Please do respond just to let me know if anything that you did get this email. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. God bless you and yours...

Dear Citizen Link,

I was wondering why you all do not send out state by state voter guides. My mother this year voted for Heather Wilson for the Republican nominee and if she just knew that Heather voted for funding for Planned Parenthood and Steve Pearce vote against funding for Planned Parenthood she would have voted for Steve Pearce. Now I know partially it is her fault. I even sent out an email to her about this issue and apparently she missed it and she should be more concerned of her vote but life gets busy and voting can be an overwhelming issue. I know many as I used to be that just don't care about the nominee process but here in NM the republican nominee is very important. If Heather Wilson is our only option then we have another dilemma of having to cast a compromising vote for US Senate in NM like we have with McCain. Now I know you all send out or advertise voter guides but maybe close to election time you all can send out or advertsie something for each state on the issues even for the nominee process and maybe advertise each state to each other state or something so that friends in one state can get the info to friends in other states and it would be nice to have the candidates side by side on the values issues. So many people just wait till after the republican nominee is decided and then vote afterwards for that republican which sometimes doesn't benefit a true Republican nominee. This is the first year I have participated in the Republican nominee process in my state and have found it to be very important and very similar to this years presidential republican nomination. I am a New Mexican and I have some friends in Colorado and I have heard of the recent bill SB 200 and I am in unbelief of it even though here in NM we had that photographer case as you all are probabily aware of. And I sent the below email out to them. Now I know that you can't have an email that persuades a vote up or down on any candidate but I was a little disappointed when all you all did was talk about how bad the bill is (which is true) but not let anybody know any names or who voted up or down. Below I found a voter record site that gave me that info and I passed it on to my friends in Colorado but without me I don't know if they would really know who to vote for in their nominee process or if the nominees are already decided in Colorado who to vote for in November. But since I don't live in Colorado I may be ignorant as to how you all work out there. But is it wrong to air on the radio who exactly voted for and against this bill and who sponsored it on your radio show. This will accomplish 1) that it is highly democrat 2) that in the house even some republicans voted for this so republican voters can be aware 3) if anything bad comes out of this bill then all will know who to blame. Today I do not assume that my friends are educated in political matters at all even my christian friends. Anyways, I thank you for taking the time to view this email. Sorry for being so long but below is that email that I sent out to my friends in Colorado and I believe in addition to the possibility of sexual predators in bathrooms I believe a good argument below is made for why men should go to mens bathrooms and women to womens mainly out of respect for other sexes and I am sure a lawsuite will come out of this arguing privacy between sexes somehow if somebody of an oppoiste sex enters the bathroom of his/her opposite sex...

I am so sorry for my grammar and my longwindedness. I am awful in both areas. So please do forgive my running on sentences and saying the same thing over and over at times..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Coloradoans (making up my own words),

Check out below who voted for or against this (in my opinion) unconstitutional bill (see below comments on ACLU's position on this bill).

I send this to all just for information purpose but am more interested in letting those of you that live in Colorado know who in your state actually voted for and against this bill that allows opposite sex's into bathrooms of their opposite sex. I sure don't want my daughter using a restroom and possibly be exposed to the privates of a member of the opposite sex. I find that completely inappropriate for members of the opposite sex's to be in a position for this exposure. But whatever....I am just blown away by this legislation and how rude it is for those on our opposite side to take it this far. Even if I were gay/transgender I would understand that bathroom privacy between sex's should be honoured. I wouldn't support legislation that would invade the privacy of an opposite sex. I would respect the privacy of a woman even if I weren't attracted to that sex. I mean imagine being a gay man and walking into a bathroom of the opposite sex and the women in that bathroom acting a little uncomfortable and then you interpret that as discrimination/bigotry etc etc and expect them to be completely normalized that a man is in the bathroom with her. Good luck. This is absolutely disrespectful and rude. And that is the flaw in this legislation. It absolutely violates privacy between sex's in the place needed most, the bathroom. This is just plain out right rude legislation and absolutely unconsiderate/intolerant of peoples sexual exposure/privacy between sex's considerations...This has nothing to do with discrimination whatsoever if a woman wants to use a restroom with members of their same sex that is their preference for obvious privacy reason and she doesn't have to think she is a discriminator and if an employer wishes to respect her right to privacy then he/she doesn't need to be viewed as a bigot. Also there are religious reason why one would not desire to be in a position to expose herself to a member of the opposite sex even if they are heterosexual. Maybe a man has a religious conviction to not depants himself before another women even if they were heterosexual. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation discrimination but rather an understanding that the bathroom is not a place to judge peoples motives its a place of obviously needed privacy between sex's....Let women go to the womens bathroom and let men do the same and please out of respect for both let only women go to womens bathrooms and men only go to mens bathrooms...And keep in mind that a public accomodation is much more then just a bathroom. You have locker rooms and much more so good luck Colorado keeping your sexes unexposed to the opposite sex whether hetero or homo...

