WASHINGTON, November /ChurchFeed News/ –Don Feder, editor of the Boycott The New York Times website (BoycottNYT.com), noted that The New York Times intentionally left out most of the relevant details in reporting on the ongoing effort to overturn California’s Proposition 8 (the marriage-protection amendment to the state constitution) in an article the paper published on November 18.“Tuesday’s story is a continuation of The New York Times’ biased coverage of the entire Prop. 8 campaign,” Feder wrote on BoycottNYT.com. “In evaluating The Times’ coverage of any issue, what’s not reported is as important as what is.”

The Times story focuses on California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s request that the State Supreme Court review the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in response to protests and lawsuits.Among the facts The New York Times conveniently left out of the story are the following:

Same-sex marriage was never part of the California Constitution. It was forced on the state in May, by an edict of the same court now being asked to rule on the legality of Prop. 8.

Despite massive opposition by the mainstream media, including The New York Times, Prop. 8 passed by a vote of 52% to 48%. Now, citizens of 30 states have enacted marriage-protection amendments, by an average vote of 68%.

In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Prop. 22, a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman. The Court swept that aside with its mandate, necessitating the marriage amendment.

Those demonstrations by opponents of Proposition 8 the paper mentioned in passing are often aimed at the Mormon and Catholic Churches and are frequently violent. At one, an elderly woman was assaulted by an anti-Prop. 8 mob.

Feder’s commentary on The Times’ ongoing distortion of the California marriage debate is available at: http://boycottnyt.com/what-the-times-forgot-to-mention-about-californias-marriage-amendment

About Boycott The New York TimesA project of Accuracy In Media (AIM), Boycott The New York Times is the first project to call for a general boycott of America’s most biased news outlet. For more information, go to www.boycottnyt.com and www.aim.org.

To arrange an interview with Don Feder, contact Sarah Schaerr Norton at (202) 364-4401 ext. 107 or sarah.schaerr@aim.org.

SOURCE: ACCURACY IN MEDIA

UC Berkeley Department of Public Science Chairman Emeritus Eugene C. Lee: “Specific changes to the California constitution may be proposed by amendment. Substantial changes may be proposed by a constitutional convention or by the legislature as constitutional revisions.”

Sacramento, California — With their vote under attack by liberal county governments, homosexual activists and the ACLU, many Californians are wondering whether they’ve lost the right to amend the constitution. The answer is no, according to the constitution itself and the legislative and legal history regarding the difference between an “amendment” and a “revision.”

“The Supreme Court knows the difference between a single-subject, voter-initiated amendment and a multi-issue, legislature-initiated, whole-scale revision that alters many sections of the state constitution,” said Thomasson. “The first clue is revisions always require a two-thirds legislative vote, but voter-initiated amendments such as Prop. 8 are directly added to the constitution by the people. Thank God that the state constitution tells us ‘all political power is inherent in the people,’ that ‘they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require’” (California Constitution, Article II, Section 1).In 1978, the California Supreme Court distinguished between a revision of the constitution and a mere amendment of the constitution, stating that a revision referred to a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions” (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208).

The California Constitution itself states that the people may amend the Constitution by the initiative process, where they collect signatures, qualify an amendment to the Constitution, and pass it. No legislative “permission” is required for voter-initiated amendments such as Proposition 8. “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative” (Article 18, Sec. 3).Explaining the clear distinction between an amendment and a revision is University of California, Berkeley Department of Public Science Chairman Emeritus Dr. Eugene C. Lee, who, in 1991, wrote:”Specific changes to the California constitution may be proposed by amendment. Substantial changes may be proposed by a constitutional convention or by the legislature as constitutional revisions. Regardless of their origin, all changes must be approved by a majority of the electorate voting on the issue. Legislative amendments, the method most commonly used, require a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature. Initiative amendments may be placed on the ballot by a petition of registered voters equal in number to 8 percent of the total vote cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. By explicit language in the constitution concerning initiatives and by court interpretation with respect to measures arising in the legislature, amendments are required to be limited in scope. As far back as 1894, the California Supreme Court distinguished between a revision of the constitution and a mere amendment thereof (Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113). As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a revision referred to a ’substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions’ (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208).”
– Eugene C. Lee, “The Revision of California’s Constitution,” April 1991, commissioned by the California Policy Seminar, UC Berkeley

SOURCE: CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

SANTA ANA, Calif., Nov. 14  Leaders representing the broad coalition of Californians who supported Proposition 8 called on leaders of the No on Proposition 8 campaign, in addition to Senator Diane Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to denounce the attacks against citizens who supported the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

“Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials. Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening. Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger while churches are being attacked? And where is Senator Dianne Feinstein while people are losing their jobs and grandmothers are being bullied by an angry mob?” said Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert.

