California: Benedict Arnold Signs-On to Gay Agenda “Harvey Milk Day” and Same Sex Marriage Bills BOTH SIGNED

got_milk_harvey

California: Say HELLO to State Pedophile Day and Same Sex Marriage!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs controversial gay agenda bills mandating recognition of  “Harvey Milk Day” and same sex marriage.

After a long midnight session with legislators, Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572 legislation that appoints May 22 as “Harvey Milk Day” in California public schools AND and SB 54 that recognizes same-sex marriages performed out of state.

The signing of these two bills is a slap in the face to voters who have consistently rejected same sex marriage and pushing homosexuality in schools.

Opponents “Harvey Milk Day” were concerned that the legislation would not simply “allow schools to conduct activities that would foster respect for all” but rather pressure schools into presenting homosexuality in a positive light, gay marriage as a civil right, and those who say homosexual relations are wrong as discriminatory bigots.

Concerned parents, teachers and pro-family leaders joined the voices of thousands who had already called on the governor to veto “Harvey Milk Day”  because of it’s aim in promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in public schools:

“Under SB 572, schoolchildren could perform mock gay weddings, have cross-dressing contests, and have gay-pride parades right on campus. Why? Because ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’ pressures schools to make children honor and support anything and everything that Milk believed in. The sky is the limit. And there’s no parental consent in the bill” — Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com

“Hispanic children are dropping out of school in record numbers, and now the politicians want children to learn more about the homosexual agenda, instead doing more to academically prepare them for graduation and college? That’s not just immoral, that’s crazy. Hispanic families will not put up with this.” — Luis Galdamez, Executive Director of La Familia Hispana

The Orange County Board of Education actually voted 5-0 to condemn officially condemn Harvey Milk day:

“We who are responsible for the academic achievement of thousands of children must guard and protect their best interests.  Replacing valuable classroom time with social engineering may be popular with some, but it’s certainly not the legitimate purpose of schools.”  —Dr. Ken Williams, member of the Orange County Board of Education

A second bill put forward by homosexual advocacy groups was also signed by the Governor.   SB 54 is the most flagrant violation of the people’s will to date:

“SB 54 requires the state of California to validate and recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state of California prior to November 5, 2008.  The bill specifically violates Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution which states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”—California Family Council

The People spoke by the millions during the Proposition 8 election last year and by millions before during Proposition 22.  Twice by vote and now by Constitutional amendment, the Constitution of California recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman.

SB 54 started off as a healthcare bill but was summarily gutted and amended into a new bill that recognizes same sex marriages from out of state. It was completely stripped inside and out and re-written to be a gay rights bill.

The gutting and amending of SB 54 allowed this controversial bill to pass to a full floor vote after going through only one committee hearing.  It’s wrong for such a controversial bill to  go through only a partial vetting without the opportunity for maximum public input.

After months of protesting, faxing, calling, and petitioning in opposition to these two bills, the governor has turned his back on voters, families and the state’s most vulnerable— our children.

–Beetle Blogger

Public School Children Replace Anthem Words With Praises to Barack Hussein Obama

This was filmed around June 19, 2009 at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ.

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight Mmm, mmm, mm!

Hello Mr. President, we honor you today, for all your great accomplishments we all must sing hooray! Hooray Mr. President, you’re number 1! The first black American to lead this great nation. Hooray Mr. President we honor your great plans to make this economy number one again! Hooray Mr. President we’re really proud of you and you stand for all _________ red white and blue. So 3 cheers for Mr. President for all you do is great! So here is _________ President. Hip Hip Hooray, Hip, Hip! Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray!”

These are public school children, singing not in praise of the country, or praise for the office, but praise for the man, AND for his policies.  This is indoctrination.

When parents stood up and said they would not stand by while their children were dragged into participation in Barack Obama’s cult of personality, who was overreacting?

—Beetle Blogger

Bookmark and Share

I Pledge Allegiance to Obama??

I Pledge….

Apparently this video is being shown in schools. That really bothers me because I know my kids love and respect the President of the United States, not because of who he is, but because of his office and the love they have for our nation. To put something like this into the heads of children is not right. It’s seven truths for one black lie. Very twisted.

“Showing the video in a public school is completely inappropriate,” said Jennifer Cieslewicz, whose daughter is a first-grader at the school. “I don’t believe a video such as this that promotes certain values should be shown to elementary students, especially without parents being aware. “

Our pledge should be to the United States of America and to it’s constitution not to it’s president no matter who he is.  It is a lame attempt to give Obama ownership over great ideals and ideas. All those things can be accomplished without Obama.

Yesterday a friend of mine sent me this:

“I had red alarm buttons go off in my mind, when I heard yesterday that Obama was going to address all the children in the nation via TV.  He then is going to have them do a worksheet with their opinions and have it sent to him . I am strictly opposed to this.  I think ‘The Children’s Story’ will tell you just how vulnerable our children are.  He needs to address the adult concerns before he starts influencing children.  I’ve had the “Ladies Home Journal’ article for 40 years and it haunted me then and it haunts me now.  My article is faded and worn but no less poignant.”

It is a little long (4 pages) but is a must read.

–Beetle Blogger

Quote:
“James Clavell, the author of Nobel House and Shogun presents a chilling tale of how patriotism can be reshaped in a person’s (childrens’) mind with a few simple and reasonable explanations.”

The Children’s Story

by James Clavell
The teacher was afraid.

And the children were afraid. All except Johnny. He watched the classroom door with hate. He felt the hatred deep within his stomach. It gave him strength.

It was two minutes to nine.

The teacher glanced numbly from the door and stared at the flag which stood in a corner of the room. But she couldn’t see the flag today. She was blinded by her terror, not only for herself but mostly for them, her children. She had never had children of her own. She had never married.
In the mists of her mind she saw the rows upon rows of children she had taught through her years. Their faces were legion. But she could distinguish no one particular face. Only the same face which varied but slightly. Always the same age or thereabouts. Seven. Perhaps a boy, perhaps a girl. And the face always open and ready for the knowledge that she was to give. The same face staring at her, open, waiting and full of trust.

The children rustled, watching her, wondering what possessed her. They saw not the gray hair and the old eyes and the lined face and the well-worn clothes. They saw only their teacher and the twisting of her hands. Johnny looked away from the door and watched with the other children. He did not understand anything except that the teacher was afraid, and because she was afraid she was making them all worse and he wanted to shout that there was no need to fear. “Just because THEY’VE conquered us there’s no need for panic fear,” Dad had said. “Don’t be afraid, Johnny. If you fear too much, you’ll be dead even though you’re alive.”

The sound of footsteps approached and then stopped. The door opened.

The children gasped. They had expected an ogre or giant or beast or witch or monster – like the outer-space monsters you think about when the lights are out and Mommy and Daddy have kissed you good night and you’re frightened and you put your head under the cover and all at once you’re awake and it’s time for school. But instead of a monster, a beautiful young girl stood in the doorway. Her clothes were neat and clean, all olive green – even her shoes. But most important, she wore a lovely smile, and when she spoke, she spoke without the trace of an accent. The children found this very strange, for THEY were foreigners from a strange country far across the sea. They had all been told about THEM.

“Good morning, children, I’m your new teacher,” the New Teacher said. Then she closed the door softly and walked to the teacher’s desk, and the children in the front row felt and smelled the perfume of her – clean and fresh and young – and as she passed Sandra who sat at the end of the first row she said, “Good morning, Sandra,” and Sandra flushed deeply and wondered, aghast, with all the other children, HOW DID SHE KNOW MY NAME? and her heart raced in her chest and made it feel tight and very heavy.

