Chino & Chino Hills Community Website, Business Directory & News Articles

CHINO HILLS, Calif.- Supporters of Proposition 8 in Chino Hills have been facing antagonism from two sources: vandals and city hall.

A vandalized car belonging to a Chino Hills family that supports Proposition 8. City officials threatened to fine a church for distributing "Yes on 8" signs and residents who place the signs in their yards. The city backed down after Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter to the mayor. Meanwhile, Chino Hills police are still investigating vandalism to two cars belonging to a family supporting the proposition.

"Supporters of Proposition 8 should not be punished for their position on the marriage amendment," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "They are Americans, and they not only have a right to vote on and promote Prop. 8; they also have a right to be free of fear, intimidation, and the destruction of their property."

Read the story AllianceDefenseFund.org | Posted 10/23/2008

Editor's Note: This story surprised me, especially since I'm quite sure that our Mayor (and I think most of our City Council) supports Prop 8, but these things seem to have occurred and we checked with Calvary Chapel.

In addition, St. Paul the Apostle Church reported last week that over 100 "Support Proposition 8" signs were stolen from their church property. We personally have had our Prop 8 sign stolen from our front lawn.

This is a sad state of affairs on many fronts. The City of Chino Hills is not holding an election this year. City Council Members don't have to bother asking citizens to put signs out on their front lawns. For the City of Chino Hills to actually be contacting citizens for putting Prop 8 signs out is especially offensive this year.

Update: We have now spoken to representatives from the City of Chino Hills and have looked closer at their sign ordinance. It seems that there were plainly some misunderstandings between Calvary Chapel and the city.

There is an ordinance in the City that requires a $250 deposit to be placed with the city when a candidate / sponsor of a proposition wishes for residents to place signs. In the past, candidates (or their supporters) have placed signs illegally on public rights of way which have to be removed by City personnel. The cost of these removals is then charged against that deposit ($20.00 per sign removed).

We think the city communication was taken wrong.

Our city contacts acknowledged that although the ordinance is supposed to apply to all candidates/propositions, even those which are beyond the boundaries of the city, the ordinance isn't quite clear enough and often is unable to be enforced.

After hearing all sides on this, we don't think that the City of Chino Hills has intentionally tried to harass residents about this issue but rather that an attempt to explain the city ordinances became a misunderstanding. The City Attorney has pointed out that the city's sign ordinance is "viewpoint neutral"

Chino Hills Political Sign Ordinance

Sign Ordinance Update - Aug., 2008

Here is my response, chinsnquads, which was crafted to someone else and relates directly to Prop 102 in Arizona yet still applies...

First of all, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful reply, as discussion about this issue obviously can become quite heated.

Yes, I was replying to your post on Alex's wall, as it appeared to echo much of the deceptive language that stemmed from the opponents of Prop. 102, such as Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who claim that Arizonans already voted no on the measure in 2006 (that's a lie, as Prop 107 included civil unions and domestic partner benefits - a measure that I was against) and that there is no purpose to the proposed amendment, as we already have our 1996 statute (which as I stated is also a lie, as the purpose is for proponents of the traditional definition of marriage intend to avoid the litigious chaos that has occurred in California for the better part of a decade).

I did not read Jessica's (my prized bride-to-be) comment, as I did not choose to join the inappropriately named group ("hate" is only jading the issue at large and is also deceitful); however, I am pleased that you are aware of and can sympathize with the victims of the atrocious hatemongering that is stemming from militant marriage amendment opposition members (did you hear about this one on Sunday in Lansing, Michigan of all places http://www.freep.com/article/20081112/NEWS06/811120316/1008/NEWS ?).

I find myself in a quandary in this debate, as I am both a minarchist/libertarian and an Evangelical Christian, and I certainly agree and have been arguing for quite some time that the government should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses, as marriage is a sacred institution (or at least should be). On the other hand, I am 100% in support of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal benefits for couples of either persuasion.

