ONLINE PETITIONS: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/protectyourvote http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Protect your voice by sighing these 2 petitions and passing the word. THX

November 8, 2008

Secretary of State Debra Bowen 1500 11th Street Sacramento, California 95814 secretary.bowen@sos.ca.gov

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger http://gov.ca.gov/interact

This letter is in reference to the events immediately following the November 4th 2008 election and the passing of Proposition 8 – recognizing marriage as only valid between a man and a woman. According to the OC Register-November 4, 2008, Wednesday afternoon, three groups filed a lawsuit urging the state Supreme Court to invalidate Prop. 8 if it passes.

Appeals by gay rights activist along with protest have already begun. This not only diminishing our democratic process but also showing hate and discrimination to those who supported traditional marriage, the same hate and discrimination those in the gay community were trying to prevent happening to them. All people should be treated with respect and dignity as well as our democratic process, even when it delivers results which you do not like. We who voted for and stood up for the passing of prop 8 should not be called bigots, lashed out at or shown hate against in any way just as those who are gay should not be hated or lashed out against. Websites and Facebook groups have also begun to collect signatures to begun to attack the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint and their tax exempt status. It seems that the "false" arguments brought up during the debate for Prop 8 are now coming true. Proponents of gay marriage are threatening violence against churches, burning LDS temples, and seeking "revenge" due to hundreds of churches support for Prop 8. However, the LDS and Catholic churches are receiving much of the criticism. The people have spoken on this issue not only once but twice. The first time four Superior court judges thought their opinions deemed of higher authority than the majority of Californians and overthrew proposition 22 on May 15, 2008. Again I see a pattern rising. Let it be known that this is a democracy. Websters Definition: a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Thus allowing us as citizens to vote and putting the favor in the hands of the majority. So how is it that the minorities voices deems themselves more important than the majority? If this is something that is going to keep happening, our votes being overwritten by the hands of a few wealthy powerful people who don’t like what the majority has to say, then what is the point in having elections and casting our votes? If my opinion doesn't matter than what’s the point in living in this so called "democracy" of a country?

If the gay marriage advocates convince the courts to meddle in the decision of the voters and block or overturn proposition 8 in the same illegal way as proposition 22, ban of gay marriages, did in the 2000 election after it was passed by a 61% majority vote, it will be further evidence that our democratic process no longer works and I along with the other 5,668,960 voters (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm) who passed prop 8 will fight a good old fashioned American revolution to overthrow any further judicial tyranny and restore the balance of power envisioned in the constitution. Those governing derive their power from the governed, not special interests.

I hope that as our secretary of state you would stand up for the rights of the people and play fair by not letting the minority speak for and defeat the majority vote. Keep prop 8 in the standing as was voted on by the majority of the citizens in the November 4, 2008 election and let the passing vote permit only a marriage between a man and a women valid in state of California. Anything else would be unjust and unconstitutional.

Argument #1: The petition, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, charges that the measure is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality. Proposition 8 removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us. That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel also challenged Prop. 8 before the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Argument #1 defeat: According to Wikipedia, a civil union is defined as the following: A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex coupleswith rights, benefits, and responsibilitiessimilar (in some countries, identical) to opposite-sex civil marriage.

FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5 297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring. (b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of filing, all of the following requirements are met: (1) Both persons have a common residence. (2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity. (3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in this state. (4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age. ...(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.... ...(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership....

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.... ...(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law.... (d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses.... ...(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses....

Since a civil union and domestic partnership, as proven in the above definition and Family Code, has the same rights as a civil marriage, the claim of discrimination is invalid. In fact if proposition 8 didn't pass that would be considered unconstitutional not the other way around. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION...(Separation of Religion and state)

Therefore how constitutional is it that a state law should be able to overwrite the Amendments of our Constitution and force a religion to go against there beliefs and morals or suffer the consequences of being taxed, sued or even worse, shut down? To say it won't happen is a bunch of lies because it already is. A photographer was sued in Arizona for refusing to video tape a couple at a gay wedding, a doctor in San Diego was sued for not performing an artificial insemination an a lesbian couple, a church in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a gay marriage to be preformed in one of their buildings, even now, as mention before, "NO" activists are trying to strip the tax exempt status for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. No on Prop 8 opponents claim that despite what proponents say it's defeat would not change what California schools teach. How constitutional is it that a child, at such a vulnerable age, be taught something that contradicts their religious beliefs or the way they were brought up? Exposing them to thoughts and feelings that would not have been there if it wasn't taught to them that it's normal. Why don't we teach our kids that it's the norm to drink alcohol and have sex before your married, so therefore it's ok to do? That kind of thinking is ignorance. How constitutional is it that as a parent I have no control over what my child is being taught in school? One can argue that won't happen and that would be true if in Massachusetts they weren't already reading to kids books about a prince marring a prince and that would be true if there wasn't already a school sponsored 1st grade field trip to a teacher's lesbian wedding and a school in Sacramento having kindergärtners signing gay pledge cards. Are we that naive?(whatyououghttoknow.com) One can argue all they want that prop 8 takes away the rights and discriminates against gays but the facts are right in front of their faces. A YES on prop 8 does NOT take any rights away from a gay person. They still have all the rights as a married couple or any other domestic partnership, as noted in Argument #1 defeat. YES on prop 8 does not discriminate it redefines. To think otherwise is pure ignorance.

Argument #2: According to the OC Register-November 4, 2008, Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the "No" campaign believes some three to four million vote by mail and provisional ballots still need to be counted. She said those late ballots, which include her own, likely will come from the younger, more progressive voters that form the backbone of the No on 8 movement.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office said Wednesday it wouldn’t know how many uncounted ballots remained in the state’s 58 counties until at least Thursday. Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley said there were about 239,000 vote by mail and provisional ballots left to be counted in Orange County, plus an undetermined number of paper ballots. “My guess it’s (another) 30,000 but I just don’t have a handle on it yet,” he said.

Argument #2 Defeat: That totals to only approximately 269,000 votes still unaccounted for. The number of votes in favor of a yes prop 8 as apposed to a no was 5,173,113, that's a difference of 495,873. Even if the majority of those unaccounted votes were against prop 8, as insinuated by Kate Kendell, that still wouldn't add up to more votes than the "Yes". The reason why votes are called at less than 100% status is because the remaining percentage would not effect the vote. And to insinuated, as Kate does, that the majority of those votes form the backbone of the No on 8 movement is preposterous unless there is some kind of manipulation or rigging going on.

So again I hope that as our secretary of state you would stand up for the rights of the people and play fair by not letting the minority speak for and defeat the majority vote. Keep prop 8 in the standing as was voted on by the majority of the citizens in the November 4, 2008 election and let the passing vote permit only a marriage between a man and a women valid in state of California. Anything else would be unjust and unconstitutional.

Your support and fairness is greatly appreciated, Thanks, Shanell Vargas