Take a Stand Against the Agenda: Empty the Halls on “Day of Silence”

The so called “Day of Silence” has nothing to do with education.  It is a waste of educational resources and sends the wrong message to our children.  The best way to discourage the practice of allowing these radical homosexual groups from commandeering our school systems is to vote with our feet, and take our tax dollars with us.

—Beetle Blogger

See this from CRI:

Capitol Resource Institute is encouraging families to keep students home from school on Friday, April 16, unless their schools expressly expect students to speak on that day.

April 16th is the Day of Silence, a campaign of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which is often used to make homosexual behavior appear normal on school campuses.

“Students should focus on academics in school. They should not be allowed to end their verbal engagement in class for a social agenda,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

“We pay California teachers to teach — by speaking in classrooms — and teachers should also be expected to fully discharge their duties on all schooldays,” she said. “If a school allows teachers to stop teaching, it should not get tax dollars for educating our students on that day.”

By urging a one day absence, CRI joins more than two dozen organizations in the Day of Silence Walkout Coalition. The coalition includes organizations such as Concerned Women for America, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, and more. It reaches out to parents across the nation who do not want their children focusing on sexuality at school.

Classrooms and campuses should focus on academics, and any student harassment should be handled with appropriate school discipline. Yet Day of Silence is one of five GLSEN events that are designed to focus campus attention on student sexuality. These events — including No Name-Calling Week and TransAction! — take a total of 16 days.

In addition to these 16 days, California public schools regularly promote the acceptance of homosexual behavior in their school safety programs. State law equally prohibits the mistreatment of all students, whether homosexual, religious, or other students are harmed.

“Every parent, teacher, and student should oppose bullying of all kinds, but Day of Silence moves beyond simple opposition to bullying,” England said. “Day of Silence equates being anti-harassment with being in favor of homosexual behavior. That is unfair to the millions of people who are respectful and friends with homosexuals, while maintaining traditional views of male and female sexuality,” she said.

Call your school to ask whether it is permitting participating in Day of Silence. Schools do not technically sponsor this social protest, but hundreds permit or encourage it. To make sure there is no disconnect between the school office and your classroom, also contact your child’s teacher and ask whether students will be allowed to participate in the Day of Silence.

Also check whether your school has a Gay-Straight Alliance Club. If your school is among the 700 California public, private, and religious schools with a GSA, chances are high that silence will be observed by at least some people on campus.

“In every generation, parents need to teach their children about treating all people with respect, while maintaining their own convictions,” England said. “This is a great chance to do so.”

GSA Clubs

GLSEN

Day of Silence

Reasons for the Day of Silence Walkout

Watch the video that exposes the intolerance of those that promote the Day of Silence.

Louder than Silence

“Life: Imagine the Potential”

The third release in CatholicVote.org’s national new media campaign “Life: Imagine the Potential” series.

Beautiful To Him by Rachel Thibodeau

Countering the many twisted messages of a mixed up world, comes this one beautiful message to women.  Pass it on to your daughters.

–Beetle Blogger

Beautiful To Him

by Rachel Thibodeau

So much noise, so much peace destroyed,

I can hardly hear the voice, leading me through the void,

So much noise.

The world’s little lies,

Destruction in disguise, opportunities to compromise,

To make me beautiful in their eyes,

But I’m not gonna buy the world’s little lies.

Because I define myself and find my beauty in the light He gives.

I’m refined by His divine intentions every day I live.

It doesn’t matter what the world believes,

Or what they say that beauty means,

It comes from within,

I want to be beautiful to Him.

He’s given me His trust, so I’ll be strong enough,

To run from a dangerous touch, I don’t need that kind of love,

I don’t need that crutch, He’s given me his trust.

I define myself and find my beauty in the light He gives.

I’m refined by His divine intentions every day I live.

It doesn’t matter what the world believes,

Or what they say that beauty means,

It comes from within,

I want to be beautiful to Him.

I know how to shine, my life’s not really mine.

It’s not about a worldly climb, it’s all about His design.

So in His eyes, I want to shine.

Because I define myself and find my beauty in the light He gives.

I’m refined by His divine intentions every day I live.

It doesn’t matter what the world believes,

Or what they say that beauty means,

It comes from within,

I want to be beautiful to Him.

I want to live to have His peace,

And feel the holiness He seeks.

It comes from within.

I want to be beautiful… to Him.

Not Your Mother’s Girl Scouts: Planned Parenthood Uses Girl Scouts to Promote Explicit Sex Guide at UN

Not Your Mother’s Girl Scouts

Once an innocent, clean place for our daughters to experience life, grow character and learn about life, the girl scout organization has taken a dangerous new twist.

