I Remember.

It’s been an emotional day as I’ve had to try to answer the many questions my kids have about the attacks.

It’s important that they know and that I remember— there is so much we have to be grateful for.  That there truly is evil in the world and also that great good can come out of tragedy.

I’m glad it only comes once a year….still. It’s good to remember. It gives me perspective on the blessed life I lead.

—Beetle Blogger

What a Miracle Looks Like


Yesterday God sent us a reminder, a reminder of what’s truly important. On the same path as the planes of 9/11, he reminded us yet again: It’s about family. And that’s really pretty much it. He reminded us that miracles happen. He reminded us that when everything is stacked against us, we can make it. Even coming at a dirty and grungy and mob body-filled water, you can survive.”

Condensed from the desk of Glenn Beck

GLENN: Let me ask you this: What is a miracle? Is God a respecter of men? Does God answer prayers? Does God change the rules of the universe? What is a miracle?

I think what we witnessed yesterday was a miracle. I don’t know if you have looked and put all of the string of coincidence together. I mean, here’s a group of people that get together, they hear a large bang. Put yourself in this seat. You hear a large bang, you look out the window, you see the engine flame out, and what goes through your mind right then? Have you ever been on a plane where you think — where you just hit bad turbulence? I’ve been white knuckle, just holy cow, we’re not going to make it. What are you thinking when the pilot gets on the speaker and says, “Brace for a rough landing”? What are you thinking when they say, “Underneath your seat is a flotation device.” What are you thinking? Are you looking out the window? Are you looking out and seeing that eye level you are right — you are looking possibly at people like me looking right at you out the window. Do you see the Hudson River getting bigger and bigger, the ice that’s in it and you know possibly “I can’t swim.” If we do get out, how long can I last in that water? What is the pilot thinking as he’s heading towards the George Washington bridge, the exact same route that was taken by the 9/11 hijackers? You don’t fly over the George Washington bridge. You don’t fly over the Hudson. This is the route — the last time a 727 took this route, they ended in the World Trade Center. What were the people on the bridge thinking as they saw this plane slowly lumber 900 feet over the George Washington bridge? Probably the same thing I was thinking when I arrived in my office. What was the pilot thinking, knowing that his engines weren’t working, wondering can I get my plane over the bridge? What was he thinking when he could see in the sky the Hudson or Teterboro, which is an airport in New Jersey? They were equal distance from each other. Did he choose, “I’m going to land this in the water because if I land it in the water and we crash or if I can’t make it, it only kills us. If I try to make it to Teterboro and something happens, I crash into a mass of humanity. Was that what he was thinking? What was he thinking when he passed the bridge and he got over it and he looked down the Hudson and there weren’t any boats on the Hudson? If you’re anywhere near New York or if you’re a pilot and you see the Hudson, you fly over it and you see it, there are always tugboats, there are always barges, it’s always full of boats. Was he wondering before he could see the Hudson how many people will I kill on boats? What was everybody thinking when they hit the water, at a speed, it was like hitting dry ground? As you feel the jolt shoot through your body from your feet to your head? What were you thinking as your body pulls up against that seat belt and yet your body is flexible enough that you hit your head on the luggage compartment? What goes through your mind when you believe you’re going to die? I can tell you I don’t think that you were thinking about your political party. You weren’t thinking whether you were from a red state or a blue state. “Oh, gee, if I just would have finished that project at work.” “Oh, gosh. Well, thank goodness it’s over because I’ve lost my job.” I doubt you were thinking, “Oh, jeez, well, this will be blessed relief because I’ve got so many other problems and the world seems to be melting down.” I dare say even Al Gore wouldn’t have been thinking, “Oh, jeez, but who’s going to fight global warming.” You are not thinking about Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Yesterday God sent us a reminder, a reminder of what’s truly important. On the same path as the planes of 9/11, he reminded us yet again: It’s about family. And that’s really pretty much it. He reminded us that miracles happen. He reminded us that when everything is stacked against us, we can make it. Even coming at a dirty and grungy and mob body-filled water, you can survive.

