Congressional Spouse? has posted a video highlighting the lives of two Congressional spouses. One is the wife of Republican freshman from Utah Jason Chaffetz. The other is the gay partner of Democrat freshman from Colorado Jared Polis. They compare/contrast how the conservative father of three Chaffetz and the liberal Polis live and work.

At one point in the video, Polis’ partner describes a story in which he tells how he lost his wallet (in it was his Congressional “spouse” card), sought help from Congressional Member Services to obtain a new one, but was told his designation as a “spouse” was a mistake—that his title should have been “designee” as all other gay partners are. Polis’ partner then goes on to point out the discrimination in our nation against gay people.

What’s interesting to note is that Colorado does not allow same sex couples to marry. Even domestic partnerships are limited (marriage is not allowed, common-law marriage is not allowed, but civil unions are allowed). So Polis and his partner are not, in fact, spouses, but are partners. Even Polis’ Wikipedia page calls them “Domestic Partners.” (Polis’ Congressional site and biography mention nothing about his partner.)

Just so we’re clear, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spouse as “a marriage partner; a husband or wife.” Therefore, it would make sense that only those married couples are spouses. Those with domestic partnerships are partners.

So why is CNN calling him a spouse if he is not? CNN has historically referred to a person based on their legal status rather than their spiritual/personal/marital status. So why the difference now? Now don’t get me wrong, I am not discriminating again gay people. Make them domestic partners and give them rights and freedoms like other Americans. But let’s not call them spouses until they are legally married.

Maybe CNN needs to better choose their words.

California’s Proposition 8 Upheld – The Rule of the People Still Matters!

This article was taken from World Net Daily and was posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

The California Supreme Court today affirmed a voter-approved state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman.

But in a decision today that essentially was a 6-1 vote, the court upheld the estimated 17,000 to 18,000 same-sex relationships that were formalized last year between its approval of “gay marriage” in May and the November ballot initiative that overruled the decision

“We conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision. As a quantitative matter, petitioners concede that Proposition 8 – which adds but a single, simple section to the Constitution – does not constitute a revision,” said the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George.

“As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment. Contrary to petitioners’ claim in this regard, the measure does not transform or undermine the judicial function; this court will continue to exercise its traditional responsibility to faithfully enforce all of the provisions of the California Constitution, which now include the new section added through the voters’ approval of Proposition 8,” he said.

“Furthermore, the judiciary’s authority in applying the state Constitution always has been limited by the content of the provisions set forth in our Constitution, and that limitation remains unchanged,” said George. Continue reading

Miss California Stands up for Traditional Marriage

The following is a letter from Ron Prentice, Chairman of the Yes on 8 Campaign in California.

Last night during the Miss USA contest, one of the contest judges, gay gossip blogger Perez Hilton, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean that since Vermont has now legalized gay marriage shouldn’t every state follow suit? Ms. Prejean had the courage to express her views and said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Ms. Prejean’s comments were cheered by the crowd, but a smattering of jeers could be heard in the background by a few who were incensed at her answer. According to, arguments broke out in the lobby of the theater, with one gay man shouting, “I think it’s ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are.” Is there an unwritten rule that Miss USA contestants must hold values in agreement with homosexual activists?

For his own part, Hilton immediately cut a video blog where he ripped Ms. Prejean, calling her a “stupid b***h” and referring to her in language so vile that it can’t even be hinted at by its first letter. Ms. Prejean was named runner-up in the contest and today there was considerable discussion in the blogosphere about whether her answer might have cost her the title. Prejean told that she had “no regrets” and was happy with the answer she gave.

We’re very proud of Ms. Prejean for speaking her mind in support of traditional marriage. She represented the silent majority in America and expressed a point of view that over 7 million California voters also expressed just last November. In fact, in the history of this issue every single state that has voted on it has voted to affirm traditional marriage. The outcry from some activists in the gay community over Ms. Prejean’s comments are indicative of how far they will go to force their same-sex marriage agenda on society.

Miss California is vilified by Perez Hilton in a video blog for respectfully answering his question, and gay men are shouting against her in the theater lobby. Yet we are supposed to take homosexual leaders at face value that if same-sex marriage were legalized they would never force this teaching onto children in the schools.

Thank you, Miss California, for knowing the truth about marriage and standing up for it, even when you knew that your honest answer may hinder your chances for the crown of Miss USA.

California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions

Yesterday afternoon the Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8.

Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court’s hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature’s passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases.

Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. “How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage,” stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to “retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters” who passed Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an “illegal ex parte communication with the court.” Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing.

Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people’s right to pass Proposition 8.

Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch.

[Written by Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute]