NOM BLOG

DEADLINE EXTENDED! Last Chance to Help Stop SB 48!

 

http://www.nomblog.com/14430/

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last chance! The petition deadline for Stop SB 48 has been extended to October 10th.

All petitions must be received in the Stop SB 48 offices by Monday, October 10. If you haven’t yet submitted your petitions, please do it right away!

The volunteers at Stop SB 48 are giving Californians a critically important opportunity to decide what is taught to your school-age children. Unless we all come together to stop it, SB 48 – signed into law by Governor Brown earlier this year -- would force schools to teach students (even kindergartners!) about homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism as part of a social science curriculum.

It takes a little over 500,000 valid signatures to put SB48 on the ballot, and StopSB48.com reports they are getting closer every day as bags of signed petitions are pouring in to the Stop SB 48 offices.

Please click on the button below and follow the instructions to print and sign the petition right away, and then return it to StopSB48 campaign offices immediately.

Please visit StopSB48.com right now to get started:

  1. Click here to download the petition (make sure Page Scaling is set to "none" when you print the petition)

  2. Click here to download instructions

  3. Sign the petition

  4. Ask 5 friends to sign the petition

  5. Return the signed petitions to Stop SB 48, 660 J Street, Suite 250, Sacramento, CA 95814 by October 10th.

Please do whatever you can today to help spread the word. Forward this email to family and friends. Even take petitions with you to church on Sunday -- just be sure to get all petitions to the Stop SB 46 offices in Sacramento by Monday!

Thank you for your support of this historic effort.

Faithfully,

Brian Brown

Brian Brown

Brian S. Brown
Treasurer
NOM California PAC

13 Comments

  1. RC
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    This has to do with 'Marriage' how again? I mean it must, right? because youa re not 'anti gay' just anti gay marriage right?

  2. Sam Snell
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    I thought SB 48 was about LGBT history. Can someone explain how it will force schools to teach students about homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism?

  3. TC Matthews
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    RC, whether you're attacking marriage or family, it's all the same logic. Putting someone's choice of behavior over everyone else's right to believe how they choose is something everyone ought to know about.

    "The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it."

    That's from their webpage.
    You can find more about what NOM believes here: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3479573/k.E2D0/About_NOM.htm
    :-)

  4. TC Matthews
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    RC, here's another relevant statement from NOM on the subject of marriage:

    4. What’s the harm from SSM?

    A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

    A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

    “Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

    “Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

    “When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

    “One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

    http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm

  5. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 2:13 am | Permalink

    “Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

    And that's the really scary part, because they won't be mentioning how dangerous same-sex intimacy is, how those who engage in it are at much higher risk for domestic violence, deadly disease, physiological damage to body organs, higher rates of depression and suicide, higher rates of controlled-substance abuse, or the vastly higher #'s of partners one has over the lifetime of the individual. Nope, none of that will get mentioned at all.

  6. mcewen
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    TC - here is the answer:

    What about the rights of same-sex couples? Also, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home and no doubt, that number has increased. And according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the University of California, Los Angeles, Black or Latino gay couples are twice as likely as whites to be raising children. What about the rights of these families?

  7. Sam Snell
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    TC Matthews

    Your kid or grandkid comes to you and tells you he/she is gay. What will you do?

  8. TC Matthews
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Couples don't have rights. People have rights. You and I have all the same rights. Black, Latino, white, it doesn't matter, the law applies to all equally.

    Raising a child doesn't mean you're entitled to be called married. Single mothers aren't married, they raise kids every day. It's not ideal, but it's reality.

  9. TC Matthews
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Sam, If one of my children, grandchildren, family member, whatever, comes to me and says they're feeling gender confusion or same sex attraction, I'd love them and stand by them like any loving parent. Would I say it gives them carte blanche to act immorally? No. I would expect them to live a moral life regardless of whatever temptations came easily to them. The same goes for my son who gets into drugs, or my son who becomes an alcoholic, or my son who feels that stealing things is the answer to that emptiness inside. We all have struggles in life, but in the end, we're all just people, doing our best.

  10. Louis E.
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    McEwen,it should be seen as a violation of a child's rights to be consigned to the custody of a same-sex couple,and those in a same-sex couple should be seen as accomplices in wrongdoing.

  11. Little man
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    I just have a small correction: The sexual subject matter on this blog sometimes results in implied language. For instance, the phrase: "two men being intimate" does not refer only to intimacy. Two men can embrace as friends, and relatives and friends can be intimate without implying sodomy. We men much prefer how women smell when they are more physically accessible, than the scent of other men. Dating rules and laws, and marriage (religious or civil) protects women from men reacting to a woman's (sometimes unconscious) sexual signals. In the same way, a man and a woman can be intimate to a certain extent without becoming a sexual act, like a brother and sister. There are non-sexual ways to touch a woman friend, or a woman in need. She can tell the difference immediately. (Of course, better not to experiment too much). To brand intimacy as a sexual act deprives us from human expression that is positive and more a part of other cultures, comparatively. When we talk to each other we are being intimate, breathing the air exhaled from the other person's lungs. When we shake hands we are holding one of the dirtiest parts of the human being. When we eat together, we are invisibly spraying each other's meal with our saliva. Even the waitress talking over your food is being intimate (I would rather go get my own food). Intimacy is the proximity which risks our biological interaction, out of trust. Afraid to use the word a n a l c o p u l a t i o n ? I wonder why... Face it, that's why same-sex civil marriage is not an over-the-dinner-table topic, as with other gross subjects... We leave it for others to look "radical" by going there. It's a free country.

  12. Mikhail
    Posted October 7, 2011 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    There is no reason to be against homosexuality if you are an atheist, that is absolutely true. However, that does not mean that a secular society has to PROMOTE these relationships to families which are christian, muslim, jewish etc.

    I dont want my son to turn gay after being exposed to this indoctrination

  13. Leehawks
    Posted October 11, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    As I asked previously about this bill in CA, how do they discern the historical contributions of the sexually challenged? Were they heading into battle or legislating - with their genitals? Totally incomprehensible!