The teacher got up shakily. “I, er, I – good morning.” Her words were faltering. She, too, was trying to get over the shock. And nausea.

“Hello, Miss Worden,” the New Teacher said. “I’m taking over your class now. You are to go to the principal’s office.”
“Why? What’s going to happen to me? What’s going to happen to my children?” The words gushed from Miss Worden, and a lank piece of hair fell into her eyes. The children were agonized by the cut to her voice, and one or two of them felt the edge of tears.
“He just wants to talk to you, Miss Worden,” the New Teacher said gently. “You really must take better care of yourself. You shouldn’t be so upset.”
Miss Worden saw the New Teacher’s smile but she wasn’t touched by its compassion. She tried to stop her knees from shaking. “Good-bye, children,” she said. The Children made no reply. they were too terrified by the sound of her voice and the tears that wet her face. And because she was crying, some of the children cried, and Sandra fled to her.

The New Teacher shut the door behind Miss Worden and turned back into the room, cradling Sandra in her arms. “Children, children, there’s no need to cry!” she said. “I know, I’ll sing you a song! Listen!”

And she sat down on the floor as gracefully as an angel, Sandra in her arms, and she began to sing and the children stopped crying because Miss Worden never, never sang to them and certainly never sat on the floor, which is the best place to sit, as everyone in the class knew. They listened spellbound to the happy lilt of the New Teacher’s voice and to the strange words of a strange tongue which soared and dipped like the sea of grass that was the birthplace of the song. It was a child’s song, and it soothed them, and after she had sung the first chorus the New Teacher told them the story of the song.
It was about two children who had lost their way and were all alone in the great grass prairies and were afraid, but they met a fine man riding a fine horse and the man told them that there was never a need to be afraid, for all they had to do was the watch the stars and the stars would tell them where their home was.
“For once you know the right direction, then there’s never a need to be afraid. Fear is something that comes from inside, from inside your tummies,” the New Teacher said radiantly, “and good strong children like you have to put food in your tummies. Not fear.”

The children thought about this and it seemed very sensible. The New Teacher sang the song again, and soon all the children were happy and calm once more. Except Johnny. He hated her even though he knew she was right about fear.

“Now,” said the New Teacher, “what shall we do? I know, we’ll play a game. I’ll try and guess your names!”
The children, wide-eyed, shifted in their seats. Miss Worden never did this, and often she called a child by another’s name. THE NEW TEACHER’LL NEVER KNOW ALL OUR NAMES! NEVER! they thought. So they waited excitedly while the New Teacher turned her attention to Sandra. Oh, yes, somehow she already knew Sandra’s name, but how could she possibly know everyone’s? They waited, glad that they were going to catch out the New Teacher.
But they were not to catch her out. The New Teacher remembered every name.

Johnny put up his hand. “How’d you know our names? I mean, well, we haven’t had a roll call or anything, so how’d you know our names?”
“That’s easy, Johnny,” the New Teacher said. “You all sit in the same places every day. Each desk has one pupil. So I learned your names from a list. I had to work for three whole days to remember your names. A teacher must work very hard to be a good teacher, and so I worked for three days so that I could know each of you the first day. That’s very important, don’t you think, for a teacher to work hard?”

Johnny frowned and half-nodded and sat down and wondered why he hadn’t figured that out for himself before asking, astonished that she had worked three days just to know everyone the first day. But still he hated her.
“Johnny. Would you tell me something, please? How do you start school? I mean what do you do to begin with?”
Johnny stood reluctantly. “We first pledge allegiance and then we sing the song -”
“Yes, but that’s all after roll call,” Sandra said, “You forgot roll call.
“Yes, You forgot roll call, Johnny,” Mary said.
“First we have roll call,” Johnny said. Then he sat down.
The New Teacher smiled. “All right. but we really don’t need roll call. I know all your names and I know everyone’s here. It’s very lazy for a teacher not to know who’s here and who isn’t, don’t you think? After all, a teacher should KNOW. So we don’t need roll call while I’m your teacher. So we should pledge, isn’t that next?”

Obediently all the children got up and put their hands on their hearts and the New Teacher did the same, and they began in unison, ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of -”
“Just a moment,” the New Teacher said. “What does PLEDGE mean?”

The children stood openmouthed; Miss Worden had never interrupted them before. They stood and stared at the New Teacher. Wordless. And silent.

“What does ALLEGIANCE mean?” The New Teacher asked, her hand over her heart.

The children stood in silence. Then Mary put up her hand. “Well, PLEDGE is, ah, well, something like – sort of when you want to do something very good. You sort of pledge you’re going to do something like not suck your thumb ’cause that makes your teeth bend and you’ll have to wear a brace and go to the dentist, which hurts.”
“That’s very good, Mary. Very, very good. To pledge means to promise. And ALLEGIANCE?”
Mary shrugged helplessly and looked at her best friend, Hilda, who looked back at her and then at the teacher and shrugged helplessly too.

The New Teacher waited, and the silence hung in the room, hurting. then she said, “I think it’s quite wrong for you to have to say something with long words in it if you don’t understand what you’re saying.”

So the children sat down and waited expectantly.
“What did your other teacher tell you that it meant?”
After a long silence Danny put up his hand. “She never said nothing, miss.”

One of my teachers at the other school I went to before this one,” Joan said in a rush, “well, she sort of said what it all meant, at least she said some thing about it just before recess one day and then the bell went and afterwards we had spellin’.”
Danny said, “Miss Worden – well, she never told us. We just hadta learn it and then say it, that’s all. Our real teacher didn’t say anything at all.”
All the children nodded. Then they waited again.
“Your teacher never explained to you?” All the children shook their heads.

“I don’t think that was very good. Not to explain. You can always ask me anything. That’s what a real teacher should do.” Then the New Teacher said, “But didn’t you ask your daddies and mommies?”
“Not about ‘I pledge.’ We just hadta learn it,” Mary said. “Once I could say it, Daddy gave me a nickel for saying it good.”
“That’s right,” Danny said. “So long as you could say it all, it was very good. But I never got no nickel.”
“Did you ask each other what it meant?”
“I askt Danny once and he didn’t know and none of knowed really. It’s grown-up talk, and grown-ups talk that sort of words. We just havta learn it.”

“The other schools I went to,” Hilda said, “they never said anything about it. They just wanted us to learn it. They didn’t ask us what it meant. We just hadta say it every day before we started school.”
“It took me weeks and weeks and weeks to say it right,” Mary said.
So the New Teacher explained what allegiance meant. ” …so you are promising or pledging support to the flag and saying that it is much more important than YOU are. How can a flag be more important than a real live person?”
Johnny broke the silence. “But the next thing is – well, where it says ‘and to the republic for which it stands.’ That means it’s like a, like a…” He searched for the word and could not find it. “Like well, sort of a sign, isn’t it?”
“Yes. The real word is a SYMBOL.” The New Teacher frowned. “But we don’t need a sign to remind us that we love our country, do we? You’re all good boys and girls. Do you need a sign to remind you?”
“What’s REMIND mean?” Mary asked.
“It means to make you remember. To make you remember that you’re all good boys and girls.”
The children thought about this and shook their heads.

Johnny put up his hand. “It’s our flag,” he said fiercely. “We always pledge.”
“Yes,” the New Teacher said. “It is a very pretty one. She looked at it a moment and then said, “I wish I could have a piece of it. If it’s so important, I think we should all have a piece of it. Don’t you?”
“I’ve a little one at home,” Mary said. “I could bring it tomorrow.”
“Thank you, Mary dear, but I just wanted a little piece of this one because it’s our own special classroom one.”
Then Danny said, “If we had some scissors we could cut a little piece off.”
“I’ve some scissors at home, Mary said.