I voted yes on Prop. 102, as our state government does place itself in the marriage business; whereby, I voted to affirm the definition that is already defined by A.R.S. §25-101(C), so that an Arizona Supreme Court Challenge is curtailed if not unfeasible. As I assume you are aware, Art. XXX of the Arizona State Constitution will strictly contain the precisely twenty word definition.

Allow me to further state that as I fully believe in the sanctity of the religious rite of marriage, I also am against any state-sanctioned secular marriages, and do not feel that opposite-sex atheists couples married by a Justice of the Peace, for example, is any more appropriate than a same-sex state-sanctioned secular marriage (I would rather leave it to specific religions and denominations to determine whether same-sex marriage of religious persons is theologically sound within accordance to their respective doctrine - the tenets of my faith hold that such a union is un-Biblical, and in this great free nation, all faiths should maintain the right to determine that for themselves - at least while we still have a judiciary that moderately upholds that Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment). It is my sole belief that any secular union should only be defined as a civil union, and that the state should refrain from using the term marriage altogether. But once again, as the state has interjected itself within the institution, it is my belief that the definition itself, not the benefits, should apply as society has defined it for thousands of years.

I would question anyone who believes that the state should expand the definition of marriage as to how far they feel that the expansion should reach. We must also be mindful of other groups who would like to be married to multiple persons, persons under the age of eighteen, and yes, even persons who would like to marry animals. While this may sound like an outlandish argument (notably the latter of the trio), I would like to know whether any proponent of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage feels that polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality are immoral practices, and if so, who is it to determine morality? The government? Is there a universal truth or are we a society that succumbs to moral relativism? What is ethical and what rights are inalienable? I believe that these are philosophical questions that both the religious and secular proponents of state sanctioned same-sex marriage are afraid to delve into. If one states that such practices are immoral, hence marriage should not be extended to them, they are placing a judgment on persons who may very well feel that their practices should be equally respected and sanctioned by the government. As a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin (despite the fact that I have gay friends, whom I love dearly - they respect my viewpoints just as I respect theirs) and that marriage is an institution ordained by God, I side with not extending such a religious rite to those engaged in homosexual behavior, but once again, no, I do not want the government involved at all. If one states that there we are void of moral objectivity and the choices of those engaged in polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality are entirely up to them, why not extend the definition of marriage further? Please do not be mistaken in that I am in any manner comparing homosexuality to the other three. This is merely an illustration that I think deserves an honest answer.

As for Focus on the Family and the like, I do appreciate what they do to advocate for family values; however, I do not agree that same-sex marriage is the greatest threat to morality, although I do agree that the best-case scenario for a family raising children is a father and a mother (I could get into psychological factors here, but I will save that for now). I disagree with many on the 'religious right' in that two loving same-sex partners provide a better scenario that that of a single mother or father, hence I am not opposed to gay adoption. I am certainly opposed to Massachusetts banning Catholic adoption agencies though, as this is once again a Free Exercise issue. Let DHS and both secular and religious adoption agencies formulate the policies that they deem best fit.

As for your interjection of outlying issues, like the economy, I assume that you are arguing that the government should increase regulation and provide for the needy through quasi-Marxist redistributive policies. As I stated earlier in what has now become a book (sorry), I am a minarchist/libertarian as well as an Evangelical Christian, so I hope you can appreciate that I advocate for deregulation, freer markets, less taxation, fiscal sanity, the transfer of a multitude of government agencies to the private sector, among many other changes. I believe in 'private socialism,' philanthropy, charity - whatever you choose to call it. Substantially lower the tax burden across the board and trust the common goodness of humanity to take care of the needy through the establishment of NGOs and charitable giving without the inefficient and wasteful hand of bureaucrats.

Back to marriage, while I agree that a Federal Marriage Amendment (which I am against as a states' rights libertarian) could be subject to an equal protection question, I believe that states' rights under the 10th Amendment would override state constitutional amendments, such as Art. XXX, which is now in Arizona's constitution as well as those of 29 other states, although with a potential of five SCOTUS vacancies in the next eight years (if Obama gets reelected), the president will likely nominate hard left judicial activists, which will easily be confirmed by a Democratic majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee (we will not see the extreme degrees of scrutiny that Justices Roberts and Justice Alito underwent in their confirmation hearings). I am confident in the fact that such justices would internationally case law shop on a regular basis and cite rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, for example, which could lead to 'marital equity.'

