal pyramid because the legislature may not amend, revoke or supersede. Such actions take another vote of the people. (The goal of Prop. 22 was, in my opinion, to eliminate the possibility of the legislature amending, revoking or superseding Family Code section 300.)
(3) The California Constitution sits above these on the legal pyramid. The state supreme court is the sole authority for determining whether or not statutes (either kind) comport with the Constitution. (In May, the Prop. 22 statute and FC section 300 were invalidated by the state supreme court in In re Marriages on grounds of (1) privacy, (2) infringement of Equal Protection Clause and (3) substantive due process. This was only the first of two major holdings in that case; the general population thinks the story ends with striking the two statutes but the second holding was much more significant in that it can — and already has — affected the lives and rights of other (non-gay) people. More on that in II(2) below.)
(4) Most folks think the legal pyramid ends there and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is not so. There are a class of statutes (either kind works) that can legally infringe constitutional rights. Though they are statutes, the supreme court and ultimately only the supreme court — once presented with a case giving it opportunity — can deem that the interest advanced by the statute is a “compelling governmental interest” (otherwise stated, it passes “strict scrutiny”) such that infringement of constitutional rights is justified. Examples of “compelling governmental interests” would be protection against terrorism or — at the top of the hierarchy — protection against race discrimination. (Footnote: Historically, other classes of discrimination — marital status, gender even — were of a lower order than race discrimination.)
II. In re Marriages case
As stated above, the decision did two things:
(1) Invalidated both man-woman marriage laws on the books, thus opening the way for other marriages (in a footnote, they suggested that statutory prohibitions against polygamy and incestuous marriages would stand).
(2) In conducting the constitutional analysis to come to the first conclusion, they equated sexual orientation discrimination with race discrimination and stated that sexual orientation as a class would satisfy strict scrutiny (as a “compelling governmental interest”). This was unexpected, monumental and the real reason why the gay rights folks were dancing in the streets of San Francisco. Imagine, you go to court to see if you can get married and you end up getting a decision that puts your interests at the top of the legal pyramid. Laws in your favor can trump the constitutional rights of others; you will always win. I’ll get to the import of this more in IV below.
III. Free exercise jurisprudence — What happens when I can’t comply with the law because it is against my religious beliefs/practices?
A brief history is necessary here. Recall that free exercise rights can stem from both the U.S. and the state constitutions. The state constitution must go at least as far as the federal, but need not advance more rights than provided under the federal.
(1) 1800’s: U.S. v. Reynolds. This was the first case addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in which free exercise rights were advanced as a defense by someone in violation of a law. In a nutshell, the court determined that a compelling governmental interest (I’ll call it a “CGI” from now on) must be found in order to infringe free exercise rights. In constitutional law, the CGI or strict scrutiny standard is as high as you can get; compare it to “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the criminal context. It had better be a VERY good reason. Thus, free exercise standards are most protected when it takes a CGI to justify infringement.
(2) 1990: Employment Division v. Smith. In a move that surprised constitutional scholars and the other two branches of government, the Supremes said that so long as a law was a “neutral law of general applicability,” free exercise defenses would not stand. In other words, so long as a law was not directed at religion and otherwise applied to everyone, it doesn’t matter that the law burdened — slightly or extremely — the exercise of one’s religion. As an example, you can’t have a law that says “Jewish people must wear red baseball caps on Saturday night.” It is not neutral and not generally applicable. But you can have a law — granted the example is not the best; I’m just not that creative — that says “All people must wear red baseball caps on Saturday night.” It does not matter that this infringes upon the religious practices of Jewish men. All that matters is that the law is neutral and generally applicable on its face. This is the opposite of CGI/strict scrutiny. It is an incredibly low standard and takes religious exercise completely out of the analysis. In my view, this decision effectively struck the free exercise clause from the U.S. Constitution — and any other state constitution for states that choose to only follow the federal interpretation.
(3) RFRA: Congress and President Clinton were so gobsmacked by the foregoing decision that they passed (something like 97% in favor) and signed into law, respectively, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, restoring CGI/strict scrutiny to free exercise cases.