“There’s some in Miss Worden’s desk,” Brian said.

The New Teacher found the scissors and then they had to decide who would be allowed to cut a little piece off, and the New Teacher said that because today was Mary’s birthday (HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?) Mary asked herself, awed) Mary should be allowed to cut the piece off. And then they decided it would be very nice if they all had a piece. The flag is special, they thought, so if you have a piece, that’s better than having just to look at it, ’cause you can keep it in your pocket.
So the flag was cut up by the children and they were very proud that they each had a piece. But now the flagpole was bare and strange.
And useless.

The children pondered what to do with it, and the idea that pleased them most was to push it out of the window. They watched excitedly as the New Teacher opened the window and allowed them to throw it into the playground. They shrieked with excitement as they saw it bounce on the ground and lie there. They began to love this strange New Teacher.

When they were all back in their seats the new Teacher said, “Well, before we start our lessons, perhaps there are some questions you want me to answer. Ask me anything you like. That’s only fair, isn’t it, if I ask you questions?”
Mary said, after a silence, “We never got to ask our real teacher ANY questions.”
“You can always ask me anything. That ‘ 8 the fair way. The new way. Try me.”
“What’s your name?” Danny asked.
She told them her name, and it sounded pretty.
Mary put up her hand. “Why do you wear those clothes? Well, it’s like a sort of uniform nurses wear.”
“We think that teachers should be dressed the same. Then you always know a teacher. It’s nice and light and easy to iron. Do you like the color?”
“Oh, yes,” Mary said. “You’ve got green eyes too.
“If you like, children, as a very special surprise, you can all have this sort of uniform. Then you won’t have to worry about what you have to wear to school every day. And you’ll all be the same.”
The children twisted excitedly in their seats. Mary said, “But it’ll cost a lot, and my momma won’t want to spend the money ’cause we have to buy food and food is expen– Well, it sort of costs a lot of money.”
“They will be given to you. As a present. There’s no need to worry about money.”
Johnny said, “I don’t want to be dressed like that.”
“You don’t have to accept a present, Johnny. Just because the other children want to wear new clothes, you don’t have to,” the new Teacher said.

Johnny slunk back in his chair. I’M NEVER GOING TO WEAR THEIR CLOTHES, he said to himself. I DON’T CARE IF I’M GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT FROM DANNY AND TOM AND FRED.

Then Mary asked, “Why was our teacher crying?”
“I suppose she was just tired and needed a rest. She’s going to have a long rest.” She smiled at them. “We think teachers should be young. I’m nineteen.”
“Is the war over now?” Danny asked.
“Yes, Danny, isn’t that wonderful! Now all your daddies will be home soon.”

“Did we win or did we lose?” Mary asked.
“We – that’s you and I and all of us – WE won.”

“Oh!”
The children sat back happily.
Then Johnny’s hatred burst. “Where’s my dad? What’ve you done to my dad? Where’s my dad?”

The New Teacher got up from her seat and walked the length of the room and the children’s eyes followed her, and Johnny stood, knees of jelly. She sat down on his seat and put her hands on his shoulders, and his shoulders were shaking like his knees.
“He’s going to a school. Some grown-ups have to go to school as well as children.”

“But they took him away and he didn’t want to go.” Johnny felt the tears close and he fought them back.
The New Teacher touched him gently, and he smelled the youth and cleanness of her, and it was not the smell of home which was sour and just a little dirty. He’s no different from all of you. YOU sometimes don’t want to go to school. With grown-ups it’s the same – just the same as children. Would you like to visit him? He has a holiday in a few days.”
“Momma said that Dad’s gone away forever!” Johnny stared at her incredulously. “He has a holiday?”
The New Teacher laughed. “She’s wrong, Johnny. After all, everyone who goes to school has holidays. That’s fair, isn’t it?”
The children shifted and rustled and watched. And Johnny said, “I can see him?”
“Of course. Your daddy just has to go back to school a little. He had some strange thoughts, and he wanted other grown-ups to believe them. It’s not right to want others to believe wrong thoughts, is it?”
“Well, no, I suppose not. But my dad never thought nothing bad.”
“Of course, Johnny. I said WRONG thoughts — not BAD thoughts. There’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s right to show grown-ups right thoughts when they’re wrong, isn’t it?”
“Well, yes,” Johnny said. “But what wrong thoughts did he have?”
“Just some grown-up thoughts that are old-fashioned. We’re going to learn all about them in class. Then we can share knowledge, and I can learn from you as you will learn from me. Shall we?”
“All right.” Johnny stared at her, perplexed. “My dad couldn’t have wrong thoughts. He just couldn’t….

Could he?”

“Well, perhaps sometime when you wanted to talk about something very important to your dad, perhaps he said, ‘Not now, Johnny, I’m busy,’ or, ‘We’ll talk about that tomorrow.’ That’s a bad thought — not to give you time when it’s important. Isn’t it?”
“Sure. but that’s what all grown-ups do.”
“My momma says that all the time,” Mary said.
And the other children nodded, and they wondered if all their parents should go back to school and unlearn bad thoughts.

“Sit down, Johnny, and we’ll start learning good things and not worry about grown-up bad thoughts. Oh, yes,” she said when she sat down at her seat again, brimming with happiness, “I have a lovely surprise for you. You’re all going to stay overnight with us. We have a lovely room with beds and lots of food, and we’ll all tell stories and have such a lovely time.”
“Oh, good,” the children said.
“Can I stay up till eight o’clock?” Mary asked breathlessly.
“Well, as it’s our first new day, we’ll all stay up to eight-thirty. But only if you promise to go right to sleep afterward.”

The children all promised. They were very happy. Jenny said, “But first we got to say our prayers. Before we go to sleep.”
The new Teacher smiled at her. “Of course. Perhaps we should say a prayer now. In some schools that’s a custom too.” She thought a moment and the faces watched her. Then she said, “let’s pray. But let’s pray for something very good. What should we pray for?”
“Bless Momma and Daddy.” Danny said immediately.
“That’s a good idea, Danny. I have one. Let’s pray for candy. That’s a good idea, isn’t it?”
They all nodded happily.
So, following their New Teacher, they all closed their eyes and steepled their hands together, and they prayed with her for candy.
The New Teacher opened her eyes and looked around disappointedly. “but where’s our candy. God is all-seeing and everywhere, and if we pray, He answers our prayers. Isn’t that true.?”
“I prayed for a puppy of my own lots of times, but I never got one,” Danny said.
“Maybe we didn’t pray hard enough. Perhaps we should kneel down like it’ 8 done in church.
So the new Teacher knelt and all the children knelt and they prayed very, very hard. But there was still no candy.

Because the New Teacher was disappointed, the children were very disappointed. Then she said, “perhaps

we’re using the wrong name.” She thought a moment and then said, “instead of saying ‘God,’ let’s say ‘Our Leader.’ Let’s pray to Our Leader for candy. Let’s pray very hard and don’t open your eyes till I say.”
So the children shut their eyes tightly and prayed very hard, and as they prayed, the New Teacher took out some candy from her pocket and quietly put a piece on each child’s desk. She did not notice Johnny — alone of all the children — watching her through his half-closed eyes.
She went softly back to her desk and the prayer ended, and the children opened their eyes and they stared at the candy and they were overjoyed.
“I’m going to pray to Our Leader every time,” Mary said excitedly.
“Me too,” Hilda said. “Could we eat Our Leader’s candy now, teacher?”
“Oh, let’s, please, please, please.”
“So Our Leader answered your prayers, didn’t he?”
“I saw you put the candy on our desks!” Johnny burst out. “I SAW YOU… I didn’t close my eyes, and I saw you. You had ‘em in your pocket. We didn’t get them with praying. YOU put them there.”
All the children, appalled, stared at him and then at their New Teacher. She stood at the front of the class and looked back at Johnny and then at all of them.