In an appalling effort to indoctrinate the youngest, most vulnerable and impressionable of society, Planned Parenthood has begun using the Girl Scout organization as a tool to promote its blatantly  sexualized agenda.

See this from Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute:

Girl Scouts Distribute Planned Parenthood Sex GuidHappy, Healthy and Hote at UN Meeting

The World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides hosted a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations this week where Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.” The event was part of the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which concludes this week.

The brochure, aimed at young people living with HIV, contains explicit and graphic details on sex, as well as the promotion of casual sex in many forms.

The story goes on from there, and includes just a portion of the explicit details and practices promoted in “Healthy, Happy and Hot”, including the admonition to “try everything”, “there’s nothing wrong” and encouraging the kids not to be afraid to “talk dirty”.

Planned Parenthood is a disaster for our young people, and there are many at the United Nations who are also adamant about preaching immorality to young children.

The New York Times recently reported that UN Population Fund is promoting a very controversial curriculum with UNESCO, that includes teaching children as young as five to be sexually active and training adolescents to advocate for abortion.

“The main effort is to try to empower young people with knowledge that could actually save their lives,” said Mr. Richmond, the Unesco H.I.V./AIDS coordinator. “We want to give them the opportunity for more informed choices than currently exist.”

To empower?  What does saving lives from AIDS have to do with promoting promiscuity????  It doesn’t!  There is no reason to encourage and promote the very promiscuity that results in millions of HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.  These behaviors being pushed lead not only to loss of self respect, but have permanent lifelong consequences, in many cases, even death.

“Governments and NGOs should be aware of Planned Parenthood’s insidious plan to work with UN agencies and girls’ organizations in order to profit from encouraging kids to be sexually active.”  —Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women of America

Parents Beware.  They are promoting the very thing they claim to seek to educate against.  With the kind of information being pushed in this guide, it’s NO WONDER it’s aimed at young people living with HIV.  These kind of promiscuous lifestyles are not Healthy, Happy or Hot.  They are Sad, Miserable and Sick.  They have no place being promoted to anyone, at any level, much less vulnerable children at the United Nations.

How ironic that this would occur at a Conference on the Status of Women, a group meeting together with the goal of improving life among women.  Teaching base promiscuity will only enslave our children to the sexual whims of those who would take advantage of their youth and lack of judgment.

Our daughters are more than the sum of their physical attributes.  They are our daughters, they deserve to be taught that they have a right to expect better of themselves and others.  They have unique blessings and gifts, including the ability to create life.  They are exquisitely beautiful by design, and keepers of the next generation.  There is more there than ability.  There’s a sacred responsibility, to themselves and to the potential they hold.

Government does not have our children’s best interests at heart, neither apparently do well intentioned groups like the girl scouts.  As parents we must fight against the march of immorality creeping into our society and lives.    Teaching our children is our parental right,  our responsibility— rights and responsibilities  others are all too eager to assume.

—Beetle Blogger

Democracy’s Voice

This is an ad recently put out by NYFRF, I realize it’s New York centric, but it reminds me that no matter where we are, family issues have to continue to matter to our politicians.  We are the only ones who can make the changes that need to happen in local and national government.

Democracy is our voice, no matter where we are, let’s use it to stand for faith, life and families.

–Beetle Blogger

Judge Walker is Gay? Proposition 8 Case Ruling Impartiality in Question

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the judge presiding over the Proposition 8 appeal, Judge Vaughn Walker, is gay:

“The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL#ixzz0exke4PWC

If that is true, it would explain a lot.  Why was Judge Walker so eager to break federal court rules against televising hearings?  Why was he so eager to deny the defense their first amendment rights by trying to force them to disclose private campaign documents?

Twice now, higher courts have had to intervene in Judge Walker’s court proceedings to check his enthusiasm for tipping the scales of justice.

Could Judge Walker being gay himself have any bearing on his decisions?  We’ll never know.  As one commenter on this story said:

“He should have recused himself, just to avoid the image of impropriety. As it is, people will always wonder, and assume he made those bad judgments out of an inappropriate personal bias.”

Certainly a judge’s personal life and choices do not HAVE to interfere with his impartiality, however it certainly does color the appearance of his decision.

History will always question his judgment and wonder.  No matter what side of the issue you fall on, this information does nothing but cast doubt on the legitimacy of this court and its proceedings.

—Beetle Blogger

Perry v Schwarzenegger: Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

Photo: Norman Rockwell–Freedom of Worship

Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

The endless parade has come to a halt.  Painfully, yet colorfully, we’ve all watched the emotional train wreck unfold over these last several weeks.  Here and there bits of sanity reigned, but by and large raw, pity driven emotion ran the day.