Both engines blown out, hydraulic system on the plane impacted. The pilot makes that thing a lumbering giant, and he had no hydraulics and he’s trying to hold on, he and the copilot. They missed the George Washington bridge by 900 feet. A plane falling from the sky, and everybody represented, from the 9-month-old baby to the 85-year-old grandma.

What was the string of coincidence, what was the string of coincidence? There were no boats or tugs. Why? Because it was cold. Just a few blocks up from the George Washington bridge, the river had just been closed. So there weren’t any boats per se. That waterway is always full of tugboats and cargo ships. There was nothing, except ferries. You could land that plane anywhere. That plane came to a stop right by the Intrepid, which happens to be right by the ferry docks. There happened to be a ferry right there just about where the plane came to a dead stop. The ferry, all they had to do was just release the lifeboats and push them over.

It’s been 45 years since a plane landed on the water and everyone survived. 45 years. I don’t even listen to “Your seat can be used as a flotation device.” Just slam into the water because you are all going to flip and die. I’ll never say that again.

By the way, something else that was highly unusual. This pilot is not only somebody who teaches safety, who teaches emergency landing, not only has air hours like crazy, not only is a fighter pilot but he is one of the rare few commercial air pilots that not only have combat experience but also has his glider’s license. I doubt he ever thought he would be gliding an Airbus, but he did.

Even though the water was choppy and white capped and 40 degrees and 18 degrees outside, somehow or another he landed it perfectly what are the odds that that happened? What are the odds that they hit a flock of geese, in fact not one but two, so big that it actually showed up on radar.

God is not a respecter of men. He loves all of us, no matter what we do, equally. We just have to be prepared. He asks us, be prepared. He asks us, pay attention. He asks us to do the right things. He asks us to think of others.

You could choose to look at this as just a, “Wow, what a lucky break these guys had, huh?” Or you could experience the miracle of seeing a wake-up call, of seeing a message being sent.

Sure, an engine can take one bird, an engine can take two birds, but an engine can’t take a flock, and an engine certainly can’t take two flocks. It’s very rare to experience something like this. It was almost, for a plane, the perfect storm. And there were the odds, but the people were prepared, they did the right thing, and they brought it down. And everybody got off the plane safely.

God didn’t change the world. God didn’t change physics. He didn’t freeze the water to stop the boats. He didn’t lift it up with his hand and defy physics. Miracles aren’t like that. That’s why people don’t believe in them anymore. Miracles really are a change in perspective. My perspective on this plane crash is that, look at how many things went right. My perspective was, thank goodness we had somebody who in a state of emergency didn’t panic, didn’t do anything but his job.

By the way, Sully, as he’s known, the pilot, he was spotted at the airport last night a few hours after the crash. He was dry, he was back in captain’s clothes cleanly pressed. He had his captain’s hat on. He sat alone in a coffee shop. The people who saw him said, aren’t you… he said yes. He went back to minding his own business. They said that he looked like he was just finishing up another ordinary day.

Fatherless Nation


More Than Love

Feminists, Homosexual Activists and Sexual Revolutionists would have us believe that love is all you need.  Who needs men, fathers or responsibility? Whether by divorce, death or design, among all the tragedies that are inherent in our human experience, the absence of a loving, committed dad is one of the most common.

From “21 Reasons Why Gender Matters” by the Fatherhood Foundation

#4   “The masculine gender is an essential ingredient for fatherhood, and children raised by a committed father
do much better in life.”