“Yes, Johnny, you’re quite right. You’re a very, very wise boy. Children, I put the candy on your desks. So you know that it doesn’t matter whom you ask, whom you shut your eyes and ‘pray’ to — to God or anyone, even Our Leader -no one will give you anything. Only another human being.” She looked at Danny. “God didn’t give you the puppy you wanted. But if you work hard, I will. Only I or someone like me can GIVE you things. Praying to God or anything or anyone for something is a waste of time.”
“Then we don’t say prayers? We’re not supposed to say prayers?”
The puzzled children watched her.
“You can if you want to, children. If your daddies and mommies want you to. But we know, you and I that it means nothing. That’s our secret.”
“My dad says it’s wrong to have secrets from him.”
“But he has secrets that he shares with your mommy and not with you, doesn’t he?”
All the children nodded.
“Then it’s not wrong for us to have a few secrets from them. Is it?”
“I like having secrets. Hilda and me have lots of secrets.” Mary said.
The New Teacher said, “We’re going -to have lots of wonderful secrets together. You can eat your candy if you want to. And because Johnny was especially clever, I think we should make him monitor for the whole week, don’t you?”

They all nodded happily and popped the candy into their mouths and chewed gloriously. Johnny was very proud as he chewed his candy, he decided that he liked his teacher very much. Because she told the truth. Because she was right about fear. Because she was right about God. He’d prayed many times for many things and never got them, and even the one time he did get the skates, he knew his dad had heard him and had put them under his bed for his birthday and pretended he hadn’t heard him. I ALWAYS WONDERED WHY HE DIDN’T LISTEN, AND ALL THE TIME HE WASN’T THERE, he thought.

Johnny sat back contentedly, resolved to work hard and listen and not to have wrong thoughts like Dad.

The teacher waited for them to finish their candy. This was what she had been trained for, and she knew that she would teach her children well and that they would grow up to be good citizens. She looked out of the window, at the sun over the land. It was a good land, and vast. A land to breathe in. But she was warmed not by the sun but by the thought that throughout the school and throughout the land all children, all men and all women were being taught with the same faith, with variations of the same procedures. Each according to his age group. Each according to his need.
She glanced at her watch….

It was 9:23.

CRI: California School Board Forces Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Curriculum on Elementary school Children

GLSEN_school_bus

Photo by jglsongs

CA Schools Force “Multisexual” Indoctrination

Multisexual curriculum has no place in the public schools.  Alameda School District made a big show of listening to parents the last few weeks in highly publicized board meetings….but then proceeded to ignore their concerns and requests, instituting the controversial curriculum without the possibility of opting out.

The hearings were a sham, a paltry effort at putting the face of democracy on the socialist march toward new morality in our schools.  Why did they bother to hold meetings to listen if they refuse to hear?

Alameda’s message to parents: Multisexual curriculum is coming to your school…. “Whether you like it or not.”

—Beetle Blogger

CRI

Yesterday evening the Alameda Unified School District voted 3-2 to approve the highly controversial curriculum that promotes multisexual lifestyles. Despite several prior meetings during which hundreds of parents expressed their outrage at such an imposition of controversial sexual content in the classroom, board members decided elementary school children should learn vocabulary words such as “lesbian” and “transgender.”

During the final meeting considering adoption of the curriculum, each side of the issue was given 15 minutes to outline their support or opposition. Three parents of Alameda students rose to express their opposition, articulately conveying the community-wide resistance to introducing a social agenda into their classrooms. Each parent detailed instances where their children were bullied or harassed for their race or religion without any help from the school board to stop the harassment.

The Alameda controversy has now become a national issue, symbolizing the fight between elitist school boards and parents asserting their rights. The media were a heavy presence at the meeting, including Fox News Channel’s Griff Jenkins, who covered the story for the national network.

In response to the revelation that the “anti-bullying” curriculum never actually addresses bullying, the school board announced the curriculum had been amended to include teaching on bullying by adding the word to the vocabulary list. They promised additional changes but, no parent was allowed to see the changes prior to the board’s vote that evening.

During the meeting, one school board member who voted against the curriculum inquired when the term “heterosexual” was introduced in school vocabulary and was told fifth grade, when parental notification and opt-out provision are mandatory. However, the term “homosexual” is introduced in fourth grade, and there will be no parental notification or opt-out provision. When asked about heterosexual family portrayals in school curriculum, the board was told students study the Donner Family. Those who were actually educated in their schools will remember the Donner Family is notorious for engaging in cannibalism when stranded on their pioneer journey to California in the 1800′s.

While parents have been highly suspect of the curriculum’s true agenda all along, it was revealed during the meeting that a lesbian teacher was pushing the curriculum because of the negative response she received from a “homophobic” parent who objected to the teacher “coming out” to her fifth grade class several years ago. She discovered that inserting the LGBT curriculum into the “Caring Schools” would be the best place for the controversial curriculum.

At one point during the meeting, the school board president admitted receiving more emails and letters in opposition of the curriculum than in support.  At the numerous board meetings those in attendance regarding the curriculum were overwhelmingly in opposition. That is noteworthy considering many Alameda parents are still learning about the curriculum.

“It’s impossible to understand how these three school board members can sit there and listen to this compelling testimony from concerned parents and still put their radical agenda ahead of the good of their school district,” stated Karen England, who attended the meeting. “They can see first-hand this is dividing their community and yet they bow to the special interests groups who are pushing an indoctrination program at the expense of true education.”

In fact, proponents of the curriculum are so dedicated to indoctrinating their young pupils that they refuse to include an opt-out provision for parents.

Disturbingly, when asked what protections would be afforded students with religious objections to the curriculum, school board member Mooney stated that they can object, but only at home. He arrogantly asserted that he “sees nothing wrong with homosexuality,” thus implying that those who disagree should keep their bigotry out of his school district.

“Mr. Mooney’s comment proves beyond a doubt that this is an agenda,” commented England. “Parental rights aren’t even a concern for these arrogant board members who act as though they are unelected, and unaccountable to Alameda residents. The message they unequivocally send to parents is that they believe parents are bigots and their bigoted children need to be reconditioned at school.”

It’s significant that during their testimony in support of the curriculum, some proponents of the LGBT curriculum referred to opposition as “bigoted” and “homophobic,” thus engaging in the very name calling they claim to want to end in our schools. One speaker opposed a parental opt-out because “You shouldn’t be allowed to opt-out because of bigotry.”

“The hypocrisy is astounding,” commented England. “Parents are being bullied into silence on this issue. In fact, opposition petitions delivered to the school board were asked to be returned at the end of the meeting for fear the names on the list would be published and the signers harassed. Even during the meeting, parents were made to feel that they were the outsiders, who have no say in the direction of their children’s education. We are committed to assisting these parents in taking back control of their schools.”

Parents are now planning to recall the board members who have chosen to side with radical social engineers over their constituents.

Watch Alameda parents testify against the LGBT curriculum:

Parent #1

Parent #2

Parent #3

Read, Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents

Proposed Curriculum

The Truth About the Law

FAQ’s

Please donate to CRI as we continue to stand for traditional values!

Celebrating All Those Who Died Defending Our Freedom

IMG_4494

Happy Memorial Day

Grateful today for the freedoms I have. And those who fought and died to protect them.

Especially since so many want to silence my speech and insult my belief in God. Just look at any facebook page which supports traditional marriage.

