Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
(nother) excellent blog entry from my father.
The following facts might turn your head if you blame the Mormon church for the passage of Prop 8 in California:
1. Mormons make up about 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 Mormons out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the "yes" vote. If one estimates that 250,000 Mormons are registered voters (the rest being children). If every single Mormon voter in California votes yes, they made up approximately 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.2% of the total Proposition 8 vote. PROP 8's MARGIN OF VICTORY WAS OVER 500,000 VOTES. IF EVERY MORMON VOTER HAD STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS, PROP 8 STILL WOULD HAVE PASSED EASILY.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated not one dime to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million. The No campaign enjoyed a substantial money advantage.
5. African Americans in California overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. Haven't read about any protests at the NAACP offices.
6. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8. Are protesters headed to the MALDEF offices next?
7. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members. The Knights of Columbus were primary contributors to the Yes campaign. Are the protesters planning to send a delegation to the Vatican to let Pope know how they feel?
8. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have repeatedly asked members to treat others with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
9. The Mormon church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it judges to be moral issues.
10. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse.
The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.
1. Mormons make up about 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 Mormons out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the "yes" vote. If one estimates that 250,000 Mormons are registered voters (the rest being children). If every single Mormon voter in California votes yes, they made up approximately 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.2% of the total Proposition 8 vote. PROP 8's MARGIN OF VICTORY WAS OVER 500,000 VOTES. IF EVERY MORMON VOTER HAD STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS, PROP 8 STILL WOULD HAVE PASSED EASILY.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated not one dime to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million. The No campaign enjoyed a substantial money advantage.
5. African Americans in California overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. Haven't read about any protests at the NAACP offices.
6. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8. Are protesters headed to the MALDEF offices next?
7. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members. The Knights of Columbus were primary contributors to the Yes campaign. Are the protesters planning to send a delegation to the Vatican to let Pope know how they feel?
8. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have repeatedly asked members to treat others with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
9. The Mormon church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it judges to be moral issues.
10. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse.
The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
man who stands up for what the people have spoken for.
Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com
November 05, 2008
Contact: (916) 608-3065
By Andy Pugno
“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.
This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.
The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.
The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.
It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).
The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”
Back to News
November 05, 2008
Contact: (916) 608-3065
By Andy Pugno
“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.
This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.
The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.
The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.
It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).
The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”
Back to News
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
song that i can't get out of my head lately- not that it's a bad thing.
Thanks to my man Doug Wells for burning me a copy of "Help!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