Men and women are different, and both bring unique qualities to parenthood. Fatherhood is indispensable, and is premised on masculinity, maleness, being a man. Research is quite clear that children need a loving father to protect, defend and guide them. Children growing up without fathers experience numerous problems,  including:

  • an increased risk of being involved in crime and criminal activities
  • a greater likelihood of involvement in illicit drug use, alcohol consumption and tobacco use
  • a greater chance of committing suicide
  • a greater likelihood of developing mental health problems
  • an increased risk of sexual promiscuity and other sexual problems, including, gender confusion issues
  • an increased risk of becoming a victim of child sexual abuse
  • a greater chance of growing up poor or in poverty

Due to the enormous efforts of highly devoted, hard-working mothers and/or others brought in to aid them, children who grow up without fathers do not always experience these negative outcomes, but generally speaking, such problems are the usual result of growing up in fatherless families. The research on this has become quite extensive and persuasive.

Indeed, so much research on the negative impact of fatherlessness has accumulated over the years that a number of book-length summaries have been written to cover all the data.  There has also been a large amount of Australian data to back up this international research.

Two Canadian studies suggest that there is much more to masculinity than testosterone. While testosterone is certainly important in driving men to conceive a child, it takes an array of other hormones to turn men into fathers. And among the best fathers, it turns out, testosterone levels actually drop significantly after the birth of a child. If manhood includes fatherhood, which it does for a majority of men, then testosterone is hardly the ultimate measure of masculinity.

In fact, the second of the two studies, which was recently published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, suggests that fathers have higher levels of estrogen, the well-known female sex hormone, than other men. The research shows that men go through significant hormonal changes alongside their pregnant partners, changes most likely initiated by their partner’s pregnancy, and ones that even cause some men to experience pregnancy-like symptoms such as nausea and weight gain.

It seems increasingly clear that just as nature prepares women to be committed mothers, it prepares men to be devoted fathers.

The broader issue of how children thrive in a biological two-parent family also ties in here. Most often when the two-parent family is not found, it is the father who is missing. Thus single-parent families are overwhelmingly headed by overworked and overtaxed mothers. The research on these sorts of households shows the negative outcomes for children. And again, the research is massive, with good summaries of the data now available.  Moreover, the Australia data replicates the findings from overseas.

The various ways in which children need, and thrive with, a father cannot be recounted here. But just one small example can be offered: fathers are essential in playing with their children, especially boys, in what is known as rough and tumble play. This enables boys to sublimate their excess energy and use their muscles in a socially acceptable way. One of the reasons for so much anti-social behaviour by boys – vandalism, street fighting, gangs, etc. – is because of father-absence. In single mother families, the mothers do their best, but cannot substitute for the absent father.

Indeed, one youth worker who has counselled many hundreds of delinquent young males has noted that the reason they tend to gravitate toward gangs and violence and drugs is precisely because of being brought up in father-absent households. He says that “almost 100 per cent” of these kids are from “single parent families or blended families”.

Thus maleness and fathers are indispensable to the well being of society and the healthy development of children.

That’s the research perspective.  This next is the child’s perspective.  I came across this article from the Washington Post.   Kids are more than trophies or proof of family status.  There’s no adequate substitution for a loving father in the home.  —Beetle Blogger

My Father Was an Anonymous Sperm Donor

By Katrina Clark

Sunday, December 17, 2006; Page B01

I really wasn’t expecting anything the day, earlier this year, when I sent an e-mail to a man whose name I had found on the Internet. I was looking for my father, and in some ways this man fit the bill. But I never thought I’d hit pay dirt on my first try. Then I got a reply — with a picture attached.

From my computer screen, my own face seemed to stare back at me. And just like that, after 17 years, the missing piece of the puzzle snapped into place.

The puzzle of who I am.

I’m 18, and for most of my life, I haven’t known half my origins. I didn’t know where my nose or jaw came from, or my interest in foreign cultures. I obviously got my teeth and my penchant for corny jokes from my mother, along with my feminist perspective. But a whole other part of me was a mystery.

That part came from my father. The only thing was, I had never met him, never heard any stories about him, never seen a picture of him. I didn’t know his name. My mother never talked about him — because she didn’t have a clue who he was.

When she was 32, my mother — single, and worried that she might never marry and have a family — allowed a doctor wearing rubber gloves to inject a syringe of sperm from an unknown man into her uterus so that she could have a baby. I am the result: a donor-conceived child.