Got this email from a facebook friend:

One of them [gay-marriage activists] even hacked onto my Facebook account and stole some of my family photos. C. Hawn is using my family photo as his profile pic…trying to get under my skin. Anyways, make sure you set all of your settings strict so they don’t do it to you. I was posting as [--- ------] but had to create this Facebook account because they reported me over and over again too. They hate to hear truth. It’s a battle, I appreciate having people like you in my corner. God Bless, and forgive me if I tell a few of ‘em I feel like cracking their teeth in or something. I try to keep my Federal side separate from my Church side…as they want me to.

In celebration of Memorial day, I commit to continue saying some Truths out loud:

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Children deserve a mom and a dad.

 

<>the pomegranate apple blog

Reminder: Why Are We Fighting For Traditional Marriage?

children need a mom and a dad

Tonight, I was participating in a Facebook Fan Page for Marriage.

One commenter said:

“There are no RIGHTS to a mom and dad! If there were, same sex adoption wouldn’t be legal! Stop talking about rights that don’t exists as your main argument!”

Wow. Usually people don’t admit out loud that they don’t think children have a right to a mom and a dad. Usually they try to deflect and talk about how children just need two people to love them. Usually they can’t bring themselves to admit they are advocating stripping a child on purpose of their natural parental rights.

It’s always shocking to me.

And sad.

And supremely unfair. The children are born at the mercy of adult wants.

Happy Sunday.

<>the pomegranate apple

———————

photo

this is marriage: a mom and a dad

this is marriage 3

“Increasingly, homes which are either fatherless or motherless have been the product of the rise of nonmarital trends in the wake of insistent attacks on the social institution of marriage.

How is such misfortune something that could provide a basis for embedding fatherlessness and motherlessness into the society’s view of the most pro-child social institution which integrates fatherhood and motherhood?

The SSMers do not say because they really do not believe it could increase the number of kids raised by married parents. They just use kids in vulnerable families as an excuse to claim special treatment for a tiny subset of the same-sex category — which is itself a small subset of the nonmarriage category.”

Chairm

————————–

photo by debaird

Kids as Pawns in the Gay Agenda

by Pink Sherbet Photography

Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography

California Actively Promotes Gay Adoption Agenda at the Expense of Children

What is California doing handing children out as legitimacy prizes for gay agenda promos?  Shouldn’t they be more concerned with giving children a chance at being a part of real families?

Gender matters in child raising.  Homes with single parents or same-sex parents are not equipped to give a child the same things homes with a loving mother and father could.

The American College of Pediatricians says that homosexual parenting is sadly less than ideal for children:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development,” the college states in a position statement about homosexual parenting posted in the “Position Statements” section of its website, acpeds.org.

“Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation,” it says. “This position is rooted in the best available science.”

The American College of Pediatricians’ position statement references the many studies that have found that children thrive best in families with a married mother and father.

So, if there’s no equal substitute for a real family, why are we giving children away to gay couples?  And why is California pushing the issue and giving money it doesn’t have to promote the gay agenda?

Bankrupt California buys ads for ‘gay’ adoptions

hrccampaign1

SACRAMENTO – Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Social Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a “Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family” campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.

According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting “gay” adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.

In April 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed John Wagner as director of the Department of Social Services. Wagner is openly “gay” and is an advisory member of the Human Rights Campaign.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a California pro-family organization, released a statement saying the state has no business sponsoring the campaign when it has decided to issue taxpayers IOUs in place of their annual returns.

“At a time when the state doesn’t have enough money to provide hard-working people with their tax refunds, it’s a shame that state and county funds are being wasted on this propaganda,” he said.

The Campaign for Children and Families cited a 2001 University of Southern California “study of studies” on raising children in same-sex families titled, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The campaign includes the following discoveries by sociology professors Judith Stacey and Timothy Blibarz on its website:

  • A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.
  • Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit “an opposite pattern” and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.
  • Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to “sex-typed cultural norms.” And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

Thomasson said children are more likely to experience healthy childhoods when they are raised by loving heterosexual parents.

“When the facts confirm that children do best with a married father and mother, there is no reason other than selfishness for anyone to advocate placing vulnerable children into these sexually confused and sexually charged environments.”

Kids deserve a home with a mom and a dad and a chance at normalcy.  Children are not prizes or pawns in to be used in pushing the gay agenda on society, so why is our government exposing children to social experimentation?

–Beetle Blogger

Co-opting Parental Rights

by cogdogblog

Empty child's chair---Photo by cogdogblog

Co-opt:

To Absorb, Assimilate, Take Over, Appropriate

Families are under incremental attack on many fronts.  I happen to be an optimist, as are many of you.  In our society, we take things as they are, for granted.  It’s human nature.

I like to see the glass  half full, to enjoy my leisure and believe the best of my fellow men, but the truth is, either by design or ignorance, there are freedoms and rights that are slipping away from us nearly unnoticed.   I read this quote over at United Families. It makes  my parental blood boil, because I have seen enough of social workers, family courts and foster care to know just how true it is.

“As a society grows lax in its defense of the traditional family, the goals of the anti-family movement draw closer to fulfillment.  Their desire is to create a genderless society that is run by the state – void of religion, marriage and parents.  They hope for a pleasure-filled culture with no responsibilities and zero accountability.”

There is no one societal element that encompasses all of these goals, but each separate element plays a part, and cohesively, they are overwhelming in power.  Identifying the trend is the first step in reversing it.  Then, get involved with both feet.

The idea that the family is somehow replaceable by bureaucrats, or that mothers and fathers don’t know what is best for their children is a natural outgrowth of the breakdown of the family.  The government takes on an increasing role in parenting as increasing numbers of parents ditch out on responsibility in lieu of personal pursuits.

Unfortunately, it’s a self feeding cycle.  Once the distrust of parents is entrenched, the guilt is by association, and the assumption that naturally comes is that the nanny state knows best.  It’s not just limited to child custody, the attitude is spreading like a cancer through the education system and into international waters.  In some countries, the culture of the child is preeminent and parents are nothing more than caregivers with no ability to teach, discipline or correct.  These trends must be reversed.

What is the state of these attitudes in our country?  Check out these stories from the parental rights front of the war on family over at ParentalRights.org

—Beetle Blogger

“PSYCHOLOGICAL CO-PARENTS”

WEST VIRGINIA—A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as “psychological co-parents,” the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion, the Supreme Court justices wrote that they were “deeply troubled by the utter disregard” for the mother’s rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world.”

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question: “Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?”

SOURCE: http://www.wvrecord.com/news/203378-supreme-court-restores-full-custody-to-mother-from-babysitters


A FATHER SPEAKS OUT… AND GETS ARRESTED

MASSACHUSETTS—When his 5-year-old son came home from a school with a “Diversity Book Bag” including a book to be shared with his parents, David Parker began reading. He was distressed to find that one of the books, titled “Who’s in a Family” depicted two families led by homosexual partners.

Reluctant to expose his son to homosexuality at such an early age, David immediately contacted the school, intending to establish a dialogue as a concerned parent. His well-meant call, however, swiftly escalated into a dispute which pitted the father against the school.

After refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with school officials until the matter was resolved, David was charged with criminal trespassing and spent the night in jail—simply because he was concerned about the material being presented to his son.

A no-trespass order was issued, prohibiting Parker from setting foot on school grounds. While a local court has dropped the criminal trespassing charge against the father, he has procedurally been placed on “pre-trial probation” for one year.

SOURCE: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=4694


ONE MOTHER’S STRUGGLE TO GAIN TRUST

CONNECTICUT—As a proud new mother, Diana Owen’s joy at her daughter’s birth soon turned to deep concern for the baby’s health. At only a few months old, tiny Bryanna-Rose seemed prone to violent vomiting episodes, at times struggling for breath while her lips turned a bluish color.

