Yes on 8, Protect Marriage - Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children

The following statement was released to the press corps following the conclusion of the closing oral arguments:

“Today marked the end of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial to protect and preserve the constitutionality of marriage between a man and a woman. Since the lawsuit was filed more than one year ago and the trial began in January, we now await Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, fully aware that we are still early in the process, as most legal experts expect that the issue will eventually land at the Unites States Supreme Court.

“Regardless of the outcome of the trial held in San Francisco, we are very pleased with the fullness of the record we have created to support the longstanding policy favoring traditional marriage, and we think that record will serve us well on appeal.

“What is ultimately at stake in this case is the notion that legislative decisions on policy such as government’s recognition of marriage belong to the people and their elected representatives; it is not for the courts to legislate from the bench.

“Very simply put, the public has a strong interest in channeling natural procreation into stable and enduring relationships between men and women and increase the likelihood that those children will be raised by both a mother and a father, and those interests justify the unique and special status of traditional marriage.

“For our opponents to say, as they have repeatedly, that there is no rational reason for limiting marriage to a man and a woman except for animus and bigotry is to spurn 7 million Californian voters, 70 of 108 judges, the vast majority of state legislatures and electorate after electorate who support marriage between a man and woman.”

Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com

We informed you a few days ago that Judge Walker submitted questions that he expected attorneys for both sides to answer at the closing arguments today. You can view them on our website by clicking on the Perry v Schwartenegger link. You can also follow our posts live from the courtroom on Twitter @protectmarriage.

As promised, this is another in a series of emails to update you about our legal advocacy in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial to preserve traditional marriage.

Perhaps the most critical feature of traditional marriage is the impact the institution has on the creation and raising of children. Simple biology proves that relationships only between a man and woman can result in the creation of a child.  It just can’t happen between two men or two women. Further, experts around the globe agree that the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Logically, it only makes sense that society would want to encourage marriage between a child’s biological mother and father, and that is exactly what California (and virtually every other state) has always done. But more than logic supports the public policy adopted by the voters when they enacted Proposition 8.

The contention that there is no discernable difference in the impact on the cognitive, emotional and social well-being of a child between opposite-sex married couples and homosexual couples just isn’t borne out by social science.  It is at the core of why Prop 8 was placed on the ballot and why more than seven million Californians supported it.

Like everything else in life, there are exceptions to the rule, but social science research indicates that children who grow up in a family setting other than with their two biological parents are at greater risk for a host of negative challenges, including health problems, premature mortality, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, criminal behavior, and incarceration.

If that’s not enough, children who do not live with their married, biological parents are at heightened risk for intergenerational poverty, early sexual activity and pregnancy, and are far more likely to face problems in school and the labor force as they enter adulthood.

As we noted in our Findings of Facts document submitted to the court, “many of the negative outcomes associated with not being raised by married, biological parents become more pronounced (or at least more measurable) in adolescence or early adulthood.” In other words, if the challenges that can be brought about by living outside the traditional two-parent family aren’t immediately revealed, it is quite likely, according to social science, that they will become apparent later in life. That is not the kind of environment any parent or any society should intentionally choose for a child.

These are impacts that have been carefully studied and the results are solidly supported. On the other hand, the rarity and novelty of same-sex parenting means social scientists are currently unable to draw meaningful conclusions about its impact on children. That is why there is such uproar over legislators and judges foisting same-sex marriage as a social experiment upon children.

Yet we are being asked by same-sex marriage advocates to put aside what we know for sure for a “cross your fingers and hope for the best” approach because it suits the political agenda and desire of adults.

To be sure, raising children today is infinitely more difficult than in past generations. Many single moms and dads do heroic work every day to raise their children in a loving, secure and safe environment. They have earned our respect and admiration. But laws and public policies are supposed to promote the ideal – the “common good” – for society, especially when it comes to our children. A child who is left fatherless through divorce or abandonment can certainly be lovingly raised by her mother, just as a single dad can lovingly raise his child without a mother. But to promote the idea of purposefully depriving children of a mother or a father simply because a miniscule portion of the population wants to experiment with homosexual marriage is not an acceptable risk.