And for a while, I was pretty angry about it.

I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on the “parents” — the adults who can make choices about their own lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child. The donor gets a guarantee of anonymity and absolution from any responsibility for the offspring of his “donation.” As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a success, right?

Not so. The children born of these transactions are people, too. Those of us in the first documented generation of donor babies — conceived in the late 1980s and early ’90s, when sperm banks became more common and donor insemination began to flourish — are coming of age, and we have something to say.

I’m here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn’t ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion. It’s hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won’t matter to the “products” of the cryobanks’ service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place.

We offspring are recognizing the right that was stripped from us at birth — the right to know who both our parents are.

And we’re ready to reclaim it.  rest of the story here at the Washington Post

It’s not just about love

It’s not just about love

As I watch the ads go by, one way and another, I’m forced to ask myself, do we really know what sorts of consequences will come from altering the traditional definition of marriage?

If we allow the gay lobby to define the gay marriage moral issue as a civil rights issue, those fundamental social changes that came with other civil rights will inevitably follow. Will those of us with differing opinions on marriage now be discriminated against? Are we so naïve as to think that once something is deemed a “civil right” that it will have a lesser effect on society than any other civil right?

My sister Christina, recently stood up as a private citizen in support of traditional marriage and was immediately targeted by activists in the gay community.  She got hate mail at her house, that for weeks has continued.  Who would do that?  It’s unfathomable to me, but that’s not the worst of it.  They looked up her name and her husband’s name online and found her photography business information.  Her business was inundated with requests to perform her photography services at gay weddings in direct opposition to her beliefs, with the threat of discrimination lawsuits if she refused. This new “civil right” protection trumps her right to religion and free speech in the law.

Personally, I don’t see Proposition 8 taking anything away from civil unions or partner laws. I see Proposition 8 as separate from the gay issue. It’s more about legal protection for those of us who would rather have private matters be private and who wish to preserve our own free speech and freedom of religion rights. To see the issue as just an issue of “love” ignores the legal behemoth that attends it.


The Activist’s Agenda


The Homosexual Agenda

Author: Alan Sears, Craig Osten

Q. Craig, with the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and an expected decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that could create gay “marriage” on American shores, the whole idea of same-sex marriage has come front-and-center in American life. But isn’t same-sex “marriage” just one part of the homosexual agenda?

A. Yes it is. The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called “After the Ball,” where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.

Q. Now, wait a minute. We hear all the time from gay activists that “there is no such thing” as a gay agenda. They snicker at the very idea.

A. But there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

1. “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.” That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.

2. “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” That’s why they exploited things like the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard. It was a tragic murder, yet they have used that and spun that to demonize people like Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.

3. “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.” That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.

4. “Make gays look good.” That’s what they’ve done through media campaigns, through television programs, like “Will and Grace” and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.

5. “Make the victimizers look bad.” They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to “muddy the moral waters” by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.

6. “Get funds from corporate America.” In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how they have done that. It’s based on fudging the truth — and outright lies.

By the way, the authors of “After the Ball” admit that the use of lies is perfectly fine in their struggle. Their main thing is to get people to believe them. That is all that is important.

What’s interesting is that gay activists go to corporations and say, “We are an aggrieved class; we are discriminated against.” Then, on the other hand, they go to corporate America and say, “Look how much money we have. We make double what a traditional family makes. We are a market that you want to advertise to and cater to.”

Corporate America signs on — whether for domestic partner benefits, or whatever — because they don’t want to alienate that market.

Q. You mentioned lies. Isn’t one of the lies that homosexuals really want marriage?

A. That’s one of the biggest lies. Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don’t want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage. Basically, once they get marriage, they want to redefine it — they call the concept “monogamy without fidelity.” In other words, marriage would mean that you could be with a person but say, “I can go ahead and have sex with anybody else I want, but my spouse and I live together.”

One homosexual activist said, “We can now dethrone the (traditional) family based on blood relationships, in favor of the families that we choose.”