I can see a lawsuite coming in the future if one does actually go into the bathroom of his/her opposite sex for some sort of invasion of privacy between sex's to strike down this bill...

And if you don't think this bill applies to bathrooms check out the publics understand here on this DenverPost online AP article. And then check out the comments mostly negative toward Dobson on the conservative side of this issue and what they think and notice no rebuttal that this doesn't apply to bathrooms and actually some would find my argument above as ludicrous though some favoured it. So conservative Coloraoans on this issue you are not without your opponents at the ballot box!!!

And lastly but just as importantly, check out these comments by the ACLU,-This is from a Colorado Family action site that may be of interest to you out in Colorado concerning comments made by the ACLU on this bill.

""One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others...."

OK, then. What according to the ACLU is a most heinous practice of religious expression that is so heinous that it should be limited in the public?????????

"If your house of worship rents to the public its other facilities, you have to rent to everybody - you can't discriminate."-Cathryn Hazouri's, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, testimony given before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee."

Yeah. And I am sure our founding fathers would agree (sarcastically)!!!! The only thing that makes these practices heinous are bills like this....Which should tell you something about the bill? It's unconstitutional for it clearly violates the 1st amendment. I am so looking forward to one of these bills being challenged in our newly Bush appointed courts...We finally have judges that would not allow a 1st amendment right to be trampled so easily...

Also, I go to BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) at a church that is allowing its facility to be used for BSF which is not part of the church itself. Because a church allows BSF to use their church for other religious purposes does this now mean they have to allow its facility to be used by homosexual political agendicist which is exact opposite opposed to their values. Now I believe they amended this bill to not include houses of worship but you can see where some on the otherside would like to take it and where it would have gone except some in the house opposed the ACLU's comments!!! The original bill by sponsored by Democrat Senator Jennifer Veiga did not have the bill so amended!!!

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Senate-Voting record in Colorado Senate on this bill. Strait party line Democrats for/Republicans against.

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination House -Voting record in Colorado House. Note that this bill is in no way bypartisan and heavily democrat favoured though some republicans (make sure it's not the one you voted for).

SB200-The actual final bill itself with amendments noted. This bill should of had a religious conscious clause amendment allowing business like photography studios/journalist/freelance writers etc etc not to have to use their business talents for things that would propagate something contrary to their own conscience which is a big issue in Canada right now due to these laws/bills. We know what happened in NM because of this but is being challenged and appealed hopefully right up to the Supreme Court that will be more 1st Amendment minded then these states are. See notes on that NM case here on my email sent out on 04/09/2008, 04/13/2008 and especially the most up to date facts on 04/18/2008.

And to top it all off check this out:

Colorado governor okays open bathrooms-"Colorado lawmakers also slapped voters in the face with a provision that PROHIBITS A PUBLIC REFERENDUM or PETITION drive to overturn the law. Hausknecht says the only choice Colorado voters have now is to send people to the legislature that will act to reverse the law."-or in some way take it to court!!!

You can get the email for your elected officials by clicking on http://www.afa.net/ and then highlight Activism and then click on "elected officials" and you should be able to follow directions from there. For some reason the site is not working properly right now so I couldn't give you an easier link.

I am really interested to see how a majority of Colorado voters vote this next election after the moral unconstitutional crisis of the last 2 years under democrat control.