Thankfully all binge parties must have an end and this one is no exception.  Finally, Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom theatrics and baldface shenanigans  have come to a close.  All that remains are 30 days of preparation, the final arguments and the ruling.

No matter which way Judge Walker rules, his feckless reign will not ultimately hold sway.  The fate of proposition 8 will end up in the hands of the United States Supreme Court; a judicial body, I might add, in which I have infinitely more faith.

Is there any question how Judge Walker will rule?  He’s made his bias clear every chance he got.  The better question is, what will the Supreme Court think of his antics?  Somehow I don’t imagine they will look kindly on the abuse and mockery Judge Walker has made of the judicial system, thumbing his nose at basic freedoms, federal judicial practice and common decency.  He may have won small points with the Oprah crowd, but the Supreme Court is not populated by Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. These are men and women who know the constitution, and the  intent of its creators to protect the rights and liberties of all men with regard to personal belief:

That religion, and the duty which we owe to our CREATOR,  and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.”  –James Madison, Virginia Declaration

The bottom line is no one has the right to put religion, family or democracy on trial.  These are freedoms and rights that are truly inalienable.  All men are equal.  No spurious claim to special rights can supersede the rights we all share in common.

—Beetle Blogger

See this from Ron Prentice, the executive director of protectmarriage.com.

The live testimony in the federal trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic court battle over the definition of marriage, finally came to a close yesterday afternoon.
Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us.
For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony was broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast. Even though the US Supreme Court later overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case, it was too late.
The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on our team of defense attorneys to find other ways to get our critical evidence into the record. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, our attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the other side’s witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy. Thankfully, our legal team was extremely successful in this regard.
After weeks of 20+ hour days, our attorneys finally were able to get a good night’s rest. We appreciate your prayers for them and your words of encouragement. Starting today, they will be working for the next 30 days to submit additional briefings to the judge. They will also start preparing to go back before Judge Walker sometime in March to present final closing arguments. And then we will await the court’s ruling.
No matter how Judge Walker rules, all sides agree that this is just the first stage in a much longer journey that will ultimately end at the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter which side wins this first legal test, the case is surely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually to the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even though the live testimony has ended, we must continue our efforts to secure the resources needed for a strong legal defense of Prop 8. Please help us with your own contribution, and forward this email to your friends and colleagues who themselves might make a donation. Our outstanding legal bills are substantial and the ongoing fight will be expensive.
Every person involved in our legal defense has made tremendous sacrifices. Lead trial counsel Charles Cooper and his team from the Cooper & Kirk law firm have done a spectacular job. Special thanks is also due to the excellent attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund who donated literally thousands of hours of legal work as part of the defense team.
In particular, we are also extremely grateful to our own General Counsel, Andy Pugno, whose wife is due to deliver their third child any day now. Not only has he worked tirelessly for months on end and represented us ably in the courtroom, his entire family has paid a price as Andy has been fighting for the institution of marriage. We owe him, and his family, a debt of gratitude.
Below is a statement Andy released to the media late yesterday about the case. It’s an excellent summary of how this show trial unfolded.
Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.
What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional
marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.
Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a
mother and father. It’s that simple.
The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal
support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.
Thank you for your continued help through prayer, financial support, encouragement, and spreading the word. We – all of us – are responsible for the shape of our society when we hand it off to future generations.
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director

I Am A Mother. A Tale of Two Views

I Am A Mother.

As I was reading through NOM blog today, I came across these two posts by women on opposite ends of the marriage debate.  Their heartfelt takes on marriage and what it means really impressed me.  In particular, they are both powerful, emotional statements, yet worlds apart in focus:

“I am a citizen, who desires nothing more than any other citizen. I want children for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does. I want to be married for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does.

I can’t change who I am, or who I fall in love with any more than you can, and I should just accept I’ll never have the same thing as my sister or brother, who are heterosexual?

And because of people like you, my partner and I will probably have a harder time raising our son than you would your children.

The only reason a child would think any less of his or her family would be because people like you do.

