This is an alert from Florida's Yes2Marriage.org campaign:

Last night at 5:01pm, so called "gay marriages" started being performed in California for the first time. Unlike in Massachusetts where homosexual marriages are limited to the recognition of residents from just that state, now same sex couples from all over the country will rush to California to try and get "married." They will then return to states like New York to try to force recognition of these illegitimate unions. This kind of radical social change could easily happen in Florida over just the next 9 months.

By Early 2009, Florida's Supreme Court Will Completely Change
With the recent resignation of Jeb Bush appointees Florida Supreme Court Justices Raul Cantero and Kenneth Bell, coupled with the mandatory retirement ages of Justices Charles Wells and Harry Lee Anstead in early 2009, the makeup and membership of the Florida Supreme Court will undergo a total change in well under 12 months. We hope and pray that Governor Charlie Crist will do what he promised to do in his campaign, namely appoint judges who will "strictly interpret the law, not expand upon it or legislate from the bench." Time will tell. However Florida voters will not have to wait around to see which direction the court goes in order to protect marriage thanks to the Yes2Marriage.org Campaign.

The People-- and Not Judges Should Decide This Issue
By voting "Yes" on Amendment 2 on November 4, 2008, Floridians will simply take the existing state marriage law and place it into the state constitution, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Unlike most amendments, Amendment 2 does nothing new but merely protects something timeless, longstanding and precious. The people-- and not activist judges should decide the future of marriage in Florida. Homosexual opponents of Amendment 2 have been whining for months with the curious observation that Amendment 2 is supposedly not necessary because "Florida law already prohibits gay marriage". What is happening in California right now runs a locomotive through these disingenuous arguments.

Legalizing Gay Marriage Forces Thousands of Other Laws to Also Be Changed
The innocent-sounding idea of gay marriage has wide spread and far reaching consequences to the transformation of law, culture and society. When marriage is legally redefined, it simultaneously changes thousands of other laws. Marriage license forms will issued to "Party A and Party B". The words "husband and wife" will be removed and replaced with "partners". The words "Father and Mother" will become outdated terms. Every aspect of the law is gender-neutered. Laws which reflected the reality of human femininity and masculinity will be erased. Further, public school curriculum and textbooks will be transformed to model homosexual families. In order to avoid lawsuits for discrimination, public schools will begin to teach homosexual behavior as the moral, social and legal equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman. Listen to this NPR radio interview on how public school teacher Deb Allen in Massachusetts teaches lesbian intercourse to eight grade students with models and charts here. I promise you that this nonsense will be coming to Florida at political light speed unless we all work hard to tell others to vote "Yes" on Amendment 2.

This Election Will be Very Close and Your Support Could Make the Difference
Recent polls confirmed what we have known all along. The final vote outcome of Amendment 2 in Florida will be extremely close. So your individual participation can really make the difference between victory and defeat. Every vote cast, every hour volunteered and every dollar donated, will be critical to our success in our state-- a state which has a long history of close elections. Can you imagine this amendment failing by thousands or even only hundreds of votes? What a tragedy! You really can make a difference in this historical effort.

Gay Marriage is Not Inevitable in this Country
Homosexual marriages are not inevitable in this state or in this country. Twenty seven other states have also voted in overwhelming majorities that marriage is and should remain as between a man and a woman. Florida would make the twenty eight state if 60% of voters say "Yes" to Amendment 2.

There is an Associated Press article on two recent moves to recognize gay marriages. In the article, "Gay right activists score wins in NY and Calif" we must ask: What is wrong with this picture?

The article points out, "Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17."

What has gradually and insidiously worked its way into our lexicon is the concept of "gay rights". There are no gay rights, period. Being gay is a life style choice. It is based upon a sexual obsession for the same sex, nothing else. There never has been any legal, moral or social justification for or acceptance of gay sex, until now. The unelected courts in Massachusetts and California have legalized gay marriage. The Governor of New York by executive fiat has recognized gay marriage.

What we are seeing is historic. The unnatural individual decision to enter into sexual relations between men and men and women and women being legalized by those not elected by the people and without the peoples consent.

Abraham Lincoln must be turning over in his grave as this is not a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people".

Our founding fathers understood full well previous experiments and various systems of marriage that had been tried over the millennia. Polygamy, communal living, adultery, state supported single parenthood and homosexuality have all been tried by societies to solve the problem of raging male and female hormones. All have failed.

The only model that has worked from a social, economic and moral perspective is the marriage between a man and a woman. Strong traditional families create more strong traditional families, healthy children, reduce poverty and lead to happiness and fidelity.

We previously wrote an editorial titled, "When did we legalize moral decay?". We citizens have over the years gradually added to the moral decline of our own nation. While we may not have been active participants we have been passive observers. Our passiveness has been interpreted by activists as not "tolerance" but rather as support. We have all gravely erred. We are paying the price in the growth of social ills such as poverty, broken families, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and domestic violence.