But to end with GREAT GOOD NEWS. Check this out:

'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization-"For the first time in US history, the issue of personhood will be decided in the public forum by a constitutional amendment....Colorado for Equal Rights has demonstrated an unparalleled grassroots effort thus far, with likely more volunteer circulators than any other ballot initiative in the State's history....This victory is the voice of the people and all credit goes our Creator"

Wow. I am now even more looking forward to seeing how Colorado votes. Get out their Colorado!!! As you probabily already know, your vote really really really counts a whole lot more then the liberal non reporting media may have you as a conservative believe. Get registered and get voting but vote being informed not only by the liberal point of view/issues which most media outlets provide but also with the conservative point of view/issues and you decide what to prioritize!!!! I know not all agree with my point of view or emphasis of issue but at the same time it can't hurt to be informed from a side that is continually under attack of suppression in the public arena in my opinion and thus the reason why I desire to inform and may be a little obsessed and state sometimes the obvious cause I assume not the obvious given the majority of pop media/hollywood/pop music/public education etc etc of today. So if it is obvious to you send my emails to others that may be lacking this important info in their voting decisions and what you don't agree with or can't stand the grammar of edit out and if its not so obvious to you at least you know why I am obsessed. :)

Take care all and love yah all...

Hey Coloradoans (making up my own words),

Check out below who voted for or against this (in my opinion) unconstitutional bill (see below comments on ACLU's position on this bill).

I send this to all just for information purpose but am more interested in letting those of you that live in Colorado know who in your state actually voted for and against this bill that allows opposite sex's into bathrooms of their opposite sex. I sure don't want my daughter using a restroom and possibly be exposed to the privates of a member of the opposite sex. I find that completely inappropriate for members of the opposite sex's to be in a position for this exposure. But whatever....I am just blown away by this legislation and how rude it is for those on our opposite side to take it this far. Even if I were gay/transgender I would understand that bathroom privacy between sex's should be honoured. I wouldn't support legislation that would invade the privacy of an opposite sex. I would respect the privacy of a woman even if I weren't attracted to that sex. I mean imagine being a gay man and walking into a bathroom of the opposite sex and the women in that bathroom acting a little uncomfortable and then you interpret that as discrimination/bigotry etc etc and expect them to be completely normalized that a man is in the bathroom with her. Good luck. This is absolutely disrespectful and rude. And that is the flaw in this legislation. It absolutely violates privacy between sex's in the place needed most, the bathroom. This is just plain out right rude legislation and absolutely unconsiderate/intolerant of peoples sexual exposure/privacy between sex's considerations...This has nothing to do with discrimination whatsoever if a woman wants to use a restroom with members of their same sex that is their preference for obvious privacy reason and she doesn't have to think she is a discriminator and if an employer wishes to respect her right to privacy then he/she doesn't need to be viewed as a bigot. Also there are religious reason why one would not desire to be in a position to expose herself to a member of the opposite sex even if they are heterosexual. Maybe a man has a religious conviction to not depants himself before another women even if they were heterosexual. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation discrimination but rather an understanding that the bathroom is not a place to judge peoples motives its a place of obviously needed privacy between sex's....Let women go to the womens bathroom and let men do the same and please out of respect for both let only women go to womens bathrooms and men only go to mens bathrooms...And keep in mind that a public accomodation is much more then just a bathroom. You have locker rooms and much more so good luck Colorado keeping your sexes unexposed to the opposite sex whether hetero or homo...

I can see a lawsuite coming in the future if one does actually go into the bathroom of his/her opposite sex for some sort of invasion of privacy between sex's to strike down this bill...

And if you don't think this bill applies to bathrooms check out the publics understand here on this DenverPost online AP article. And then check out the comments mostly negative toward Dobson on the conservative side of this issue and what they think and notice no rebuttal that this doesn't apply to bathrooms and actually some would find my argument above as ludicrous though some favoured it. So conservative Coloraoans on this issue you are not without your opponents at the ballot box!!!

And lastly but just as importantly, check out these comments by the ACLU,-This is from a Colorado Family action site that may be of interest to you out in Colorado concerning comments made by the ACLU on this bill.

""One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others...."

OK, then. What according to the ACLU is a most heinous practice of religious expression that is so heinous that it should be limited in the public?????????

"If your house of worship rents to the public its other facilities, you have to rent to everybody - you can't discriminate."-Cathryn Hazouri's, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, testimony given before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee."

Yeah. And I am sure our founding fathers would agree (sarcastically)!!!! The only thing that makes these practices heinous are bills like this....Which should tell you something about the bill? It's unconstitutional for it clearly violates the 1st amendment. I am so looking forward to one of these bills being challenged in our newly Bush appointed courts...We finally have judges that would not allow a 1st amendment right to be trampled so easily...