The statement was made at the first press conference of the Protect Marriage coalition since election night when Proposition 8 was passed by California voters with 52.5% of the vote. In the past ten days, hostility has increased against people whose only offense was to exercise their right to participate in the political process.

Some of the outrageous activities include:

In Sacramento, a musical theater director was forced to resign after he was blacklisted for contributing $1000 to the initiative;

A Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles has been boycotted after a relative of the owner donated to the coalition;

Numerous churches have had their property defaced;

And an unknown white powder was mailed to several LDS temples and the National Headquarters of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization that supported the campaign.

The leadership of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, a group of interfaith religious leaders, community leaders from a wide range of ethnic groups, and approximately 500 supporters of Yes on Proposition 8 gathered in Santa Ana to voice their opposition to the increasing attacks and harassment against supporters of traditional marriage.

Speaking on behalf of the African American community, Pastor Ed Smith of the Zoe Christian Fellowship of Whittier said: “Marriage is important to members of all faiths and all communities, but an election was held, the outcome was fair and people throughout California should honor it.”

“For 14 months, we have been called bigots and hatemongers and we have not retaliated against these unprecedented attacks,” Pastor Jim Garlow said. “But we will not be silenced.”

SOURCE The ProtectMarriage.com Yes on 8 Campaign

ChurchFeed News is looking for news and information writers. Are you looking for a platform to voice send your voice across the internet?

Sign up today for your news blog at ChurchFeed Blogs

Inspire magazine – the UK’s largest circulation monthly title serving the Christian community – is to honour individual Christians and churches making a difference in their communities, in the 2008 Inspire Awards.

The winners and runners-up in two categories – Inspiring Individual and Inspiring Church – will be announced at a special reception in Parliament on Thursday 20 November (12.30-2pm).

Over the last year Inspire has invited readers to nominate individuals who are inspiring role models and churches making a positive impact on their communities.

The eight shortlisted candidates – four in each category – were whittled down from nearly 150 nominations by judges drawn from the Inspire editorial team, its publisher CPO and partners CMS, Church Army, Nationwide Christian Trust and Stewardship.

Said Inspire Editor, Russ Bravo: “The media are often full of doom and gloom stories, but we know that so much fantastic work is going on around the UK because of ordinary people believing in an extraordinary God. We want to tell those stories – and celebrate them!”

The winners in each section will receive trophies and a prize of £250 (individual) and £500 of CPO resources (church). The two runners-up will receive a trophy. The prizes will be awarded by CPO CEO Paul Slide and representatives from Inspire’s partner organisations. A number of MPs are also expected to attend the event at the Palace of Westminster.

The winners names will be released after 20 November.

For details of shortlisted candidates in each category please see below. For further information about Inspire Magazine or the Inspire Awards, call Russ Bravo on 01903 604343 or Sharon Barnard on 01903 604358.

www.inspiremagazine.org.uk

Note to Editors

Shortlisted candidates in the Inspiring Individual category:

Lisa Bullock and Esther Peggs (supporting socially excluded youngsters in Holywell, Flintshire through Hope37)

Beverley Carter (from Southampton, who started Bridging the Gap to raise awareness about the dangers of prostitution)

Janis Feely (founder of The Living Room, a Christian-based addiction treatment centre in Stevenage)

Anna and Steve Hartland (who run Loaves ‘n’ Fishes, providing household furniture to the needy in the West Midlands)

Shortlisted candidates in the Inspiring Church category:

Elim Church, Honley, West Yorkshire
King’s Arms Church (King’s Arms Project), Bedford
New Hope Community Church, Southampton
Sandy Lane Community Church, Oldham, Lancs

Inspire Magazine, which started in 2006, is distributed free to more than 80,000 every month in churches across the UK and is funded by partner organisations, advertising and donations.