This article can be found in entirety here.

Is Same Sex Marriage a Civil Right?

Same-sex Marriage vs. Civil Rights

By Jeff Jacoby

Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. But that hasn’t stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement — and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists.

In The New York Times last Sunday, cultural critic Frank Rich, quoting a “civil rights lawyer,” beatified the gay and lesbian couples lining up to receive illegal marriage licenses from San Francisco’s new mayor, Gavin Newsom.

“An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing it,” Rich wrote, “much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth’s in North Carolina 44 years ago this month.” Nearby, the Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding veils — and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in.

Rich’s essay — “The Joy of Gay Marriage” — went on to cast the supporters of traditional marriage as hateful zealots. They are “eager to foment the bloodiest culture war possible,” he charged. “They are gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era.”

But it is the marriage radicals like Rich and Newsom who are doing their best to inflame a culture war. And as is so often the case in wartime, truth — in this case, historical truth — has been an early casualty.

For contrary to what Rich seems to believe, when Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth’s in Greensboro, N.C. on Feb. 1, 1960, all they were looking for was something to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the same terms — the same food at the same counter at the same price.

Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren’t demanding that Woolworth’s prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren’t trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren’t bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.

All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment — approved by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1868 — had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 — passed by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed into law by President Grant — had barred discrimination in public accommodations.

But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court’s betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them — that was the great cause of civil rights.

The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the law’s equal protection, nor of the right to marry — only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage.” They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn’t civil rights.

But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor.

Last month, as Massachusetts lawmakers prepared to debate a constitutional amendment on the meaning of marriage, the state’s leading black clergy came out strongly in support of the age-old definition: the union of a man and a woman. They were promptly tarred as enemies of civil rights. “Martin Luther King,” one left-wing legislator barked, “is rolling over in his grave at a statement like this.”

But if anything has King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All of us are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. The newly fashionable claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all.  —www.jewishworldreview.com

The Great Civil Rights Movement won because their cause was just!  See Martin Luther King’s Dee Garrett on the difference:

Racism was about EQUALITY.

Same sex marriage is not about equality.

Marriage is about SOCIETY and THE FUTURE and about OUR CHILDREN!

Protect and Restore True Marriage in Calilfornia

Yes on prop 8!

Children Need Dual Gender Parenting

Children deserve gendered society.  They need the influence of both a mother and a father, it is their birthright.  There are times when death or divorce prevent children from being raised by a mom and a dad, but I think we all agree, that such a situation is a tragedy in the life of that child.  Men and women are different.  There’s no question.  Each gender has a gift to give to the next generation.  Children need stoic strength, as well as gentle kindness, fishing trips and horseplay as much as hugs and emotional comforts.

There are stereotypical gender roles characterized in a myriad of ways, but the bottom line is that each gender is gloriously unique by design.  Any marital-like arrangement that denies a child one gender or another in it’s parentage by design is less than ideal, less than it should be, and less than a child deserves.

I’ve been reading up on the effects of same sex marriage on kids.  The results show that kids need both genders.  www.whatistheharm.org

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why
Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

1. First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

2. Children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father.

3. Boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

4. Same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries.

5. If society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous.

These excerpts were taken from an article by Dr. Trayce Hansen and can be found in entirety here: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

Brutalized and Censored by the Opposition

Love?  Tolerance?  Acceptance?

These words are the war cry and mantra of our opposition.  But who exactly is showing love and tolerance? There are many (not all) who are against Prop 8 who have forgotten to follow their own war cry, evidenced by several new incidents of hatred, vandalism, theft, and even violent intolerance against those supporting Proposition 8.