Also, I go to BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) at a church that is allowing its facility to be used for BSF which is not part of the church itself. Because a church allows BSF to use their church for other religious purposes does this now mean they have to allow its facility to be used by homosexual political agendicist which is exact opposite opposed to their values. Now I believe they amended this bill to not include houses of worship but you can see where some on the otherside would like to take it and where it would have gone except some in the house opposed the ACLU's comments!!! The original bill by sponsored by Democrat Senator Jennifer Veiga did not have the bill so amended!!!

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Senate-Voting record in Colorado Senate on this bill. Strait party line Democrats for/Republicans against.

Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination House -Voting record in Colorado House. Note that this bill is in no way bypartisan and heavily democrat favoured though some republicans (make sure it's not the one you voted for).

SB200-The actual final bill itself with amendments noted. This bill should of had a religious conscious clause amendment allowing business like photography studios/journalist/freelance writers etc etc not to have to use their business talents for things that would propagate something contrary to their own conscience which is a big issue in Canada right now due to these laws/bills. We know what happened in NM because of this but is being challenged and appealed hopefully right up to the Supreme Court that will be more 1st Amendment minded then these states are. See notes on that NM case here on my email sent out on 04/09/2008, 04/13/2008 and especially the most up to date facts on 04/18/2008.

And to top it all off check this out:

Colorado governor okays open bathrooms-"Colorado lawmakers also slapped voters in the face with a provision that PROHIBITS A PUBLIC REFERENDUM or PETITION drive to overturn the law. Hausknecht says the only choice Colorado voters have now is to send people to the legislature that will act to reverse the law."-or in some way take it to court!!!

You can get the email for your elected officials by clicking on http://www.afa.net/ and then highlight Activism and then click on "elected officials" and you should be able to follow directions from there. For some reason the site is not working properly right now so I couldn't give you an easier link.

I am really interested to see how a majority of Colorado voters vote this next election after the moral unconstitutional crisis of the last 2 years under democrat control.

But to end with GREAT GOOD NEWS. Check this out:

'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization-"For the first time in US history, the issue of personhood will be decided in the public forum by a constitutional amendment....Colorado for Equal Rights has demonstrated an unparalleled grassroots effort thus far, with likely more volunteer circulators than any other ballot initiative in the State's history....This victory is the voice of the people and all credit goes our Creator"

Wow. I am now even more looking forward to seeing how Colorado votes. Get out their Colorado!!! As you probabily already know, your vote really really really counts a whole lot more then the liberal non reporting media may have you as a conservative believe. Get registered and get voting but vote being informed not only by the liberal point of view/issues which most media outlets provide but also with the conservative point of view/issues and you decide what to prioritize!!!! I know not all agree with my point of view or emphasis of issue but at the same time it can't hurt to be informed from a side that is continually under attack of suppression in the public arena in my opinion and thus the reason why I desire to inform and may be a little obsessed and state sometimes the obvious cause I assume not the obvious given the majority of pop media/hollywood/pop music/public education etc etc of today. So if it is obvious to you send my emails to others that may be lacking this important info in their voting decisions and what you don't agree with or can't stand the grammar of edit out and if its not so obvious to you at least you know why I am obsessed. :)

Take care all and love yah all...

Disclaimer for context/purpose: I understand that there are many more issues besides values issues and below is a reason as to why the focus on values issues....

Here is Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce voting record on values issues.-By Focus on the Family and the Family Research Center. The race between Wilson and Pearce for the Republican Nominee for Senate is very close so every vote will count. The house of representatives probably won't even be close so I didn't bother posting anything about it here mainly because I don't know enough about the 2 candidates and there is no history of voting records with them either. A recent poll has Pearce 3 percent ahead of Wilson with a 4.8 percent of error. So its that close. It will be interesting cause Pearce is running on a true conservative ticket whereas Wilson is running on a "common sense" conservative meaning more moderate. So we will see who New Mexican Republicans choose...

Also, enclosed as an attachment for areas that you can vote at and you can vote now as an early voter at some locations but the last day to vote is June 3rd.

For those living in other states this includes the values voting record of all senators and congressman in all 50 states.

Heather Wilson receives a 75% approval rating and Pearce 100%. The most telling one that divides the 2 for me is Heather voted against Restricting funds to Planned Parenthood whereas Steve voted for Restricting funds to Planned Parenthood. That is the main reason why I am voting for Pearce although there are others that are not the most prevalent issues with me...