As always, we thank you for your continued financial support during the continuing legal battle to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Through the month of April, all donations will be matched thanks to a generous benefactor. Every dollar you give will mean two dollars for the effort. We will continue to keep you apprised of the next steps in the San Francisco court case as it unfolds.

As you know, we are still in the thick of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial.  Both sides have submitted post-trial briefs to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for his review. Closing arguments have yet to be scheduled.

Essentially, our post-trial submissions “connect the dots” between our legal arguments and the hard evidence we put forth during the three weeks of courtroom proceedings in January.  This email will provide a snapshot of some of those arguments and evidence.  Look for more discussion of our legal defense of traditional marriage in coming emails.

A primary foundation of our case is the history of the institution of marriage itself and the central role it has played for centuries in societies all across the globe. Historic marriage has its roots in pairing a man to a woman and has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole. In fact, across societies, marriage has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children. As we have noted previously, and one of our expert witnesses spent a great deal of time addressing, the purpose of marriage through the ages has been and continues to be the “guarantee, insofar as possible, that each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world.”

And while it is true that the traditional model of marriage between a man and a woman has been disputed of late in the United States, a set of universal functions of marriage remains:

• Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
• Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible;
• Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
• Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and,
• Providing men with a stake in family and society.

In addition, there are corresponding universal features of the institution of marriage, which include the following:

• High social and legal authority and attractive incentives supporting the institution;
• Maleness and femaleness;
• A definition of eligible partners;
• A public dimension;
• Encouragement of procreation under specific conditions;

Mutual support between men and women and duties toward children; and
An emphasis on complementary parental roles and relationships.
Simply put, to change the definition of marriage that has served California, the United States and every other country on Earth to include anything other than one man and one woman would result in such a profound change to the structure and public meaning of marriage as to severely damage society, possibly beyond repair.

As we indicate in our Findings of Fact court brief, “no society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships.”

This is precisely what we are fighting for, what your vote in favor of Proposition 8 was predicated upon, and what we need your support to help preserve. With your support we will continue to put our best legal minds to work throughout this arduous process.

We will continue to share with you, our partners in this epic battle, the core components of our legal case.

This is one of my favorite times of the year. From a personal perspective as a devout Christian, it’s such a joy to celebrate the resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That single event changed the entire course of human history. It’s the source of hope for all mankind.

This is also the time of the Jewish Passover, celebrating the Exodus of the Jewish people from slavery in ancient Egypt. It’s one of the most widely observed Jewish holy days as a time to celebrate the endurance of the Jewish people throughout history.

Regardless of one’s religious views, though, this is also the time when spring is in the air! Nature all around us is beginning to come alive — wildflowers bloom, the grasses are lush with greenery, a new generation of animals are born to the flock, and the air is filled with the sounds of birds chirping and nature awakening.

Some truths are simply enduring. Spring follows winter. Rivers flow to the sea. The sun rises at dawn and sets at dusk. It takes the fruit of a man and the womb of woman to make a baby.

Marriage is an eternal and enduring truth. We find ourselves in a strange time when somehow marriage has become political, something to be redefined to suit a political agenda. But the truth is that marriage is as enduring as springtime. It’s between a man and a woman, simple as that. No judge and no advocacy group has the power to change what all of human history has known to be true.

With all the political and legal skirmishes we‘ve found ourselves fighting over the past several years, it’s easy to lose sight of this simple and enduring truth: marriage is what it always has been, the sacred bond between a man and a woman.

Thank you for all you have done to support the enduring truth of marriage. May God richly bless you and your family during this wonderful time of year.

There has been an interesting, though not completely unexpected, turn of events in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal trial. You’ll recall from a previous email that Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero had ordered the ACLU, Equality California, and others to turn over to our legal team the internal campaign records of the “No on 8” campaign that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8. The same kind of internal campaign records belonging to Prop 8’s sponsors had already been disclosed under the court’s earlier ruling before the start of trial. Spero’s order simply required the same disclosure of the “No” campaign that the “Yes” campaign had been forced to make.

