Everything To Do With Schools

“Everything to Do With Schools” Ad Tells Story of Homosexual Marriage Being Taught to Seven Year Old Children In Massachusetts

Portland, ME – Stand For Marriage Maine, the committee urging Mainers to vote Yes on Question 1, today announced a statewide television ad that features a Massachusetts couple whose seven year old son was exposed to classroom instruction on homosexual marriage. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts.

“This powerful new ad clearly demonstrates to Mainers one of the many consequences that we will have to deal with if homosexual marriage is legalized,” said Marc Mutty, Chairman of Stand For Marriage Maine. “Our opponents want to pretend that because LD 1020, the legislation that would take effect if Question 1 fails, doesn’t specifically mention education in the text of the statute that it won’t have any impact on school children. This is what parents in Massachusetts thought as well. But it did, and our ad introduces Mainers to the reality of what we can expect unless voters adopt Question 1.”

The ad, “Everything To Do With Schools,” is a direct response to claims by the No on 1 campaign that Question 1, “has nothing to do with schools or education.” (See Jesse Connolly quote in the Kennebec Journal Morning Sentinel, September 16, 2009.) It features an interview with Robb and Robin Wirthlin whose seven-year old son was read the book “King and King” in class by his teacher in his Lexington, MA public school. This book is about a homosexual prince who marries another prince and the two go on to rule the kingdom happily ever after.

In the ad, Robin Wirthlin says:

“After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He’s in second grade. We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage but the courts said we had no right to object or to pull him out of class.”

The Wirthin’s were plaintiffs in the federal court case Parker v. Hurley where the United States First District Court of Appeal, whose jurisdiction includes Maine, ruled that parents have no right to notice when gay marriage instruction will be taught, nor do they have the right to opt-out their children from this instruction.

“If Question 1 fails, Maine’s marriage laws will be changed so that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, as it has been since Maine became a state, but instead will be between any two eligible people,” Mutty said. “Just as happened in Massachusetts, there will be a strong push to include this new understanding of ‘marriage’ in our public school curriculum. Under the reasoning of the Parker decision, whenever marriage is discussed in Maine schools, participation in this instruction will be mandatory, whether parents like it or not.”


Bookmark and Share

Talkin’ With ‘Turf: Los Angeles 9-12 Rally Video

I was there! This is the best one I’ve seen from the rally. Did I mention there was absolutely ZERO representation by the media…

3-4,000 people show up and not a whisper from the local press.  WOOT for the alternative media! Every generation has it’s battle for freedom. It’s our turn.

–Beetle Blogger

Bookmark and Share

Yiruma–A River Flows in You.

Yiruma plays “A River Flows in You”.   I’d never heard of this pianist before, but I love this song.  –Beetle Blogger

From Wikipedia:

Yiruma (born February 15 1978, Seoul, Korea) is a South Korean piano music composer. He is married to Son Hye-im.

Yiruma is well-known throughout the world, and his albums are sold all over Asia, as well as the United States and Europe. His most famous pieces are “River Flows in You“, “Kiss the Rain” and “Love Me”. These pieces are widely mistaken as being associated with the movie Twilight. Although he formerly held dual citizenship as a citizen of the United Kingdom and South Korea, in July 2006 he gave up his British citizenship and entered the Republic of Korea Navy to begin his military service, which is compulsory for all male South Koreans.[1] He lived in Osaka, Japan, for 5 years to promote album sales before giving up his dual citizenship.

Bookmark and Share

Maine! In Support of the People’s Veto


It’s More Than Marriage: What’s At Stake in Maine

by Pastor Bob Emrich

I don’t know anyone who looks across acres of clear-cut land and calls it tree equality. That makes as much sense as looking at the extreme changes to Maine’s marriage law approved recently by Gov. Baldacci and calling it marriage equality.

Look at the facts and decide for yourself. Let’s start by comparing Maine’s marriage law before and after the change.

The State of Maine held the historic definition of marriage in highest regard throughout Maine law. Maine law told us why “traditional monogamous marriage” was well worth State government protection and promotion. Maine law said, “The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society..;” The word “inestimable” means too valuable to be measured or fully appreciated.

Maine’s marriage law said: “..the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children;”

That part of the law is full of wonderful, important words. “Compelling” means the State’s interest in historic marriage cannot be refuted. “Nurture” means to cherish, to encourage the growth of. To “promote” means to support. “Unique” means the only one of its kind. An “institution” is a well-established and familiar custom.

That paragraph of Maine’s marriage law ends with, “…and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.”

Finally, the whole purpose of Maine’s marriage law was, “To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life;”

Maine legislators and the Governor took every bit of the marriage law I have just outlined for you, clear-cut it, and threw it out as worthless garbage. All that language and, more important, the meaning behind the words, is gone.

It was cut first by a majority of the Maine Legislature who said societies were wrong for thousands of years in valuing “traditional monogamous marriage” as “the basic building block of society.” They came up with their new definition of marriage, which Governor Baldacci signed it into law. It starts with: “Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people.”

Baldacci’s new marriage law then redefines all of the historic terms we associate with marriage: Widows aren’t just women. Neither are wives and brides. Husbands, grooms, and widowers aren’t just men. In fact, the Governor’s new marriage law says: “Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, ‘spouse,’ ‘family,’ ‘marriage,’ ‘immediate family,’ ‘dependent,’ ‘next of kin,’ ‘bride,’ ‘groom,’ ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘widow’ and ‘widower,’ must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law.”

There you have it. It is a belief among those of us supporting a Peoples Veto of this law on the November 3, 2009 ballot that Mainers deserve a full and honest debate about this radical law and its impact on society short-term, mid-term, and long-term. The one public hearing on this law, in Augusta, on a work day was a very bad call by the legislators involved.

Mainers must have the opportunity to decide if adopting a law redefining historic marriage as gender-free, instead of Maine law saying “..the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children,” is what they want for themselves, their children and grandchildren.

Bookmark and Share


Sean Hannity’s “Fish or Families?” Update: The Valley Hope Forgot


California Farmers: Put US on the Endangered Species List

Fish or families? The farms that supply much of America’s produce are quickly becoming extinct.

I’ve personally traveled I-5 through the heart of the “Congress-created Dust Bowl” and seen the devastation.  With nearly every avenue for relief exhausted, the situation has only gotten worse and farmers are desperate.

Sitting among acres of dead almond orchards, comedian Paul Rodriquez and Congressman Devin Nunes were interviewed by Sean Hannity as they rallied with thousands of local farmers this week to protest the man made drought and bring public attention to their plight.

“An area the size of Rhode Island is now completely dead.  We provide vegetables for your table, are you going to get your vegetables from China?  They’re building water projects in Brazil and Iraq, but here they’re shutting our water projects down.  Why can’t we have the same consideration for our people?”

Earlier this summer, environmentalists had vital water pumps shut down to 2/3 of California’s farmland to “protect” minnow fish.  Killing orchards and drying up fields, politicians in Sacramento and Washington have refused to hear the plight of California farmers and instead have continued this man-made drought, leaving farmers with no water for their farms.  With 10% statewide unemployment, these areas have STILL seen no relief and are now at more than 40% unemployment.

Obama’s policy is said to be responsible for starving and taking away water from the farming community.  Where is Obama? With billions in the stimulus bill, why have these farmer’s concerns gone unanswered?

“This to me, is the part that is most immoral thing about all of this. We really are in the bread basket of the world. We feed the world. Our food goes to third world countries and helps people. We are their main staples, we feed everybody here. And yet we have our own standing in food lines?  And the food is coming in crates — crates that say products of China?”  —Inga Barks, Radio Talk Host

If you wonder about the government’s ability to provide healthcare for its citizens, see their callous treatment of these American citizens.  The government can’t even turn water on or feed these hurting people.  American citizens standing in food lines for six and a half hours to receive food in crates marked “China” on them?  This is the breadbasket of the world.  The water is there! turn it on.

—Beetle Blogger

What is the situation on the ground?  Hear the story from the people fighting for the farmers:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Breaking News | Latest News | Current…“, posted with vodpod

Hear the hurt, the people’s story out of their own mouths:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Breaking News | Latest News | Current…“, posted with vodpod

…And the politician’s pitiful response:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “untitled“, posted with vodpod

Bookmark and Share

Socialized Medicine: A Short Course in Brain Surgery

Rationing Healthcare at Your Expense

Stuart Browning highlights the plight of an Ontario man with a cancerous brain tumor who crossed the border to the U.S. to get the medical care that is rationed in his home country.

If the United States adopts a system of socialized medicine, where will the Canadians go to get timely care?

—Beetle Blogger

Voice of the Nation—Defense of Marriage Act Repealed?

Join Heather and Angela for

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio


“Those who think the…assault on marriage won’t affect them had better think again….we’re very close [to a ] a nationally imposed right to same-sex marriage whether we like it or not. That is the ultimate game plan of the gay marriage forces.” ––Maggie Gallagher

On Thursday– Gay marriage activists have lobbied to repeal the national DOMA for years.  Will they finally get what they want?  What is the Defense of Marriage Act?  And why are gay rights activists so keen to destroy it?  Join us as we discuss today what is at stake with the current effort to repeal the DOMA.

Guest: William C. Duncan –  Bill Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, will be a guest on the show this week to talk about the bill put forward in Congress yesterday that aims to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

William C. Duncan is director of the Marriage Law Foundation. He formerly served as acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and as executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he also served as a visiting professor. He has published numerous articles on constitutional and family law issues in a variety of legal journals.

Mr. Duncan is married to Catherine Allred Duncan and they are the parents of seven children.


The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations in highlighting current issues facing families in the Pro-Family Movement.

Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION every Thursday at 2pm PST.  The call-in number is

347- 215-6801

Obama, Planned Parenthood & The KKK

What’s At Stake in the Attack on DOMA?

Bill-Duncanby William C. Duncan, Marriage Law Foundation

Those who are pushing a redefinition of marriage in the United States promote an ideology that says when it comes to marriage, all adult relationships are the same and that adult desires are more important than children’s needs. A corollary to this idea is that anyone who disagrees is a bigot. When you see the world in this way, you are likely to believe that anything that advances your goal is permissible no matter how radical. The current legal attack on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a good illustration.

DOMA Background

DOMA was overwhelmingly approved by Congress (and signed by President Bill Clinton) in 1996. At that time, at the order of the Hawaii Supreme Court, a trial court in Honolulu was deciding whether that state’s marriage law was constitutional. A decision to redefine marriage there, many activists were claiming, would mean that every state would have to recognize same-sex marriages contracted there.

Thus, the need for DOMA. This legislation has two parts. The first makes clear that whenever federal law mentions marriage it means the union of a man and a woman. The second makes clear that no state will be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.

Lawsuit Attacks on DOMA

It is this first part that is being attacked in two separate lawsuits, both arising from Massachusetts-the first state to have legally redefined marriage, by court order.

The first lawsuit was brought by the group behind the lawsuit that resulted in same-sex marriage in Massachusetts; Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). This new lawsuit argues that DOMA is unconstitutional because same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts cannot get marriage benefits (like Social Security death benefits, or government employment compensation) under federal law.

The second lawsuit is brought by the state of Massachusetts itself. The state, it seems, is perturbed that it cannot unilaterally change federal law to adapt to Massachusetts’s new definition of marriage. This suit argues that it is unconstitutional for the government to define marriage in a way different than the state of Massachusetts. The state says it is harmed because when it administers federal laws like Medicare (and, of course, federal tax money) it has to do it in a way it believes is “discriminatory.”

DOMA and the Administration

The current presidential Administration has announced that it would like to see DOMA repealed. Just this week, a number of Democrats in the House of Representatives announced they would be introducing legislation to do just. Unlike the Massachusetts lawsuits, however, the repeal would apply to both parts of DOMA.

Another legal attack on DOMA was recently turned back. This one was brought by a same-sex couple in California who argued that it was unconstitutional for one state to not recognize a same-sex marriage from another. Their lawsuit was disfavored by activist groups because they felt it was premature. Many of the legal arguments made in the case were flawed as well, so it was quickly dismissed.

Interestingly, though, it was not the case but the federal government’s role in it that made headlines. Early in the suit, the federal Department of Justice had filed a submission to the court that pointed out that DOMA served important government interests. The DOJ noted that marriage is society’s best way of protecting a child’s opportunity to know and be raised by his or her own mother and father-certainly a vital interest. This is also an interest that has been recognized as a valid justification for state marriage laws by the highest courts of New York, Maryland and Washington. The argument did not go over well with activist groups and the media who complained that the argument was “hurtful.”

Thus, the next time the DOJ had to file a brief in the case, the arguments in favor of a child-centered view of marriage had disappeared. In fact, they were expressly repudiated. Instead, the brief announced that the Administration thought DOMA was a bad idea and made clear it was only defending the current marriage law reluctantly. This kind of attempt to undermine marriage laws by attorneys who are supposed to be defending them is not new. The attorneys general of California and Connecticut also refused to offer robust defenses of their states’ marriage laws and the attorney general of Iowa did not even bother to participate in a lawsuit challenging that state’s law.

Consequences of Losing DOMA

These attacks on DOMA undermine not only the law itself, they distort the meaning of constitutional provisions, threaten the separation of powers, and threaten to harm marriage.  If the marriage definition provision of DOMA is lost, a new definition of marriage imposed by courts and legislatures in a handful of states would apply to all federal laws that reference marriage.  All without input from the taxpayers in other states who would be helping to cover those costs.

While a state can decide on its own laws, it has no “right” to demand federal funding to cover the costs of those decisions. If Massachusetts were really concerned about federalism, perhaps it could argue that the federal government ought to get out of the business of providing funding for a myriad of social programs, rather than argue (as it is in this case) that Massachusetts should be able to set the conditions for receiving federal money.

It would also put the federal government in the position of endorsing the idea that marriage is just about adult choices and that men and women, mothers and fathers, are essentially interchangeable.

If Congress were to repeal both parts of DOMA, other states’ definitions of marriage could be threatened. It is probably the case that a state could refuse to recognize another state’s same-sex marriage even without DOMA, but DOMA makes that clear as a matter of federal law. Doing so decreases the likelihood that a state or federal court would find a spurious “right” to have a same-sex marriage recognized by other states.

A repeal of DOMA could embolden some judges and legislators who would see it as a sign that the political will to resist importation of same-sex marriages across state borders is flagging. The majority of states with state marriage amendments would be protected but the states without such amendments would be particularly vulnerable.

There is also no telling whether a federal court might decide to create a “constitutional” mandate to recognize same-sex marriages even for states with marriage amendments.

Marriage is worth protecting and because this is so, DOMA is worth preserving as well.

Can You Hear Me Now?—2 Million March on D.C.


3,000 Marched in my hometown
2,ooo,ooo Marched on Washington D.C.
30,000,000 Marched Nationwide…..

I am America.

Can You Hear Me Now?


« Older entries Newer entries »