Of course the Democrat Tom Udall scored a miserable 6%.

My argument for taking values issues first into consideration when voting is: how can we expect the blessings of God (good economy/good national health(care)/national security(war)/etcetcetc) without voting with His values in mind above His blessings? So can we expect to obtain God's blessings if we ignore His values in the voting booth or in our personal lives?

As I have been reviewing the quotations of Americas' founding fathers it seems they were not just concerned about abuse of governmental power and religious freedom issues but also quite concerned about the state of the people of the nation. It seems that they saw that just because much power is given to the democratic process that we should not expect this to guarantee our freedoms for if the people were corrupt then the inevitable outcome would be a corrupt government and not only that but that it is impossible to govern a corrupt people despite the most perfect government. So you find many many quotes from our forefathers admonishing the people of the US like the ones below from Samuel and John Adams about one major cause of corrupt government that being the people themselves (its as if they saw no one immune to sin and corruption (not just governments but the people under governments) and assumed a bentness toward sin in all areas of national life both personal and governmental as an enemy to ourselves as a people. Namely that ourselves are a possible enemy to ourselves.)...

I find this admonition from Thomas Jefferson most applicable in this context: "Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act"-Thomas Jefferson. And I can't help to wonder what Mr Jefferson or any of our founding fathers/early supreme court justices/early American voters would think of Planned Parenthood and what they promote.

And that sums up my argument for a values first vote for but also, remembering the admonitions of our forefathers that we should always be examining our own walk before the Lord and our motives in both our views of government and self and not at all the least God Himself... If all these other issues are of such great importance how much more should the issue of God and our relationship with Him be... For more quotes from our founding fathers and a great resource site in this area check out http://www.wallbuilders.com/.

One last argument (sorry) could be made when voting is: If Jesus were to vote who would He most likely vote for? If Jesus had a kid would He not die to let him/her live. The obvious answer is yes. Jesus would not choose death for His kid even if the his child was a result of a rape or even if it meant His life were at stake. The obvious answer is Jesus would freely die to let another live. Would Jesus encourage promiscuity in His sex education and hand out condoms or would He not stick to the ten commandments? Would Jesus support bills that have been used to suppress the speech of His own Word which is that message by which people are saved from their sins? Would Jesus vote as if the economy/national security/health care/big government vs big business etc etc is of greater importance then the above? I believe the answer is probably not...

And for a little perspective and argument against my own argument to put it all in proper context of priority: Would Jesus vote as if His vote would change the world more/better than the message that He died on the cross for our sins? Of course not...So with our voting power in the right context I encourage all to get out and vote...

The June 3 2008 Primary election for NM is going on now. I believe there are locations available for those registered as Democrat or Republican to vote at now. I just got a letter in the mail with different locations that I attached in this email. So get out and vote even if you disagree with me (I am sure for decent enough reasons) but good luck in convincing me...:) Love yah all no matter what your persuasion...

Here is another throw in of a great resource site for measuring which polls have been the most accurate polls thus far in the election process and who is ahead in the polls for the President of the US. Obama and McCain are neck and neck McCain would win if election were today according to a combination of all these polls.

Take care...

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."-Samuel Adams (Signer of the Declaration of Independence) "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." "[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."-John Adams (Signer of Declaration of Independence and 2nd President of the United States of America).

But its not over till the voters say its over. See part 2 below...

Part 1:
Update on Marriage Case in California:

The Decision:

Here is 150 or so page opinion. I also found 3 hour video footage of the whole argument back in March from both sides online.

If you don't have time/expertise like I don't to read all pages here is decision in short. If I messed this up please forgive me. I just scrolled down till I found conclusions and then scrolled down to read a Dissenters opinion and bolded what I found most interesting. But feel free to view it yourself in its entirety and unbolded...

"A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The 4 Judges that have redefined marriage in the state of California at the expense of 4.6 million modern day voters and a Californian historical definition of marriage that this court also acknowledged that: "f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.": GEORGE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,WERDEGAR, J.,MORENO, J.

And the 3 that voted nay,
BAXTER, J.,CHIN, J.,CORRIGAN, J.

one vote from one judge makes the difference for millions of californians!!! Below is dissenters opinion by corrigan, j.