As we pointed out in our previous editorial here is how and when in American history we began to legalize moral decay.

First the moral decay of the family and marriage:

"The Flemming Rule (1960) was named for Arthur Flemming, then head of the Department of Health and Human Services, who issued an administrative ruling that states could not deny eligibility for income assistance through the AFDC program on the grounds that a home was “unsuitable” because the woman’s children were illegitimate.

In 1968, the Supreme Court’s “Man-in-the-House” rule struck down the practice of states declaring a home unsuitable (i.e., an immoral environment) if there was a man in the house not married to the mother. Thus, out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation were legitimized. In very short order, the number on welfare tripled and child poverty climbed dramatically." Janice Shaw Crouse, TownHall.com, November 23, 2007

The moral decay of social values:

Abington Township School District v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case argued on February 27–28, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963. In the case, the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional.

The moral decay of the respect for life:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid.

And finally, we have added to this inglorious list the further destruction of the family by the State of Massachusetts and the California Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage, and NY Governor David Patterson ordering state agencies "including those governing insurance and health care - to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages."

So long as we the people remain passive, we as a society will fall because the building block upon which all great societies are based is the traditional family.

We support Florida Amendment 2 that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. We cannot be passive and we are beyond tolerance. Action is needed, our voices must be heard on November 4th at the ballot box.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune again wants to do the same things in their editorial, "Confronting violence" and they keep expecting different results. This is called insanity.

In their editorial about growing gang and drug related violence they lament the, "brutality roaring through our communities, from Rubonia to Newtown to North Port and Punta Gorda. The stories are not uncommon in our nation, but they are happening here, in long-troubled neighborhoods, in normally peaceful public places, in streets where it was once a common assumption that a child was safe to ride his bike."

Strong words. Sound like Baghdad? This is the fear they use to demand action. But what are their solutions?

"There are marches. And forums. And candlelight vigils. And talk of building parks and basketball courts and persuading young people early in their lives to avoid gangs and drugs.

All of those efforts -- particularly, we emphasize, the call for a major reinvestment in early-childhood education -- are commendable. Each initiative sends an important message to cold-blooded killers that there are people here who care, who will demand justice, who will not cower."

Gangs will cower because we hold candle light vigils and invest in early childhood education? I don't think so. Gangs are vicious, without values and destructive. Our law enforcement must be as vicious in attacking them and we must support their efforts.

They go on to refer to a grand jury report on gangs that recommends better witness protection programs, restricting bonds on gang members and more police and prosecutors.

All of these are doing the same things and expecting different results. None address the root causes of gang and drug related violence.

We wrote two columns on gangs, "Gangs and broken families" and "Fix the flaw in Gun Datatbase".

Why do our youth join gangs?

According to Dr. Gerald L. Zahorchak in testimony to the U.S. Senate on January 19, 2007, "Research has shown two major reasons, or 'root causes,' why young people join gangs.

First, these kids seek a sense of identity and fellowship. A gang provides its members with a degree of belonging the members think they cannot achieve outside of the gang’s culture. In essence, the gang functions as an extension of, or substitute for, the family or the community.

Second, and perhaps ironically, these kids seek safety. Kids who live in an area that is already overrun with gangs and who are subjected to gang violence often join gangs in an attempt to obtain safety and protection from the violence."

We believe that the solutions presented by the Herald-Tribune article, which will most probably be embraced by our politicians are off target and address the symptoms and not a cure.

The cure is long term, requires a total change in our social behavior, is against the current socially liberal mind set and requires a total rethinking of our government programs.

The solution is build strong traditional families. It is that simple and that complex.

Here are a few ideas on how we can strengthen our families:

Mandate that there is a father and mother in every home with a child.

Subsidize traditional families at all levels of government - socially, morally and economically.

Implement government rules, processes, procedures, regulations, laws and taxes that support traditional families.

Repeal any government rule, process, procedure, regulation, law or tax that does not support traditional families or subsidizes/rewards single parenting or divorce.

Punish single parenting and divorce - socially, morally and economically.

Celebrate marriage, traditional families, stay at home moms or dads, in wedlock child bearing, and healthy and safe homes.

Mandate we have in each family household with a child one of the parents work a full time job.

Mandate couples be counseled by a church, synagogue, public or private counselor on the roles and responsibilities of marriage before issuing a license.

Mandate applicants for marriage licenses be tested for drugs and sexually transmitted diseases.

Mandate sending every child to preschool at the church, synagogue, public or private school that parents choose and pay for. For married couples tuition is free.

Mandate every child in every school be tested randomly for drugs, including steroids.

Do these sound draconian? Do they go against the grain of our current social values? Or will they, and other ideas you may have, re-establish the fundamental building block of our communities and our society - the traditional family?

Strong families, fathers and mothers in every home, drug free schools, churches and a community that completely supports all four will eliminate our violence problem. Continuing to do what we are doing will simply lead to more violence.

What do you think?