Claiming that Spero’s order was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” our opponents quickly appealed his ruling to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in hopes of preventing our defense team from seeing evidence that could weaken the legal challenge against Prop 8. A district judge can overturn a magistrate’s order only upon a finding of clear error, reaching a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” To Judge Walker’s credit, last week he ruled that Judge Spero’s decision to compel our opponents to disclose their internal records was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and therefore denied their appeal.

Judge Walker affirmed that the “documents from the No on 8 campaign could be relevant to the question of why voters approved Proposition 8, as the messages from the No on 8 campaign were part of the mix of information available to the voters.” So now, even though the live witness testimony phase of the trial has been completed, our Prop 8 Legal Defense team will finally have an opportunity to review our opponents’ campaign records – just as they have already reviewed ours – and potentially submit evidence and arguments to counter our opponents’ claims that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

In upholding Spero’s order, Walker also maintained the March 31st deadline for our opponents to turn over their documents, and gave our legal team a two-week period to add any newfound evidence into the trial record. Regardless of whether that schedule will hold, at some point our legal team should be able to undertake the critical task of pouring over the documents with a fine-toothed comb. Because we may be limited to such a short time in which to cull through tens of thousands of expected documents, the Prop 8 team of attorneys will likely be required to work around the clock to finish the task. We appreciate any donation you can make to help cover the expenses of this herculean effort.

Not surprisingly, Equality California and the ACLU have appealed Judge Walker’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And Judge Walker has already issued a ‘stay’ of his own order for document disclosure for a week, while our opponents ask the Ninth Circuit to intervene. This means that even now – months after our side was forced to disclose internal campaign records to our opponents – we continue to wait while our opponents refuse to disclose the same kind of evidence.

As always, we appreciate your support and will keep you posted as the process continues.

A cornerstone of the plaintiffs’ legal strategy in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case is the political powerlessness of homosexuals. On cross-examination, our legal team was able to tear giant holes in this bogus assertion, noting that the homosexual lobby has reliable and active allies in the White House, our State House and in cities and counties across California.

Now comes news of strong-arming another influential association into submission, underscoring the political success of those who want society to accept gay “marriage” as normal.

LifeSiteNews.com reported an alarming behind-the-scenes look at how same-sex marriage advocates bullied the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) into flip-flopping its long-held position on traditional marriage.

Prior to the Prop 8 victory in November 2008, homosexual activists pointed out to the CAMFT that other mental health organizations such as The American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, had all come out in support of deconstructing the legal definition of traditional marriage. After the passage of Prop 8, a Los Angeles psychotherapist group started to play hardball, launching a petition drive to cut ties with the association if it did not oppose Prop 8 in an amicus brief. Meanwhile, two schools also encouraged students and faculty of psychology programs to disavow CAMFT over the issue.

In a written response to the schools, CAMFT Executive Director Mary Riemersma stated that the board of directors “was troubled by your ‘bullying’ tactics and threats to abandon your involvement in the Association because the Board chooses to take a course different than you demand. And while the Board understands that each of you can and will make your own decisions about your future involvement in CAMFT,” she continued, “it is very disturbing that those of you…would jeopardize the wellbeing of your students and their future careers by failing to inform them of CAMFT’s importance to their careers and the many resources available to them from CAMFT. That is not only disheartening, it is in fact frightening.”

Shortly thereafter, homosexual activists created a new group to further push the issue: the California Therapists for Marriage Equality (CTME). The CTME’s goal was to “reconstitute the CAMFT Board” to advance their agenda, as well as pressure the group by withholding dues and other initiatives.

CAMFT bent to the pressure by publishing several articles in their association magazine on the issue of same-sex marriage, but it wasn’t enough for homosexual activists who were disgruntled that half of the articles were critical of same-sex marriage, including examinations of child-rearing in same-sex couple households, the effects of legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and the detrimental effect of the marriage debate on religious counselors. The new group quickly made some forceful demands: that CAMFT retract the articles, apologize for them, formally assent to same-sex “marriage,” create and maintain “an LGBTQ Task Force of [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning] people and their allies,” allow such members on its board, publish a magazine with content condemning “homophobia,” and “promptly schedule an LGBTQ sensitivity training for all members of the CAMFT Board and management.”

Since then, the 30,000-member CAMFT has complied with at least the first three requirements. It has also signed an amicus curiae brief as demanded by one of the petitions. Meanwhile, according to the article, at least one high-ranking CAMFT leader was forced to resign, based on that individual’s strong stance in favor of traditional marriage. Next month, CAMFT will host an annual conference in Los Angeles, with the theme of “diversity.”

A celebratory announcement on CTME’s website credits “countless hours and the efforts of hundreds” who pressured CAMFT for the shift in viewpoint. So much for the homosexual lobby being powerless. And so much for CAMFT holding to an objective, research-based platform.

We depend on your generous support to continue to fight against the homosexual marriage activists whose relentless bullying is paying off, little by little. Their strategy is to chip away at groups, one by one, until marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is commonplace and marriage between a man and a woman is a relic. Please help us fight this ongoing battle.

On a sad note, last week California’s conservative movement lost a dedicated leader. Pastor Don Hamer of San Diego was a vocal and committed supporter of Prop 8. He died of a heart attack on Wednesday.  In addition to being a steadfast champion of traditional marriage, Don had recently founded Better Courts Now, a group dedicated to electing judges who will honor the rule of law. I was among those privileged to know Don and provide testimonial on the group’s website, along with many other familiar Prop 8 supporters.

We will miss his unwavering support and vision for safeguarding traditional marriage. Please join me in keeping his family and friends in our prayers during this difficult time.

Last week, we finally received some good news about our efforts to level the playing field in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. As you may recall, when the live testimony phase of the trial concluded in late January, our opponents “rested their case,” but our outstanding team of attorneys defending Prop 8 did not. The reason? Even at that late hour we were still waiting for Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to rule upon our significant pending motion, by which we asked the Court to direct the leaders of the No on 8 Campaign to release to us the same types of internal campaign memos, strategies, and communications that we at ProtectMarriage.com had long before already been forced to hand over to them to use as evidence during the trial.

Under normal circumstances, judges ensure that the discovery and disclosure of potentially relevant evidence occur well before trial, and certainly no later than during the evidentiary portion of the trial. That is exactly what Judge Walker had ordered ProtectMarriage.com and the proponents to do. However, even as the trial was drawing to a  close, Judge Walker still had not taken up our “motion to compel discovery” which would have ordered the opponents of Prop 8 to also disclose any of their internal documents of the same kind we had been compelled to disclose. Of course we disagreed from the outset with the idea that any of these internal campaign records should have to be produced— by either side.  But once the ground rules had been laid to force us to disclose our confidential records, it was shocking and upsetting to see those rules not applied equally to our opponents.

So after the live testimony in the case had concluded, Chief Judge Walker referred our request for equal treatment to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero.  Despite being outnumbered in the courtroom by 10-to-1, our attorneys clashed once again in the San Francisco Courtroom, arguing forcefully that the “No” campaign should be held to the same legal standards that the “Yes” campaign has had to endure in this case.  Last week, Magistrate Spero ordered the No on 8 groups (Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee, and the No on Prop 8 umbrella campaign) to produce to our attorneys copies of all their internal documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”

They have until March 31 to produce these documents to us.

While this is good news for us, it clearly requires more work on our end to comb through potentially thousands of pages of memos, notes and emails in order to analyze and extract their impact on the case.  Even though the Perry case has been out of the headlines, the work for our legal team has not slowed. This is why we ask for your continued financial support as they work tirelessly on your behalf.

Notably, when we sought to protect some of our internal documents as being confidential and privileged, our opponents cried foul.  Yet the executive director of California’s most influential homosexual activist organization is trying to make the case that records of communications from and to his group should be out of bounds.