(4) 1996: Flores v. Boerne. Back at the U.S. Supreme Court, the court again looked at a case where a law and the free exercise clause conflicted. The court struck RFRA as unconstitutional, saying that it is the Court’s exclusive role to interpret the Constitution, that the source of “neutral law of general applicability” was in constitutional interpretation, and that RFRA was Congress’ attempt to step into the Court’s exclusive role. The Employment Division standard continues to apply to federal free exercise cases today.
(5) 1996: Smith v. FEHC. Back home in California, this case arose. Facts of the case: Christian Widow Smith owns 2 duplexes and refuses to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple because doing so, in her religious belief, would be a sin and she would never see her dead husband again. Couple files complaint for violation of the Unruh Act (no discrimination on the basis of numerous protected classes including marital status). There is a clear violation, which Smith does not dispute, but she asserts her free exercise rights. Pre-Boerne, there was some uncertainty about the standard to apply to cases implicating the California constitution’s free exercise clause. Note that California’s clause is not worded the same, but is broader than the federal. The CA Supreme Court did both an Employment Division analysis and a RFRA analysis. Under Emp. Div., she clearly loses. Under RFRA, the CA Supreme Court never got to the CGI test because they ruled — in an interesting twist of logic — that her free exercise rights were not burdened to begin with. She chose to get into the housing business. They did not say what standard applied to the California constitution.
(6) Since 1996, we’ve been waiting for the CA Supreme Court to tell us if we’re using the “neutral law” standard or the CGI standard to address cases implicating the California Constitution’s free exercise clause. Last week, we got our answer. The court determined that a religiously-motivated doctor could not refuse infertility treatment to a patient on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s what the news told you, but here are the nuts and bolts of how they arrived at the decision. (a) In California, we now apply the Employment Division “neutral law” standard to free exercise cases. (b) Even so, prevention of sexual orientation discrimination is a CGI, so the doctor would lose anyway. So now, there are no free exercise rights in California either.
(7) Some constitutional scholars have suggested that sources of religious rights can be found in other clauses of the constitution. Until someone makes a persuasive argument to the appropriate court in the appropriate case at the appropriate time, we have the Employment Division standard. We’ll keep watching…
IV. What does this all mean?
(1) Under the Unruh Act, if you are in a business offering goods or services to the public, you may not refuse goods or services to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, even if your religious beliefs and religious exercise forbid it. Of course, no one can force you to do anything, but you will be subject to claims, the payment of fines, damages, subject to cease and desist orders, etc. Mrs. Smith had to pay fines, pay damages to the couple, had a cease & desist and had to post notices on her properties. If you are an adoption lawyer and have issues about servicing gay couples, better go into another area of law. If you are an artist but do not want to accept commissions from a gay couple, your reason for refusal had better not be about sexual orientation. Last week’s doctors were told to decide whether to service everybody or service nobody. If you are a pastor marrying members of the public for a fee… If you are a church open to the public who offers to rent a portion of your property for ceremonies…
(2) The court made the connection of sexual orientation discrimination to race discrimination. Recently, a news story from Canada reported that a woman lost custody of her son after he wore a swastika to school. She taught hate speech. That was child abuse. What if she were teaching that homosexuality is a sin? Hate speech? Child abuse? If I can think of the argument, someone smarter than me — a county social worker with broad latitude even — can too.
(3) Sexual orientation and identity will be taught in schools. There is already a growing movement giving public schools greater power over the upbringing of children, while parental rights are going down. Opt out rights are and will continue to be threatened.
(4) In a nutshell, 4 judges reordered the legal structure of how these issues are addressed in In re Marriages and last week’s case. 4 judges brought about law that the legislature could not do itself. Remember, the legislature could not strike the Prop. 22 statute, but 4 judges did just that.