Good night, and I really hope none of your children are gay. If they are, make sure and tell them early on why they shouldn’t ever be able to marry. It’ll be easier on them in the long-run.”  —Marci

“Marci,

When I dated, I chose who I made relationships with. I chose who I would live my life with. No one took those choices from me. Because of my choices, my children will have a mom and a dad, and I will work every day to make sure it stays that way because my children need a mom and a dad. I would never deny a child what they are entitled to simply because of my own selfish wants and desires. Children have rights too, rights that can’t be denied simply because they don’t fit a certain parent’s sexual desires. I am prepared to teach my children by example what a family is, and You can bet I will make sure that they know, if they are not prepared to give a child the things they need in life, they ought not be bringing those children into the world. I am a mom, and because I’m a mom, the needs of my children surpass my petty wants. That is a sacrifice I’m willing to make a thousand times over, and one we should comit to as a society. Every child needs a mom and a dad. Death and divorce aside, we should do everything we can to give them the best chance possible to have that in their lives.”  —Sandee

I thought the response to Marci’s letter was singularly powerful.  One letter focused on the writer, what the writer wanted, what the writer felt, and children were an accessory to that.  The other writer’s focus is on her family, her children and what makes a family.

Two mothers. Two world views.

The first takes no responsibility, the second is the embodiment of responsibility.

It was a poignant example of the very basis of disagreement in the marriage debate, excellently articulated by two of society’s mothers.

—Beetle Blogger

United States Supreme Court Weighs Against Judge Walker’s Anti-Prop8 Extremism—Again.

protester-_antimormon

I guess all that “No More Mr. Nice Gay” type tolerance backfired.

The anti prop 8 antics from last year, the anthrax threats, the jobs threats, the death threats and vandalism all came home to roost in a big way today as the highest court slammed Judge Vaughn Walker’s extremism once again.

“Given the importance of the issues at stake, and our conclusion that the District Court likely violated a federal statute in revising its local rules…

“…While applicants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the trial is broadcast, respondents have not alleged any harm if the trial is not broadcast. The issue, moreover, must be resolved at this stage, for the injury likely cannot be undone…”  —U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that there will be no broadcast of prop 8 trial video, thus protecting the witnesses testifying from what the court described as “irreparable harm”.

“putting Prop 8 supporters on the witness stand and broadcasting their testimony worldwide would virtually guarantee a serious risk of harm threatened by anti-Prop 8 extremists.”   –ADF

There’s no reason for Judge Vaughn Walker to allow the persecution of witnesses.  It’s against federal court rules and against common sense.  Judge Walker’s continued efforts to turn his courtroom into a circus only further betrays his bias.

—Beetle Blogger

Responsible “Non-Monogamy” The New Face of Secularism

Just another notch in the slide of societal dignity at the expense of the most helpless and vulnerable among us.  See this from the Venerable Boston Globe:

Love’s new frontier

“It’s not monogamy. But it’s not cheating or polygamy, either. It’s called polyamory, and with hundreds practicing the lifestyle in and around Boston, is liberal Massachusetts ready to accept it?”

“Jay Sekora isn’t actively looking for an additional relationship, but he admits to occasionally checking a dating site to see who’s out there. Sekora’s girlfriend, Mare, who does not want her last name used here for professional reasons, said she is not pursuing anyone, either, but is “open and welcoming to what might come along.”

“Through the lens of monogamy, this love connection may appear distorted, but that’s not how Sekora and Mare, who is 45, describe their lifestyle. Adherents call it responsible non-monogamy or polyamory, and the nontraditional practice is creeping out of the closet, making gay marriage feel somewhat last decade here in Massachusetts. What literally translates to “loving many,” polyamory (or poly, for short), a term coined around 1990, refers to consensual, romantic love with more than one person. Framing it in broad terms, Sekora, one of the three founders and acting administrator of the 500-person-strong group Poly Boston, says: “There’s monogamy where two people are exclusive. There’s cheating in which people are lying about being exclusive. And poly is everything else.”

What about children?  While all the adults are reliving their irresponsible teen fantasies well into their fifties, what becomes of the unfortunate children of these nonbinding, noncommittal sexual arrangements? Where is the stability?

“Kids deal well with things they think are normal. To the degree that we can help them be comfortable with this, then they will treat it as normal. That’s the theory, anyway,” says Alan Wexelblat who has two kids with wife Michelle (pictured), and a girlfriend.”

In effect, this is the epitome of the “it’s all about love” argument same sex marriage advocates and other groups seeking to tear down societal mores.  Do what you want to do.  Do what is best for YOU.  Forget about the kids, social responsibility, society…that is all subject to interpretation.

What kind of society will children raised this way know how to create?  Who will show them how to be a mom or a dad who is lovingly committed to the family?  How will they know how to commit to their own children if no one shows them how?

Is this where we want to go as a nation?  Here it is the Boston Globe, a major newspaper promoting puff pieces on polyamory as “responsible non monogamy”.  It’s all presented with no reality, all fantasy.  What is there that is “responsible” about adults shacking up with whomever, whenever, at the expense of their kids?

What kind of utopia sacrifices a child’s needs for a parent’s wants?

—Beetle Blogger

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.