I am leery of comparing the phenomenon of homosexuality to racial or gender issues, as there is currently not a shred of scientific evidence to conclude that the trait is genetic. To be fair, no, there is not scientific evidence to show the contrary; however, there is of course a scientific consensus in regard to race and gender being genetic traits. Therefore, it is difficult for one to argue that homosexual behavior is innate rather than a lifestyle choice. One does not have a choice over their race or gender (aside from plastic surgery, but I am discussing genetic traits from birth), hence I cannot agree that one can align homosexual inequity with the events leading up to the ratification of the 14th Amendment of 1868, the 15th Amendment of 1870, the 19th Amendment of 1920, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). On a personal level, I have spoken with many black friends and colleagues who are deeply offended that an issue of choice is compared to the struggles that their ancestors have had to undergo.

In conclusion, I implore you to read the dissenting opinions in the May 15 ruling from the California Supreme Court for In Re Marriage Cases (the eight year litigious mess that occurred as a result of Prop. 8 not being passed a decade ago) http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF - begin on page 128 - in order to provide a legal perspective that you may not be accustomed to.

At any rate, my goal in this message is not to persuade you against your beliefs but rather to provide clarity as to where our differences lie. I hope that I have been able to at least be a decent and fair representative of the camp that supported Prop 102, and that any allegations of hatred, bigotry, and ignorance can be put to rest. While there are extremist hateful, ignorant bigots on both sides of the issue, it is only sheer ignorance to assume that there are not valid socio-economic, legal, ethical, scientific, and theological arguments on both sides of the fence.

Take care,

Craig

Ok, SoCal Yankee, joe, and all you other supporters of prop 8, you got your wish that prop 8 passed. You made same sex marriage illegal and wrote discrimination into the Constitution. Congratulations. Just do one more thing and open your minds and your hearts and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xfMisqab8

Respond back after watching, please.

"I would take the signs too!!!! NO ON 8 it's HATE"

Rcinsocal wants equality for gays but wants to surpress political speech of supporters of prop 8...hmmm that seems right doesn't it? You want equality at the expense of the beliefs of others...that's really fair and equal isn't it.

And Chinsandquads thinks kids are already exposed to the gay lifestyle through tv...well let me tell you my kids are not forced to watch those gay lifestyle shows you mention because I HAVE A CHOICE not to watch them. If Prop 8 passes, I won't have a choice, my kids will be forced to learn about the gay lifestyle/marriage in school and I WILL NOT HAVE A CHOICE TO OPT THEM OUT. Now is that equality? Gays can do whatever they want in their own home, but when you start to push your beliefs down my throat, I PUSH BACK! I'm GLAD 8 PASSED. TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ONLY...Gays can have their civil unions.

Hi chinsnquads, I appreciate your tone of reason, however if you do some research on what is happening in Massachusett's you will see that this will lead absolutely to very young children being forced to face issues of sexuality. You cannot discuss the very clear differences of marriage and same sex "marriage" without those questions being raised.

Proponents of same sex "marriage" are the same people who have already passed SB 777 in this state, another law specifically targeting teaching in schools for K-12 students regarding sexual issues.

Those opposing Prop 8 try to frame supporters of having "hate". This is just not true. I am for the passage of Prop 8 and I assure you that I do not hold any hate towards gays.

There is no denying that these types of laws are forcing parents who feel their very young children are not ready for adult topics to deal with them regardless of the parent's wishes in Mass.