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors argues that, because EQCA “is a nonparty and because it worked to oppose Proposition 8, its internal campaign communications are not relevant and production would be unduly burdensome.” The ACLU is trying to sing the same song, arguing that the documents we seek are “irrelevant and privileged.”  Of course, prior to being mandated to turn over thousands of our own documents, we made almost exactly the same arguments to the court and yet were denied relief!

Magistrate Spero noted in his ruling that “as was the case with the proponents, the documents and communications at issue may shed light on the meaning and impact of the messages that were sent to the voters. Thus, the subpoenaed documents are relevant and must be produced to the extent the documents…contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”

But the legal shenanigans of our moneyed opponents continue: EQCA has appealed Magistrate Spero’s ruling to Chief Judge Walker, who has granted a hearing on Kors’ motion.  The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16.

We will continue to keep you informed about the progress of this issue and how it may affect the scheduling of a date for closing arguments.  In the meantime, please continue to pray for our attorneys and their staff and all who are involved in this epic battle to preserve traditional marriage.

Dear Friends,

You may recall from one of my earlier e-mails that the plaintiffs’ lawyers, in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution.

When our team of able legal experts questioned the plaintiffs’ witnesses on this matter, they were forced to acknowledge that the “gay agenda” has a bevy of esteemed and active elected officials in their stable of support, including both California U.S. Senators, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Governor, the current, openly homosexual California Assembly Speaker, several openly homosexual state senators and/or assembly members, the current mayors of California’s largest cities and the state’s Attorney General.

By that measure alone, it is difficult to accept the notion that homosexuals are a politically powerless lot. Let’s not be naïve, the homosexual lobby holds powerful sway over what goes on in the halls of our state Capitol.

Further, last Friday was the final day lawmakers could introduce legislation in the current session. And guess what? California’s largest homosexual advocacy group, Equality California, sponsored three bills to further advance their agenda, one of which would eliminate what they consider a barrier to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Senate Bill 906 was introduced by openly-gay Senator Mark Leno, who has carried the gay lobby’s water since he was elected.  It removes from current law any obligation by clergy to “marry” same-sex partners and prevents their refusal from having any negative implications on a synagogue or church’s tax-exempt status.

While “divorcing” religious marriage from civil marriage, this bill further exemplifies just how cunning the homosexual lobby can be.  In fact, much can be read into Senator Leno’s comment in the Bay Area Reporter when he said religious entities “have no business interfering with the fundamental right of everyone’s access to marriage.”

Equality California may promote this bill as nothing more than a way to clarify the issue for people who are “confused about the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage,” but what they are really after is a way – any way – to invalidate the votes of 7 million Californians who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Parsing words the way they are with SB 906 is just another clear example of how powerful the homosexual lobby is in exerting its political influence on the rest of society.

On another note, Friday was a big day for our legal team in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.  After weeks of work following the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, our team submitted our post-trial briefings to Judge Vaughn Walker.

We appreciate all of your prayers and financial support throughout these trial proceedings. This is just the first step in a long legal battle to preserve traditional marriage. We are now waiting for Judge Vaughn Walker to announce the date for closing arguments and we will have much work to do for that step in the journey as well. We ask for your continued support through both prayer and financial sacrifice during this time as we move closer toward the completion of the district court trial and then on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will keep you informed as we learn more from Judge Walker.

In public, the leaders of the same-sex marriage movement portray themselves as tolerant and loving, seeking only to access marriage as a way of validating their “loving and committed relationships.” In court, they claim to be politically powerless, requiring judicial intervention to overturn our state constitutional provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thus forcing homosexual marriages onto society. However, outside of court they are anything but powerless or tolerant. Two recent examples illustrate this.