(5) In re Marriages was not an end. It is the beginning. And last week’s case was just another piece of evidence of this. There is a powerful lobby behind a movement that has been at work for decades. What were you doing on 9/11 or 9/12? Were you thinking of Prop. 22 and the California legislature? I wasn’t, but this lobby was. On 9/12, while Californians were looking at NYC, these folks were passing sweeping legislation to try to curtail Prop. 22’s import. This lobby sends out testers to bring cases to trial to expand rights. They are very good at what they do; they have a lot of money and a lot of political support; they’ve been working for a long time. They tell you to live-and-let-live, and that is an easy and attractive position to want to accept, but that is the last thing these folks will allow you. They are not at all about letting you live-and-let-live because they want very much to affect how you speak, teach, work and act — your religious preferences have no respect and no bearing.
V. What about Proposition 8?
It does two things.
First, it restores man-woman marriage. Oh, yeah, marriage…. I haven’t mentioned this for awhile in this outline. The No on 8 crowd will be shouting that this is only about marriage. But if you look at the AFA video, about half way in there is a great quote from a woman who admits that it’s not about marriage for the No on 8 people. And now that you’ve just slogged through this epistle, you know it’s not just about marriage too.
Second, it gives people like last week’s doctors an argument that a Constitutional Amendment that does not recognize same-sex marriage does not comport with a policy decision — borne of 4 judges in a split court — that sexual orientation is a CGI, trumping other rights. It would not make sense to have those relationships disavowed by the constitution, on the one hand, but then give those same relationships primary legal import over other constitutional provisions, on the other. To be clear, this is just an argument. It is not a straight black-and-white strike-out as the first. It is an argument for an on-going legal debate — a statement by the people that the policy of 4 judges does not comport with the voice of the people.
VOTE YES ON PROP 8...
This is from a friend of my who is an attorney in Orange County, Stephanie Knutson.
PROPOSITION 8
I tried to simplify the issues and the information. While it can be expected that there will be some inaccuracy flowing from simplification, but I did my best not to overgeneralize. As always, I appreciate any contrary analysis or notification of any glaring errors.
I. Civics Review — The hierarchy/pyramid of legal rights from the bottom up:
(1) Statutes are at the bottom of the legal pyramid. They are passed by the legislature and can be amended, revoked or superseded at any time by the legislature. (Family Code section 300 codified man-woman marriage before Prop. 22 was passed.)
(2) Initiative-passed statutes are above legislative statutes on the legal pyramid because the legislature may not amend, revoke or supersede. Such actions take another vote of the people. (The goal of Prop. 22 was, in my opinion, to eliminate the possibility of the legislature amending, revoking or superseding Family Code section 300.)
(3) The California Constitution sits above these on the legal pyramid. The state supreme court is the sole authority for determining whether or not statutes (either kind) comport with the Constitution. (In May, the Prop. 22 statute and FC section 300 were invalidated by the state supreme court in In re Marriages on grounds of (1) privacy, (2) infringement of Equal Protection Clause and (3) substantive due process. This was only the first of two major holdings in that case; the general population thinks the story ends with striking the two statutes but the second holding was much more significant in that it can — and already has — affected the lives and rights of other (non-gay) people. More on that in II(2) below.)
(4) Most folks think the legal pyramid ends there and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is not so. There are a class of statutes (either kind works) that can legally infringe constitutional rights. Though they are statutes, the supreme court and ultimately only the supreme court — once presented with a case giving it opportunity — can deem that the interest advanced by the statute is a “compelling governmental interest” (otherwise stated, it passes “strict scrutiny”) such that infringement of constitutional rights is justified. Examples of “compelling governmental interests” would be protection against terrorism or — at the top of the hierarchy — protection against race discrimination. (Footnote: Historically, other classes of discrimination — marital status, gender even — were of a lower order than race discrimination.)
II. In re Marriages case
As stated above, the decision did two things:
(1) Invalidated both man-woman marriage laws on the books, thus opening the way for other marriages (in a footnote, they suggested that statutory prohibitions against polygamy and incestuous marriages would stand).
(2) In conducting the constitutional analysis to come to the first conclusion, they equated sexual orientation discrimination with race discrimination and stated that sexual orientation as a class would satisfy strict scrutiny (as a “compelling governmental interest”). This was unexpected, monumental and the real reason why the gay rights folks were dancing in the streets of San Francisco. Imagine, you go to court to see if you can get married and you end up getting a decision that puts your interests at the top of the legal pyramid. Laws in your favor can trump the constitutional rights of others; you will always win. I’ll get to the import of this more in IV below.