"...I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.......In Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, we struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriages. The majority places great reliance on the Perez court's statement that "the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." (Id. at p. 715.) However, Perez and the many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 54-63.) The majority recognizes this, as it must. (Id. at p. 66.) Because those cases involved the traditional definition of marriage, they do not support the majority's analysis. The question here is whether the meaning of the term as it was used in those cases must be changed. What is unique about this case is that plaintiffs seek both to join the institution of marriage and at the same time to alter its definition. The majority maintains that plaintiffs are not attempting to change the existing institution of marriage. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 53.) This claim is irreconcilable with the majority's declaration that "[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." (Id. at p. 23, fn. omitted.) The people are entitled to preserve this traditional understanding in the terminology of the law, recognizing that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. What they are not entitled to do is treat them differently under the law. The distinction between substance and nomenclature makes this case different from other civil rights cases. The definition of the rights to education, to vote, to pursue an office or occupation, and the other celebrated civil rights vindicated by the courts, were not altered by extending them to all races and both genders. The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood, into something quite new. They could certainly accomplish such a redefinition through the initiative process. As a voter, I might agree. But that change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate."-CORRIGAN, J.

But the voters in California already suspecting this outcome are not giving up see Part 2: (there is an amazing accomplishment they have recently accomplished and in the process of attempting to accomplish and also see more states that have done the same, it is not that easy to amend a state constitution and that is what is being attempted in California and already done in 26 other states and for those who agree that the definition of marriage is an important one see below from email sent out earlier today). You will see how many millions of voters it takes to override one judges vote when we could have just voted for one more judge that is not going to invent new definitions of words into law in the first place. If we the people want change then not only are presidents and congress important elections but judges are just as much. So pay attention to what kind of judges a candidate/congress will be likely to nominate/approve. Be sure they are consistent with your definition of words!!!
Part 2:

Part of the email sent out earlier today but put it here for context sake to continue from above:
"But check this out!!! Even if the California Supreme Courts deems the voters Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional check out what the voters have been up to for the past 5 months.

California Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot-""The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state...The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature...The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."

www.protectmarriage.com-"Official web site of the California Marriage Protection Act"

America Votes to Protect Marriage-Check out the demographic graph of states that have already amended their constitutions. "In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005. In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation." However, Arizona House just....

Ariz. House OKs amendment to ban same-sex marriage-"The current Arizona legislative proposal backed by social conservatives would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 2006 version had that wording plus a provision that was widely interpreted as targeting civil unions and domestic partnerships."-05/12/2008

I am quite surprised the media hasn't itself focused as much attention on this subject as has Americans despite lack of media coverage!!!! It seems this would make for high ratings on national TV programs but oh yeah I forgot that this doesn't support liberal/progressive politics and we sure don't want conservative politics spreading to other states nor have any limelight in the public media so we will focus only on the negatives of our opponents that aren't so popular with Americans and hide our unpopular negatives. What was I thinking???

Other quick news blip which has been deemphasized in the media at the expense of Bushs' approval ratings:

Congress approval rating at an all time low-this came in one of my email updates from The Heritage Foundation. Approval rating lower then Bush job rating which you can find here. This is an interesting polling site so I will give its home page here. http://www.pollingreport.com/.

Lastly:

I was listening to this 30 minute program on TBN this morning as I was getting the kids ready for school and found it interesting enough to pas on quickly in this email at http://www.rodparsley.com/WatchNow.aspx.

Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines

"The Republican-led House's vote was mostly along party lines, with Democrats Jack Brown of St. Johns and Pete Rios of Hayden voting for the resolution. Tucson Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns voted against it."-Arizona Central commenting on how each party voted in the House in Arizona on this popular with American

"California's Defense of Marriage Act, the result of the Proposition 22 ballot initiative, states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Sixty-one percent of California voters passed the measure in March 2000."

The constitutionality of what the voters passed in 2000 will be decided today at 10:00am.

And for the actual 3 hour argument from both sides please check out my email on 03/04/2008.

But check this out!!! Even if the California Supreme Courts deems the voters Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional check out what the voters have been up to for the past 5 months.

California Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot-""The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state...The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature...The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."

http://www.protectmarriage.com/-"Official web site of the California Marriage Protection Act"

America Votes to Protect Marriage-Check out the demographic graph of states that have already amended their constitutions. "In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005. In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation." However, Arizona House just....