Teachers in San Fran have already taken 2nd graders on a field trip to a same sex "marriage". I think this is just the beginning if Prop 8 fails. I encourage people to say yes to Prop 8.

wow, I am completely against Prop 8, but I would NEVER key someone's car. Whoever did that just makes everyone who is against this inequality of a proposition seem-for lack of a better word-bad. Signs are one thing, but someone's car is a whole new thing. Please, vote no on 8. Joe, you're wrong. There are so many rights that a married couple has that a domestic partnership can never have. There are about 1200 rights that are included in marriage that lack. It all relates back to "Seperate but Equal". Doesn't seem like it to me. I highly doubt that schools will start teaching homosexuality in class. Besides, doesn't shows like "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" already introduce children to homosexuality? Why does our bedroom life need to affect others? It won't change the value of a heterosexual marriage, so why is there so much hate? Love doesn't discriminate, so why should marriage??

Those of you opposing Prop 8 are the ones that cry for tolerance and equality. However those of us that think different than you are labeled as "narrow minded", facists, nazis, intolerant. Tolerance and equality goes both ways. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen! Damaging private property, stealing signs and insulting everyone else will not get you anywhere! The people that support Prop 8 don't hate those that are against it. We just don't agree with the things you do...

I disagree that "marriage" should be seen as a right. I also think that, if gay marriage becomes a right in California, that it will force us to begin discussing issues about sexuality with children at too young of an age.

Many in Sacramento have already demonstrated that they want to begin educating our children on issues related to sexuality at a very young age (I'm thinking of SB 777 which also will require these issues to be brought up in schools at too young of an age).

I understand that all the benefits of marriage can be had by a same sex couple through civil unions or other agreements. To change the meaning of "marriage" is not necessary.

I couldn't believe that the city was trying to fine citizens for stating their opinions. Something wasn't right about that. Could this be the first taste of what we can expect if Prop 8 fails?

I believe in equality and fair treatment of all people. I just don't think that we should try to change the meaning and structure of an institution that is at the very root of a healthy society. Marriage is a good ideal; a standard. That doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize other forms of union, but we certainly shouldn't call them marriage.

If you read the article about Massachusetts, what has happened there is that parents who disagree with the idea of sexual content being taught to their children at a young age are being ignored. That is not right especially since parents are ultimately responsible for their kids. These topics should not be taught to young children and legalizing gay marriage will force those issues to be taught at too young an age. Its not right and in my view teaching small children about these issues is irresponsible and borders on becoming a state sponsored form of pedophilia. It's just not right.

Prop 8 is not about hate,but the people who are vandalizing are being hateful.

YES ON 8!!!

Wow I'm shocked that even if you are against proposition 8, you wouldn't respect others freedom of speech and their private property. It's clear that you have a faulty understanding of the english language from your misuse of words like "Fascist" "Democracy" and even "Hate", so it's no wonder you are having trouble with the definition of the word "Marriage". Listen to yourselves! you also proved "Stuff white people like #4" true (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/06/25/winner-4/), and yes I'm bold enough to guarantee that you are white.

And please Vote No on Prop 8!

I agree. I'm glad the city have done something. Let's keep Chino Hills a good name. People who support prop 8 are very much narrow minded and selfish. We must not forget this is America. Everyone is created equal and has a right to pursue his or her own happiness. No one has a right to take away from someone that very fundamental right.

rcinsocal - regardless of your viewpoint on prop 8, are you so fascist that you do not at least recognize the existence of viewpoints that differ from yours, that people have the right to have opinions and that we luckily do not yet have government mind control, and that we certainly do (or should) have freedom of speech? Would you equally support the doings of someone who took signs out of your yard, let alone vandalized your vehicle just because they don't agree with your viewpoints? Do you believe that you have freedom of speech but others don't? Are you insane?

NO ON PROP 8! Don't listen to the lies and instead work on building a better America! VOTE NO!

Wow - sounds like Massachusettes is actually embracing equality! Everyone RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! Everyone knows that America is really a theocracy - we must stop this democracy movement NOW while we still have the chance!

I would take the signs too!!!! NO ON 8 it's HATE

I support Proposition 8. The stories I've heard about things in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is allowed sound awful to me.

Read about Massachusett's problems.