III. Free exercise jurisprudence — What happens when I can’t comply with the law because it is against my religious beliefs/practices?
A brief history is necessary here. Recall that free exercise rights can stem from both the U.S. and the state constitutions. The state constitution must go at least as far as the federal, but need not advance more rights than provided under the federal.
(1) 1800’s: U.S. v. Reynolds. This was the first case addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in which free exercise rights were advanced as a defense by someone in violation of a law. In a nutshell, the court determined that a compelling governmental interest (I’ll call it a “CGI” from now on) must be found in order to infringe free exercise rights. In constitutional law, the CGI or strict scrutiny standard is as high as you can get; compare it to “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the criminal context. It had better be a VERY good reason. Thus, free exercise standards are most protected when it takes a CGI to justify infringement.
(2) 1990: Employment Division v. Smith. In a move that surprised constitutional scholars and the other two branches of government, the Supremes said that so long as a law was a “neutral law of general applicability,” free exercise defenses would not stand. In other words, so long as a law was not directed at religion and otherwise applied to everyone, it doesn’t matter that the law burdened — slightly or extremely — the exercise of one’s religion. As an example, you can’t have a law that says “Jewish people must wear red baseball caps on Saturday night.” It is not neutral and not generally applicable. But you can have a law — granted the example is not the best; I’m just not that creative — that says “All people must wear red baseball caps on Saturday night.” It does not matter that this infringes upon the religious practices of Jewish men. All that matters is that the law is neutral and generally applicable on its face. This is the opposite of CGI/strict scrutiny. It is an incredibly low standard and takes religious exercise completely out of the analysis. In my view, this decision effectively struck the free exercise clause from the U.S. Constitution — and any other state constitution for states that choose to only follow the federal interpretation.
(3) RFRA: Congress and President Clinton were so gobsmacked by the foregoing decision that they passed (something like 97% in favor) and signed into law, respectively, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, restoring CGI/strict scrutiny to free exercise cases.
(4) 1996: Flores v. Boerne. Back at the U.S. Supreme Court, the court again looked at a case where a law and the free exercise clause conflicted. The court struck RFRA as unconstitutional, saying that it is the Court’s exclusive role to interpret the Constitution, that the source of “neutral law of general applicability” was in constitutional interpretation, and that RFRA was Congress’ attempt to step into the Court’s exclusive role. The Employment Division standard continues to apply to federal free exercise cases today.
(5) 1996: Smith v. FEHC. Back home in California, this case arose. Facts of the case: Christian Widow Smith owns 2 duplexes and refuses to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple because doing so, in her religious belief, would be a sin and she would never see her dead husband again. Couple files complaint for violation of the Unruh Act (no discrimination on the basis of numerous protected classes including marital status). There is a clear violation, which Smith does not dispute, but she asserts her free exercise rights. Pre-Boerne, there was some uncertainty about the standard to apply to cases implicating the California constitution’s free exercise clause. Note that California’s clause is not worded the same, but is broader than the federal. The CA Supreme Court did both an Employment Division analysis and a RFRA analysis. Under Emp. Div., she clearly loses. Under RFRA, the CA Supreme Court never got to the CGI test because they ruled — in an interesting twist of logic — that her free exercise rights were not burdened to begin with. She chose to get into the housing business. They did not say what standard applied to the California constitution.
(6) Since 1996, we’ve been waiting for the CA Supreme Court to tell us if we’re using the “neutral law” standard or the CGI standard to address cases implicating the California Constitution’s free exercise clause. Last week, we got our answer. The court determined that a religiously-motivated doctor could not refuse infertility treatment to a patient on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s what the news told you, but here are the nuts and bolts of how they arrived at the decision. (a) In California, we now apply the Employment Division “neutral law” standard to free exercise cases. (b) Even so, prevention of sexual orientation discrimination is a CGI, so the doctor would lose anyway. So now, there are no free exercise rights in California either.