In Oakland, Mayor Ron Dellums re-nominated Lorenzo Hoopes to continue to serve on the board of directors of the nonprofit Paramount Theatre of the Arts, where Hoopes serves as president. At 96 years of age, Hoopes is a revered figure in the Oakland community and has been credited with helping save the Paramount from bankruptcy and the wrecking ball. He was a top executive with Safeway, served on the local school board and also was a local leader of the LDS church, where he helped lead numerous charitable and community improvement projects. None of this matters, however, to those who oppose Proposition 8, because Hoopes donated funds to support its passage. As far as they are concerned, his perspective on marriage and support of Prop 8 makes him ineligible for community service and should subject him to protest and public ridicule. “It’s so insulting,” one homosexual rights leader told the Oakland Tribune about the re-nomination of Hoopes. “Outrageous,” said another. Homosexual activists immediately began to organize, including forming a Facebook group to coordinate their efforts to derail the continued service of this venerable community volunteer. And they succeeded when Mayor Dellums withdrew the nomination before it came to a vote.

Aggressive protests like the one aimed at a 96-year-old community volunteer are, unfortunately, all too representative of the type of intimidation and harassment that has consistently been demonstrated by the homosexual marriage movement during and since the Proposition 8 campaign. In fact, the examples of harassment are so extensive and have become so well documented (they were chronicled in this report by The Heritage Foundation) that they have begun to be mentioned by various commentators, experts and courts, including the United States Supreme Court.

When the backers of Washington state’s Referendum 71 turned in their petition signatures last year, they sought protection in federal court from having to reveal the identity of those who had signed the petitions, fearing that they would be subjected to harassment by pro-homosexual activists. They cited the extensive harassment of supporters of Prop 8, in addition to documented harassment of Referendum 71 backers, and in an 8-1 ruling secured an order from the United States Supreme Court protecting the privacy of the petition signers until the court hears the matter. In our own Perry v Schwarzenegger case, the US Supreme Court’s ruling preventing the broadcast of the trial was based, in part, on the extensive record of harassment of Prop 8 supporters. Of course, the issue of harassment toward those who participate in the political process is not limited to same-sex marriage cases. In their recently decided case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the court said that forcing the disclosure of the names of campaign contributors, “would be unconstitutional as applied to an organization if there were a reasonable probability that the group’s members would face threats, harassment, or reprisals if their names were disclosed.”

ProtectMarriage.com is also involved in a lawsuit concerning disclosure of initiative backers, ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen. This case, brought following the passage of Proposition 8, seeks to protect the identity of initiative contributors and is currently pending in the federal courts. When an initial request for a preliminary injunction was denied, ProtectMarriage.com fully disclosed all information as required by law. However, the case remains pending and is being undertaken by the able legal representation of the Alliance Defense Fund.

The issue of public disclosure was the subject of a February 6th opinion column in the Sacramento Bee, authored by California Fair Political Practices Commissioner Ronald Rotunda. Mr. Rotunda noted the inherent tension between disclosure laws and privacy rights and, speaking purely from a personal point of view and not in his capacity as a Commissioner, opined that the First Amendment may trump disclosure laws in an initiative campaign. He said the First Amendment, “prevents the government from aiding those who disagree in a most disagreeable way.”

The response from homosexual marriage radicals like Equality California was swift and, well, radical. Like those who demand the scalp of a 96-year-old community volunteer in Oakland, Equality California has demanded that Rotunda be removed from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). On February 11th they demanded that California’s governor and legislature immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the commissioner. Equality California also falsely claimed that the FPPC will be asked to decide if Protectmarriage.com has failed to disclose its contributors, which we have already done.

Perhaps Equality California hasn’t gotten the memo from the plaintiff attorneys in the Perry case, that homosexuals are politically powerless. The impeachment threat against Commissioner Rotunda is no idle one. It is an exercise in raw political power by one of the most powerful special interest groups in the entire state. They know that they have the political strength and reliable legislative allies to make this a very viable threat against a dedicated public servant.

This is what we are fighting, and why we continue our multi-pronged effort to preserve marriage in California. Not only have we had to wage epic initiative and court battles, we must also battle our radical opponents in the legislature and court of public opinion, where with a straight face and a sympathetic media, the intolerant demand tolerance, and the powerful feign powerlessness.

Please help us continue our fight. We need your prayers, activism and continued financial support.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director