When she first began to observe her daughter’s frequent incidents of projectile vomiting, the panicked mother rushed her baby girl to the hospital. For Diana, that day marked the beginning of many sleepless nights at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence while her baby daughter underwent numerous tests to determine her condition.

While doctors grappled for an explanation for Bryanna-Rose’s sporadic yet violent symptoms, Diana waited—having no idea that something more sinister was afoot: a growing suspicion of Diana’s reliability when it came to her claims about her daughter’s health.

When hospital personnel informed the anxious mother that they were taking her daughter into “protective custody,” she was shocked. But gradually the cold realization began to dawn on her: the medical personnel at the hospital were accusing her of Munchausen by Proxy, a mental disorder wherein a parent or primary caregiver actually induces or fabricates a child’s illness as a ploy for attention from doctors.

Turning a deaf ear to Diana’s cries, officials handed little Bryanna-Rose over to the Department of Social Services (DSS) and eventually a new foster mother. The new foster mother was floored, however, when Bryanna-Rose began violently vomiting. “It’s not the mother!” she told DSS, “This baby does have projectile vomiting!”

Even with the foster mother’s validation, Diana’s battle to gain trust continued to drag on. The day officials took her daughter, Diana could not have guessed that eleven months would go by before she was permitted to visit with her alone—and only after months of psychological evaluation and intrusive questioning by social workers.

Today, while Diana is delighted to have her daughter back, she feels bruised by the experience—particularly by the eleven months of separation from her daughter. “It is myself and my family that will face the consequences of this nightmare,” she says.

SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/04/a_mothers_battled_to_be_believed


Why Preserve Man-Woman Marriage

Why Preserve

Man-Woman Marriage

EQUAL STATUS vs. CONSEQUENCES

The issue over legitimizing gay marriage is not one of equal “rights” – because California law insures that “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses”. (California Family Code §297.5.)

It is, instead, a question of equal “dignity”. Proponents of gay marriage do not want homosexuals to feel like “second-class citizens” as a result of not being allowed to use the familiar and highly favored designation of “marriage”. (Again, being treated like second class citizens is not the issue – there are plenty of legal protections to keep that from happening. It is the feelings of gay couples that are the concern.) Proponents of gay marriage believe that civil decency (and Jesus) requires us to be compassionate, loving and tolerant of homosexual relationships, which they say requires us to extend to them full acceptance, equal dignity, and identical status.

Virtually everyone would be willing to grant “equal status” – if it did no harm. The problem is, there are devastating consequences for doing so, which proponents of gay marriage refuse to consider. For them, “feelings trump consequences.” The following material will evidence that granting equal status to gay marriage will irreparably damage: marriage, families, parenting, children, morality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, majority rule, separation of powers, states’ rights, and America . We cannot allow this effort to “not hurt people’s feelings” lay waste to so many institutions, principles and rights.

20 Reasons to vote YES on Prop 8:

to protect MARRIAGE

Prop 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. Marriage is an institution which pre-exists both church and government, and is the foundation of all known civilizations and societies. History shows us that marriage is an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself – which is why the state has a compelling interest in preserving and protecting it. Central to the state’s interest in marriage is the procreation and rearing of children. Marriage advances the state’s interest in ensuring the birth and rearing of children in the setting most likely to ensure their well-being and protection, and providing the next generation the training and attributes necessary to sustain a civilized society. Hence, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges and have been held to important obligations, by force of law, all aimed at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared.

Advocates of gay marriage tend to see marriage as a ceremony between individuals, primarily to ratify their affections. Contrary to what gay activists assume, the state does not endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn for society. Society gets no benefit from redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships — only harm. Legalizing gay marriage will transform the meaning, expectations and practices of marriage as a social institution – in essence destroying marriage as we know it – in a reckless social experiment with numerous destructive consequences.

There already are disturbing social impacts where gay marriage has been legalized. The experience of European countries that have legalized gay marriage demonstrates that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage erodes the already weakened stability of marriage, family and children. Research shows that marriage is weakest, in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest, and that there is a direct connection between gay marriage and illegitimacy. As scholar Stanley Kurtz concluded, “If gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic [European] pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution. In the American context, this would be a disaster.” (The Weekly Standard 9, No. 20 (February 2, 2004): 26-33.)

to sustain THE POPULATION

To sustain the population we need a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman. Countries that have legalized gay marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. The Netherlands , Sweden and Canada all have birthrates around 1.6 children per woman, and are losing population.

to protect FAMILIES

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and serves as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. Traditional families, with an involved mother and father, provide a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that children will be able to form a clear gender identity, grow up understanding the proper human relationships between a man and woman, a mother and father, and a husband and wife, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of gay marriage will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Gay marriage gives a confusing message, totally marginalizes marriage and family, and fails to prepare children for heterosexual marital relationships – thereby destabilizing the basic unity of society – the family.

to protect MOTHERHOOD & FATHERHOOD

In some countries it is already considered discriminatory to honor mothers and fathers due to the fear of embarrassing children who have single parents, lesbian mothers or homosexual fathers. Since legalizing gay marriage will create more officially sanctioned families without mothers or fathers, it is certain to fuel the current effort to eliminate all references to mothers and fathers in our society under the guise of discrimination.

to protect CHILDREN

Children Need a Father and a Mother. The research is overwhelming – children always do better in families with a mother and a father. The two most loving moms cannot be a dad, and the two most loving dads cannot be a mom – and children need both. A loving and civilized society always comes to the aid of fatherless and motherless families. But a loving and civilized society never intentionally creates permanently fatherless and motherless families as a matter of law and public policy. Gay marriage powerfully teaches that (1) men and women are interchangeable, (2) a child does not need a mother and a father, and (3) those who believe otherwise are bigots.

Children Need Stable Home Environments. Homosexuals and lesbians are poor role models for children because of their lifestyle: Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. A study in the Netherlands, a country that has legalized gay marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be 1.5 years. Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.

Legalizing gay marriage severs children from their right to know and be raised by their biological parents. Children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who gave them life, known as the “child’s bonding right.” Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one.

to protect PARENTAL RIGHTS TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN VALUES

Prop 8 protects our children from schools promoting gay marriages.

California law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage,(Education Code §51890.) and if the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional man-woman marriage.

Moreover, children will also be taught against their parents’ wishes that homosexuality is healthy and normal. In the Parker case the Parkers and the Wirthlins filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts to try to stop the indoctrination of their children about homosexuality in their school. They lost. On appeal the Court of Appeals ruled that parents cannot prohibit schools from promoting homosexuality – or opt their children out of such instruction — because Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution,” and the state’s schools have the right toeducate their students regarding that recognition.” The U.S. Supreme Court just turned down their appeal. View a short video of the Parker’s story: (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713). Other parents will experience their own nightmare story everywhere that gay marriage is legalized.

In order to stop Prop 8, gay activists are spreading the lie in California that schools will not teach children about gay marriage. Yet in Massachusetts these same activists are petitioning judges to force schools to teach children about gay marriage. According to legal records (on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign in California have argued vociferously in Massachusetts that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped!

As further evidence of their intention to indoctrinate children about gay marriage, during the first week in October 2008, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.” And a lesbian who teaches 8th grade sex education in Massachusetts told NPR that she teaches her children how lesbians use “a sex toy” to have intercourse. If anyone objects, she says, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.”

