Dear readers,

Voters in California have a major decision to make, again.  Voters are being asked to re-vote on the issue of Gay Marriage.  It's certainly a "hot button" issue as Californians already voted on this matter in 2000 as Proposition 22.  The proposition was originally approved by 61% of the voters.  That's what is called a policital mandate.  However, the lobbyists and lawyers for the homosexual movement did not ant to recieve this message and cried on the shoulders of the legal system, eventually convincing the California Supreme Court to agree, 4-3, to overturn the rule of the majority of voters.  I could understand if the original vote was a lot closer, fur, when there's 61% in favor, the Supreme Court should have taken that into account and declined to consider the issue...Actually, it should not have even been heard at the Superior Court level. However, it was, so,here we vote again.

Sadly, courts in this country are not paying heed to the fact that the voters are vitally important to the running of the country.  Instead, when a group comes with their crying that the majority got their way, they are not handed a tissue and told to take a walk, they are instead told, "It's OK...Judgey Wudgey will make it all better and let you beat up on those who are in the majority."

Marriage is something that shouldn't be toyed with.  In the Bible, Eve became Adam's wife and Eve was a woman, Adam a man, so their parts were compatible.  There wasn't some guy named "Steve" there to entice poor Adam into homosexual relations or a gay marriage.  Marriage is the first institution mentioned in the Bible and it's important to note that other religious books don't endorse homosexuality.  The Bible, the Torah, and, I believe the Koran all say that God considers homosexuality to be detestable.  In fact, in Old Testament times, anyone caught engaging in homosexuality was to be removed from the city and stoned to death.  Granted, we don't consider homosexuality to be a capital offense anymore, and, we've "Accepted" it for the most part, it needs to be said that a civil union does not equate a marriage, and, states have revised their laws to allow for civil unions.  Most states have already passed constitutional amendments that bar same sex marriages.  Others have laws on the books that prohibit ministers,  judges and other people who are authorized to perform marriage ceremonies from performing same sex marriages.

Also, there's a potential dangerous side effect here if gay marriages are allowed and, we're seeing that in another state:  Parents will not be allowed the right to opt-out their child from learning that Joe and Jim can be married like Tim and Sue are married.  A man in Mass. was JAILED for objecting to his child being taught that it's OK and "normal" for two men and two woman to be married.  He was told that he had absolutely no right to object and that was upheld by the courts.

If defeated here in California, it opens the door wide open to something just as chilling..."Hate speech" legislation.  This means that, sadly, the First Amendment and similar state amendments guarenteeing free speech may be modified to exclude "hate speech".  In Canada, where they are supposed to enjoy the same rights as Americans, one minister was ordered to keep his mouth shut regarding gay unions...It's considered a hate crime.

The tradeoff is unacceptable, people.  It's state mandated evil!  Are we really willing to give up our rights, because the homosexual lobby is crying into their lawmakers' shoulders.  They already enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals.  They have free speech, the right to gather peacefully, and every single right spelled out in the Constitution.  They do not, however, have the right to impose what they think on a majority of voters who said that they stand with traditional male-female weddings.  They do not have the right to undermine a parent's right to determine what their child(ren) are taught in school.  They certainly do not have the right to dictate what may be considered to be a hate crime.

Moving along, though, I want to voice an opinion on something that is of interest to San Diego voters and that is Prop. D.  This would, if passed, permantely ban alcohol at county beaches.  This came into effect as a temporary measure after a drunken brawl turned into a riot at Pacific Beach (just two blocks from where I live!)

This year, alcohol was banned, and, yes, beach attendance was down a bit.  That's OK because it you've ever tried to get on a beach that has hundreds of thousands of people there, it's impossible to get around without stepping on someone.  And, nearly impossible to enjoy the ocean.  Combine that with a lot of drunk adults, and, it's a recipe for disaster.  If the lifeguards are focused on babysitting a 40 year old drunk guy picking a fight, some other person could be in distress 100 yards offshore.  Also, with booze allowed, the police presence has to be kicked up several notches.

This year, however, people could move around on the beach, lifeguards were focused on the water, and, the police were not at the beach.  There was no problem with man-made piles of litter (the clumps of seaweed don't count).  Also, no loud parties every night disturbing those people in houses and very expensive hotels with oceanside views were happening.

Yes, local liquor stores hate this proposal...they stand to lose business.  That's their own fault as they provided alcohol to people that couldn't handle it.  But, they need to look at something that makes the loss of a few sales of beer look small...We're heading into a massive, global depression.

More on that in a later post.