It’s wrong and sad that homosexual activists claim to be victims all the time ,when they’re busying squashing everyone else’s rights and values, and interrupting even special days that celebrate the romantic bond between a man and a woman.
On Monday, homosexual activists in California protested against defining marriage as between a man and a woman in acts of civil disobedience at county clerk’s offices, in San Diego, Los Angeles, Modesto, Fresno, Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, Martinez, Woodland, and Arcata. This came as the California Supreme Court prepares to opine on whether Prop. 8 proponents can defend the vote of the People when California Gov. Jerry Brown would not.
VIDEO: Homosexuals hijack Valentine’s Day
READ: KGO-TV reports: Randy Thomasson is one of the main critics of same-sex marriage. He is President of an organization called Save California. He tells ABC7, “If you don’t have marriage between a man and a woman, you just don’t have marriage.”
SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE
February 14, 2011
Randy Thomasson on Valentine’s Day assault on marriage
“If you don’t have a man and a woman, you just don’t have marriage”
Sacramento, California – SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson today issued the following statement regarding homosexual activists in California demanding marriage licenses in protest of natural man-woman marriage:
“Some people misunderstand what marriage really is. If marriage can mean anything, marriage will ultimately mean nothing. The beautiful creation of marriage is designed exclusively for a man and a woman, biologically, sexually, and reproductively. No relationship can be equated with or compared to marriage. For if you don’t have a man and a woman, you just don’t have marriage. This is why the people of California have consistently voted to protect marriage licenses for only a man and a woman. And it’s why the courts should respect what the California Constitution clearly states, that ‘all political power is inherent in the people.'”
Read our Prop. 8 federal appellate court amicus brief