Not only will school children be taught about gay marriage if Prop 8 fails – it’s already happening.

to protect MORALITY

Promiscuity in marriage will become more generally accepted. Homosexual activists also claim that “monogamous” gay couples behave like monogamous heterosexual couples. The data refutes this claim. Many male homosexuals readily admit that monogamy and fidelity for them can mean something entirely different than what most accept the term to mean. Monogamy, especially for male partners (as lesbians are generally more faithful), can mean remaining “emotionally monogamous” as a couple while still having multiple sexual relations with other men, including casual encounters with complete strangers, even though still “committed” to their partner. Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. A Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. (AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.)

Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage. Homosexual activists admit that gay marriage is the “vanguard” for dethroning the institutional authority of traditional marriage. Their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more “inclusive,” but to deinstitutionalize marriage, and remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and … transforming the very fabric of society.”

Gay marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior. Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of “love” and “mutual commitment,” or “mutual sexuality”, it is impossible to exclude virtually any “relationship” between two or more partners of either sex. It is anticipated that the demands for legalization of polygamy will also grow.

TOLERANCE vs. ENDORSEMENT

For many years there has been unrelenting pressure from homosexuals to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic”.

Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards, or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices, or insulating gay marriage from examination. Speaking on matters of public morality – including gay marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for a homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.  Working to protect marriage is not mean-spirited. It is the legitimate response of the majority of people who want what is best for individuals, children and our society – and therefore want to preserve the proven and essential institution of marriage. The many negative consequences that would result from legalizing gay marriage clearly provide strong reasons for preserving man-woman marriage.

GAY PARTNERS ALREADY HAVE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIED SPOUSES

Prop 8 is not an attack on the gay lifestyle or gay partner rights. Proposition 8 is not an attack on the gay lifestyle and doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses”. (California Family Code §297.5.) All laws on the books regarding domestic partnerships will remain intact. Gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships will continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy.

GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A “RIGHT”

The US Constitution does not grant any “right” to homosexual marriage. Nor does Congress, which in 1996 overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Nor do 44 states, all of which have passed legislation making it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. 27 did so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. 17 states took the extra step of banning civil unions or domestic partnerships as well. Justice Baxter in his dissent to the case legalizing gay marriage, emphasizing that “there is no deeply rooted tradition of gay marriage, in the nation or in this state,” and there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage.” (In re Marriage Cases,43 Cal.4th 757, 861-864.) There is no unrestricted right to marry whoever you want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia. That is why gay marriage is not a “right”.

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE DOES NOT VIOLATE GAYS’ CIVIL RIGHTS

Gays claim that denial of marriage is a violation of their civil rights, equivalent to racism. There is absolutely no legal, social or historical logic behind this claim. As leading black activist, Niger Innis, (National Spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equaility) states, “As the community that endured both slavery and segregation, African-Americans will always reject the lie that radical activists have a “civil right” to redefine marriage for our entire society. That’s because [the African-American community] – perhaps more than any other – understands in very real terms the consequences of family breakdown.… When marriage declines, children and society both suffer. Violent crime, youth crime, welfare dependency and child poverty track more closely with family disintegration than with any other social variable – including race and income level.”

To substantiate their racism argument, gay activists try to equate opposition to gay marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage. But the equation is false. There is no comparison between sex and race. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women, for example, is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not. Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. But comparing the prohibition of gay marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them. Gay marriage is NOT a civil right. And there is no civil “right” to redefine marriage for all of society.

to protect CIVIL RIGHTS

The civil rights issue actually runs in favor of the 96% of the population who are not gay. Implementing gay marriage will trample upon their civil rights. For the first time in our history, America is faced with a powerful movement that defines its alleged “rights” in terms of the deprivation of the fundamental rights of others. As a result, the gay marriage movement is depriving other Americans of civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, including: freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion.

to protect RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

When rights for gay couples are expanded, freedom of religion is threatened as citizens are coerced to act against conscience and belief. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land state authorities will be required to treat opposition to gay marriage as “invidious discrimination,” “irrational,” or “motivated by hate.” “Civil-rights laws banning discrimination over sexual orientation [will] take priority over religious liberty in every case.” (Quote by Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress.) Thus religious bodies retaining such “discriminatory beliefs” will be subject to a wide range of legal penalties precisely because their policies reflect those beliefs. The D.C. Court of Appeals, for example, has already ruled that “[the] compelling interest in the eradication of sexual orientation discrimination outweighs any … exercise of religion.” (536 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1987). And arrests have already been made for publicly opposing gay rights. (Startzell v.City of Philadelphia, 6 (E.D. Pa. Jan 18,2007). If courts and legislatures are not successful in forcing religious groups to accept gay marriage outright, indirect coercion through loss of tax-exempt status will prove just as effective. The chilling effect that either litigation or the threat of loss of tax status will have on religious liberty is real and immediate. Churches will also be pressured to compromise their beliefs or face loss of equal access to a wide array of government benefit programs and licensing regimes.

Anti-discrimination regulations will become more important than religious beliefs. Even without legalized gay marriages, gay couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them. Even “para-church” organizations such as schools, charities, adoption agencies and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: In 2006, when the traditional man-woman definition of marriage was declared a form of “bigotry” by the Massachusetts courts, Catholic Charities preemptively stopped providing adoption services in Massachusetts because the State’s gay marriage law would have compelled them to facilitate adoptions by gay couples. The archdiocese was prepared to provide referrals for gay couples looking to adopt, but that wasn’t going to be acceptable to the state. (Catholic World News, Mar 10, 2006. See: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906 )

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University‘s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned gay couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize gay marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City‘s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act that protected gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she was in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs, and referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment. The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act, and the California Supreme Court held unanimously that the “1st Amendment’s right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt physicians from conforming their conduct to the … antidiscrimination requirements.” This was an elective procedure, no emergency involved, with another doctor willing to do the procedure. One court justice suggested that the doctor take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee’s religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court indicated that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against gay couples.

Adoption services: A gay couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. Because they refused to advertise homosexual California couples as potential adoptive parents, the largest adoption advertising company on the Internet can no longer advertise any couples from California as potential adoptive parents.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning gay unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: In Ocean Grove, N.J., a lesbian couple brought a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights against a Methodist church for not allowing them to use a pavilion on the church’s beach-front property for their civil-union ceremony. The church had offered the couple use of its property and boardwalk for the ceremony, but not the use of places the church considered “worship spaces.” In January, an administrative judge with the Division of Civil Rights found against the church and stripped the pavilion area of its tax-exempt status for the church’s refusal to comply with the state’s sweeping anti-discrimination law. This will reportedly cost the church some $20,000 a year.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. In Philadelphia the mayor’s office revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building. While these cases do not directly involve gay unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp.

Rights of religion and conscience are being trampled upon in the name of a brave new social, cultural and legal norm that denies the importance of mothers and fathers for children. Recognizing the importance of tax-exempt status to the viability of churches, some activists implicitly or even directly threaten them with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they don’t comply with their demands for social change. Some groups go so far as to file complaints with the IRS, occasionally leading to IRS investigations.

to protect FREE SPEECH

Lawsuits and legislation ostensibly in favor of human rights have led to tighter restrictions on religious “expression”, and even raises the specter of speech monitors. This begins to put everyone’s free speech rights in jeopardy.

Parochial schools: In England, a Catholic school has been prohibited from firing an openly gay headmaster, and parochial schools there are forbidden by law to teach that homosexuality is a sin.