Example 1:  The Prop 8 Sign Guy Gets Smashed in the Face

A Proposition 8 supporter was violently attacked for distributing lawn signs this week.  The story came out in the Los Angeles Examiner yesterday, http://www.examiner.com/p-242262~Prop__8_Supporter_Violently_Attacked_for_Distributing_Lawn_Signs.html but was removed from the examiner’s website that afternoon.  Prop 8 people got a copy of it and put it on the protectmarriage.com website before it was erased.  If this had been a gay man who’d been attacked, we’d have seen it all over the national news.  Since it’s our guy, they squashed the story.  I searched their whole website, even the pictures were taken down from their archives.  You can see a copy of the story (without pictures) here:  Prop 8 Supporter Violently Attacked for Distributing Lawn Signs.  The LA Times is likewise silent on this story.  Not a peep from any major news outlet in California.  This is an outrageous example of the hate on the other side.  This man was attacked and brutalized for his beliefs, and this example doesn’t stand alone.

Example 2:  A Mother and her children verbally abused, Property Destroyed.

It is more than the woman who stopped her car at a busy intersection to curse at a woman and her children holding prop 8 signs at a demonstration.  She was so engrossed in her ranting tirade that she missed the green light and held up traffic for another few choice words.  It’s more than people giving us the one finger wave, that sort of stuff just shows bad character, but that’s not the extent of it.  The opposition in our area went to work last night in a big way. Signs were stolen, property vandalized, and supporter’s tires were slashed in my neighborhood by those against proposition 8.  This is a free country.  To our opposition I say, look around.  Tolerance is a two way street.  Fight ideas with ideas, not with violence.  To the good guys, Keep fighting! It’s a cause worth fighting for.

You can destroy our signs, we’ll just make more!  AND BIGGER ones too!

Families Working Together to Protect Families!

Support Prop 8!

Words mean happiness?

I’ve been thinking about this same-sex marriage issue for a while now.  It seems to me that there is this idea floating out there among posts promoting same-sex marriage that the title “Marriage” is all that stands between these couples and true happiness, and that I personally am among those preventing their personal happiness.  I wonder about that.  What is it about the change in title that leads people to believe true happiness will result?

I guess my deeper question is, first, are gay communities deeply unhappy?  What causes happiness?  Are there fundamental, universal laws that dictate when happiness can be felt?  Or does it really boil down to a perceived deficiency in the gay community that they feel will be remedied by formal acceptance of their lifestyle as demonstrated by inclusion in the term “marriage?”

Words mean things.  What is it that is so valuable to the gay community that they feel the need to abrogate marriage?

Religious Liberty–Something Worth Fighting For

The battle is raging for the hearts of men.

The battle is raging for the hearts of men.

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
— Voltarine de Cleyre

Freedom to practice, freedom to believe, freedom to act in a way of my choosing.  Freedom to believe in God.  Freedom of conscience.  Freedom to speak my mind.  What would life be like without the freedoms we grew up with?  All the freedoms we intellectually know we have, but in practicality take for granted.

This fight for marriage is really a battle. I’m here in California on the front lines, in the trenches even. We’re giving everything we have to this effort. My kids have been spit at, my property has been vandalized, I’ve donated enough money to remodel my sorely broken kitchen…and my time, every day, all day for the past two months has been spent calling, walking, phoning, waving, writing.

Every generation has it’s battles.  My grandpa’s generation fought the world wars.  Our grandfathers before them fought a hundred wars for freedom.  In every country, on every continent, the human soul hungers for freedom and pays a price to obtain it.  Sometimes the price is goods and means, sacrifice, sweat and tears.  Sometimes the price is blood, and it’s paid.  This fight is the fight of our generation.  It will affect more than our state, it will affect our entire nation for generations to come.

I’ve decided to join the fight in more than words.  I’ve gone out to my neighbors and talked with them, walked the streets of our town, gathered opinions, given information, stood on street corners smiling and waving in support of the family.  My life is nearly consumed with the effort to gather and inform, rally and move the often silent majority, prodding them out of complacency and into action.  After much prodding, the sleeping giant is stirring.  23 more days.

I read an article today by NPR’s Barbara Hagerty called “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash.”

In talking about civil rights special protections she says….“Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group’s view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, “parachurch” organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases…”

The battle’s begun.

« Older entries