Ariz. House OKs amendment to ban same-sex marriage-"The current Arizona legislative proposal backed by social conservatives would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 2006 version had that wording plus a provision that was widely interpreted as targeting civil unions and domestic partnerships."-05/12/2008

I am quite surprised the media hasn't itself focused as much attention on this subject as has Americans despite lack of media coverage!!!! It seems this would make for high ratings on national TV programs but oh yeah I forgot that this doesn't support liberal/progressive politics and we sure don't want conservative politics spreading to other states nor have any limelight in the public media so we will focus only on the negatives of our opponents that aren't so popular with Americans and hide our unpopular negatives. What was I thinking???

Other quick news blip which has been deemphasized in the media at the expense of Bushs' approval ratings:

Congress approval rating at an all time low-this came in one of my email updates from The Heritage Foundation. Approval rating lower then Bush job rating which you can find here. This is an interesting polling site so I will give its home page here. http://www.pollingreport.com/.

Lastly:

I was listening to this 30 minute program on TBN this morning as I was getting the kids ready for school and found it interesting enough to pas on quickly in this email at http://www.rodparsley.com/WatchNow.aspx.

Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines

"The Republican-led House's vote was mostly along party lines, with Democrats Jack Brown of St. Johns and Pete Rios of Hayden voting for the resolution. Tucson Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns voted against it."-Arizona Central commenting on how each party voted in the House in Arizona on this popular with American voters amendment?

ADF will oppose marriage redefinition at Cal. Supreme Court today

From 9a-12p!!! Arguments will be heard in California courts today. Get details here.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/ -Live Webcast of case on California court info website and will be archived for later viewing.

http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/03/03/march-3rd-adf-attorneys-to-live-blog-cal-supreme-court-marriage-hearing/ - More info and resources including a live blog during court hearings!!!

I would encourage all to get this groups daily email feed. To learn more about ADF (Alliance Defense Fund, founded by Dr James Dobson, Dr James Kennedy and Bill Bright along with 30 other evangelical leaders) click here.

To sign up for their daily alerts and news concerning what is going on each day in the courts of law concerning Religious Freedom, Sanctity of Life, Marriage and Family, conservative International concerns and more conservative law concerns that most media outlets choose not to inform you on click here.

Lastly what doesn't even make news here in NM which happened in NM after I have complained twice and sent links for contacts for public relations to our local news stations to make it easy for them but have yet to report on a case that has drawn conservative media interest anyways. Here is a link that will link you to to a 7 minute discussion on a talk radio show concerning this issue brought to the NM Human Rights board of somesort.