Ministers: Pastors in Sweden were prosecuted for speaking out publicy about gay marriage based on their reading of biblical scripture. In Canada, one of 6 countries that have legalized gay marriage, A Catholic bishop in Calgary was the target of complaints filed with the Human Rights Commission because he issued a pastoral letter that urged Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage. (“Calgary bishop defiant about gay marriage,” Canadian Press, Mar.31, 2005.) And the Alberta Human Rights Commission recently took the draconian step of issuing a ruling forbidding a Christian pastor to make “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality — or even to repeat Biblical condemnations — for the rest of his life, thus prohibiting him from teaching his church’s doctrine about marriage. (“Government to Pastor: Renounce your faith!” WorldNet Daily, June 9, 2008.) A Human Rights Commission complaint was also filed against a Catholic priest for quoting from the bible, the Catholic Catechism, and papal encyclicals. (“Priest investigated for quoting Bible,” WorldNet Daily, June 5, 2008.)

Municipal employees: An employee at the City of Oakland was threatened with termination for using the terms “natural family, marriage and family values” while discussing a public issue with co-workers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal backed up the district court saying administrative efficiency in a government office is more important than free speech, and that municipal employers can completely censor the terms “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” as hate speech. The court concluded that municipalities have a right to literally dictate what form an employee’s speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues. The court completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland‘s Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful.  When the appellants attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland.  The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination of employment had any effect on free speech.

If government recognizes gay marriage as a legal right, it is obligated to protect that right – and increasingly, that means silencing religious speech. This is underscored by two recent resolutions in San Francisco .

Churches: San Francisco denounced Catholic teachings on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans”, “‘hateful”, “defamatory”, “ignorant”,’ and more. Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the city and county board in 2006, was a response to the Vatican‘s ban on placing adoptive children in homosexual households. It called the Vatican a “foreign country” that attempted to “negatively influence existing and established customs.” Two Catholic residents of San Francisco filed suit, calling this an unconstitutional display of government hostility toward religion. They lost in the District Court, where a judge said that the Catholic Church was responsible for having “provoked this debate” and that elected officials were “merely exercising their free speech rights.”

Youth groups: One week after issuing Resolution 168-08, San Francisco passed another unanimous resolution against Teen Mania’s Battle Cry for a Generation rally. 25,000 teens had rallied against the sexualization of youth culture by advertisers and media, and the Board of Supervisors called this an ‘’act of provocation” by an “anti-gay”, “anti-choice” organization that wanted to “negatively influence” city politics. California Assemblyman Mark Leno, who is homosexual, said that “religious people may be few — but they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”

to protect MAJORITY RULE from MINORITY RULE

Proposition 8 does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose. Gays can live as they want – but reciprocally, they should also not unilaterally have the right to redefine marriage for the other 96% of society. Furthermore, although 4% of the US may be gay, few of them are in committed long-term relationships, and if only 2% of those few who are in committed long-term relationships marry, than we would have destroyed the entire institution of marriage for millions of people and for generations to come, for the benefit of a very small handful of people. That is why America has “majority rule” – so there is no “tyranny by the minority”.

If gay marriage advocates want to change the definition and institution of marriage, they should have to put a ballot measure before the voters to do so, in order to have this vital matter be decided by the vote of the people. That’s how we do things in America . And we did that! In November 2000 over 61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 to reaffirm that only man-woman marriage would be valid or recognized in California . But what radicals can’t accomplish by legal means, they try to do by extra-legal ones. They went behind the backs of the voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for all of society. That violates the principal of majority rule, a rule which safeguards democracy. We cannot let that happen.

to protect MAJORITY RULE from ACTIVIST JUDGES

Over 61% of Californians voted to reaffirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California . However, because this language wasn’t put into the state Constitution when it was approved, four activist judges from San Francisco , in an unprecedented abuse of raw judicial power, arrogantly presumed to redefine the most fundamental institution of human society, and in the process trampled the democratic process and nullified the votes of millions of California voters.

In a strong dissent, Justice Baxter asserted that the majority of the court “violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error” by arrogating to itself the power to make a significant legislative policy judgment absent any clear constitutional directive. Justice Baxter noted: “But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will…and in doing so, oversteps its authority.” (In re Marriage Cases,43 Cal.4th 757, 861-864.)

Proposition 8 will reverse the court’s radical decision, protect the will of the people and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution.

to protect us from MORE GOVERNMENT

Government is already too much a part of our lives. Instituting gay marriage will make it considerably worse. Once a state government declares that gay marriages are a civil right, those governments will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against gay couples. Activists are expected to demand government oversight of virtually every segment of society, particularly schools, churches, and the workplace, to make sure that gays are given the respect and equality the law will require, and that no one speak ill of their lifestyle or marriages — which will be deemed to be punishable hate speech. Government will have to create new agencies and regulations and more bureaucrats to administer this “brave new world.”

to uphold FEDERAL LAW

In 1996 under President Bill Clinton Congress declared, “Marriage is the foundation of a successful society” and overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws. States should uphold that law.

to protect STATES RIGHTS

In July 2008 gay activists unveiled their backup plan for exporting the dismantling of marriage to the entire nation in the event that the voters of California vote to protect marriage in November. On July 15, the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill that would export gay marriage to other states. It would permit gay couples from states that do not recognize gay marriage to travel to Massachusetts for the sole purpose of obtaining a marriage license. The couples could then use their Massachusetts “marriage” as a tool for challenging their own states’ laws in court. The Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts have issued a statement against the bill saying in part that “Our legislature is attempting to impose the Massachusetts courts’ definition of marriage upon other states. Such action endangers the principle of state sovereignty that gives each state the right to govern itself and enact its own laws.”

to protect AMERICA

A defeat for marriage at the polls in California will embolden activists who have always planned to export their radical agenda to all 50 states – and basically install “European a-morality” (which many believe is “immorality”) throughout the country. A centerpiece of that agenda is taking away the basic rights of those who disagree with them – and those fundamental rights, of free speech, of free exercise of religion, and freedom of assembly, are what differentiate America from every other country. We need to protect American Judeo-Christian morals, and American freedoms – because no other country will.

to reduce CONFLICT

There is a broad consensus among legal experts that working through the countless details of defining the impact of the redefinition of marriage upon society will inevitably generate a flood of litigation for years to come. (“Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits…” San Francisco Examiner, April 7, 2008.) Legalized gay marriage will create an unprecedented level of legal confusion and invite a tidal wave of lawsuits in public accommodation law, employment law, and over government funding, with the only certainty being that they will challenge the workings of religious institutions like never before.

CONCLUSION

This great cultural and social battle is between two very different views of the institution of marriage. One will do what is best for children, all children; the other will not. One will bless children through the social norm of a mother and a father for every child, to the greatest extent possible; the other will denigrate that norm. One will preserve religious liberty for churches and for people of all faith communities; the other will not, but will instead be a powerful weapon against religious liberty. Gay activists will do this by branding everyone who does not believe in the rightness of gay marriage as bigots and treating their acts of conscience as unlawful discrimination, to be punished and otherwise suppressed. Traditional man-woman marriage will sustain the ennobling identities and statuses of husband and wife; the new order of marriage will destroy them and teach that men and women are interchangeable. One will preserve our liberty to enter into the vital social institution of man-woman marriage; the other, while promising “freedom,” will destroy that liberty.

Think of a world where Human Rights Commissions – unelected bureaucrats with unfettered authority – are judge, jury, and executioner of anything they feel is antagonistic speech toward gay marriage and its practitioners.

Think of a world where the judicial system relegates long-held religious beliefs to second-class importance behind anti-bias laws and a newly discovered protected class of people.

Think of a world where the public school system is required to teach values and beliefs to your children that may conflict with your own.

Think of the very real threat to your parental rights, your free speech, your freedom of religion.

And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?

We are engaged in a great cultural and social battle, testing whether “the sacred institution of marriage” can long endure, and whether America will be its home.


Vote Yes on Proposition 8!

– This piece was compiled by  Ed Allebest

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.