(7) Some constitutional scholars have suggested that sources of religious rights can be found in other clauses of the constitution. Until someone makes a persuasive argument to the appropriate court in the appropriate case at the appropriate time, we have the Employment Division standard. We’ll keep watching…
IV. What does this all mean?
(1) Under the Unruh Act, if you are in a business offering goods or services to the public, you may not refuse goods or services to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, even if your religious beliefs and religious exercise forbid it. Of course, no one can force you to do anything, but you will be subject to claims, the payment of fines, damages, subject to cease and desist orders, etc. Mrs. Smith had to pay fines, pay damages to the couple, had a cease & desist and had to post notices on her properties. If you are an adoption lawyer and have issues about servicing gay couples, better go into another area of law. If you are an artist but do not want to accept commissions from a gay couple, your reason for refusal had better not be about sexual orientation. Last week’s doctors were told to decide whether to service everybody or service nobody. If you are a pastor marrying members of the public for a fee… If you are a church open to the public who offers to rent a portion of your property for ceremonies…
(2) The court made the connection of sexual orientation discrimination to race discrimination. Recently, a news story from Canada reported that a woman lost custody of her son after he wore a swastika to school. She taught hate speech. That was child abuse. What if she were teaching that homosexuality is a sin? Hate speech? Child abuse? If I can think of the argument, someone smarter than me — a county social worker with broad latitude even — can too.
(3) Sexual orientation and identity will be taught in schools. There is already a growing movement giving public schools greater power over the upbringing of children, while parental rights are going down. Opt out rights are and will continue to be threatened.
(4) In a nutshell, 4 judges reordered the legal structure of how these issues are addressed in In re Marriages and last week’s case. 4 judges brought about law that the legislature could not do itself. Remember, the legislature could not strike the Prop. 22 statute, but 4 judges did just that.
(5) In re Marriages was not an end. It is the beginning. And last week’s case was just another piece of evidence of this. There is a powerful lobby behind a movement that has been at work for decades. What were you doing on 9/11 or 9/12? Were you thinking of Prop. 22 and the California legislature? I wasn’t, but this lobby was. On 9/12, while Californians were looking at NYC, these folks were passing sweeping legislation to try to curtail Prop. 22’s import. This lobby sends out testers to bring cases to trial to expand rights. They are very good at what they do; they have a lot of money and a lot of political support; they’ve been working for a long time. They tell you to live-and-let-live, and that is an easy and attractive position to want to accept, but that is the last thing these folks will allow you. They are not at all about letting you live-and-let-live because they want very much to affect how you speak, teach, work and act — your religious preferences have no respect and no bearing.
V. What about Proposition 8?
It does two things.
First, it restores man-woman marriage. Oh, yeah, marriage…. I haven’t mentioned this for awhile in this outline. The No on 8 crowd will be shouting that this is only about marriage. But if you look at the AFA video, about half way in there is a great quote from a woman who admits that it’s not about marriage for the No on 8 people. And now that you’ve just slogged through this epistle, you know it’s not just about marriage too.
Second, it gives people like last week’s doctors an argument that a Constitutional Amendment that does not recognize same-sex marriage does not comport with a policy decision — borne of 4 judges in a split court — that sexual orientation is a CGI, trumping other rights. It would not make sense to have those relationships disavowed by the constitution, on the one hand, but then give those same relationships primary legal import over other constitutional provisions, on the other. To be clear, this is just an argument. It is not a straight black-and-white strike-out as the first. It is an argument for an on-going legal debate — a statement by the people that the policy of 4 judges does not comport with the voice of the people.
VOTE YES ON PROP 8...
Monday, October 13, 2008
Not a cake lover!
So last but not least of our fall Birthdays is Jamezzzzz!!! He requested white chocolate chip cookies so he can make ice cream cookie sandwiches. He's "not really a cake lover" was his response for his Birthday treat! We love you James and are happy you are in are family. Amanda took him camping in San Diego for two days. They froze their little tushes off, but got to warm up with a 4 mile hike the next morning. She also gave him a fun yukaleighlee(sp?)....he loved it!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY JAMES!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)