One thing I believe this lack of popular media coverage does is cause a voter to go to a voting booth not knowing all the issues and thus casting an uninformed vote and actually cause a voter to vote for a candidate that may be unfavourable to his/her views on these subjects not even realizing it. One critique of McCain is on this very issue. You have many decisions being decided in the courts of law that will make a difference in society one way or the other. Judges that are being appointed by one president as compared to another will make an inevitable difference in these higher courts of law when these decisions are appealed in the lower courts. And the higher courts then become sometimes laws for all the land as opposed to just a state. So what is going on elsewhere though it may not be in our state or in all the states none the less what is going on in these liberal states as they are appealled may be forced upon states that are more conservative and don't even have these issues and don't want them. So it matters to us to pay attention. McCain has been criticized by Dobson and Dobson has stated he will not vote for McCain for many reasons that I would have to agree with and one of those reasons is McCains teaming up with 6 other republicans and 7 democrats to allow for fillibustering of certain judges in the past and these would have been favourable judges to the conservative pro family causes in america that would have passed if it were not for these 14. Now McCain may have had other concerns but none the less the result has been an inability for judges to be appointed from a conservatively elected congress which has caused much frustration to the conservative voter. So you can answer your question as to why congress and the president though under republican rule could not get more judges appointed that favoured one of the major reasons why many americans voted them into office is because of 7 republicans and one of those McCain. So McCain may favour other issues and judges that are more concerned about other issues then profamily, freedom of religious, pro life, etc issues that will not be as much of a priority on his mind when he appoints a judge. And thus I reason that since these issues are a major concern for me more then tax cuts and the political issues I will have to reserve my vote for one who is concerned in priority of those issues that concern me. I mean what good is my politic if I can't freely speak out on issues as "marriages" or "pro-life" or anything else that may come up in the future and have to fear being called a bigot if I do and to be equated with a racist. Sure I could be financially fit but at what cost (the cost of my conservative opinions and voice to be silenced). Sure I could live longer with good health care but again at what cost (no health care for children in the womb). Sure I could vote Republican just because I am a Republican but again at what cost. All Republicans do not have the same priorities. I understand that Obama and Clinton may be worse but in this context they are no different then McCain. Sure McCain may have pressure from fellow Republicans that an Obama or Clinton would not however McCain has a history of sticking to his priorities and we give our vote to him then he has the "american people" to claim on his side which will give him further reason to act as he has in the past. Whatever your feeling may be is fine. I am sure there are other sides of the story to every concern that are ligitmate to take into consideration. I guess I am just voicing one side and submitting it to all since I do not think the media does a good job at informing the public on these issues and why many are not happy with McCain. I did not mean to type this out. I just meant to let you all know about the case being held so it was typed on the spot. Sorry for any grammar mistakes and flaws in reasoning. But how can we say "God Bless America" if we don't vote according to principles that God in His Word says are consistent with His Blessings. Now I understand an argument could be made for voting for the least of 2 evils and it seems we have to do that alot and so if one reasons in a line of reasoning of some sort like that so that an Obama or Clinton doesn't get into office. I can understand that. It is a hard decision. But just consider the moral issues along with all the others and for me it seems that McCain has only one thing going for him. That he has consistently from my understanding been pro life except on the stem cell research but otherwise then that he may be conservative but not morally. We would be morally far better off with a Huckabee but can Huckabee when in a presidential election. And I understand Huckabee isn't perfect but we have a consistently morally good political track record with him on all the moral concerns and I feel morally confortable voting for such a one as he and I am glad he is still our conservative voice hanging in there in the race. One thing a non vote for McCain in a presidential election will do is send a clear message to the Republican party that if moral concerns are no longer a serious priority issue in the Republican party you will not have a Republican president. And so I feel we may have to suffer thru a really bad president for 4 years on all issues and reorganize and learn a lesson for the next republican nominee. Rather then have a Republican president for 8 years with republican political values but on the moral issues obselete in priority. If moral issues are the priority issues it seems we have no choice but to rethink Republicanism.

Now for all you Democrats out there. Feel free to completely ignore my run on paragraph but it is valuable for a possible understanding as to why some conservatives are very unhappy with McCain and there can be a whole lot more said then just this issue. Just because the media doesn't report on why doesn't mean there isn't ligitmate concerns granting a certain perspective that is at odds with most media outlets.

And also to all you Republicans that may disagree maybe this gives a perspective as to why a James Dobson isn't completely wacky in stating that he will sit out if McCain is the nominee on this presidential election. I really don't think he will do just that alone I think a possible 3rd party may form or some other avenue may be taken. But if he does sit out I am with him just to insure that the Republican party on moral issues doesn't become a Democratic party. I think that would be worth the non vote for the future of the Republican party. And if you disagree that is fine. God is control no matter what we vote or don't vote on. But none the less I believe voting is not an amoral issue but a moral one and that God would have his childred to work out our reasoning to being consistent with His as revealed in the scriptures in order to cast the best vote we possibly can and I am sure there are good arguments on both side. Kind of like asking the question what would Jesus vote for if he were a registered voter. Jesus did say to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and also Paul in Romans speaks about the powers that be are ordained of God and so if a power that be allows for its people to vote on issues that happen to be of moral concern then it seems we do have a moral delimma. But all is in His hands ultimately and so not to make these issues more important then trusting God but out of trusting God as revealed in the scriptures what are we to do in faith. Are we to vote or not vote? Is it immoral to vote is it immoral to not vote? For the sake of the babies in mothers wombs and God's definition of marriage and so on and so forth I take the side that it is immoral not to vote but I understand that when we do vote sometimes we are approving other things that may be wrong also so I can see why one would not vote like in this case with McCain possibly coming up I don't think I am going to vote but that is for a reason rooted in that we should vote for the best possible candidate and that this year we just don't have one possibly. But I am sure there are good reasons on the otherside of this coin.

Thank God that salvation doesn't hinge on these issues and thus it is not to be projected into a salvafic issue at all and that these issues are really after salvation and issues that we work out as we learn more of our Creator and His will for each one of our lives and that the most important thing in light of eternity is trusting in the one who inhabits eternity.

I will shut up now. Sorry all. Take care all. But I couldn't help it. So sorry!!!!