I Am A Mother. A Tale of Two Views

I Am A Mother.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Two mothers. Two world views.

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

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

—Beetle Blogger

Voice of the Nation—The Copenhagen Treaty

Join Heather and Angela for

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio


On Thursday– This week on “Voice of the Nation” we’ll be talking with Mike Duff, President of United Families International about the Copenhagen Treaty, the politics of global warming, and other issues around the world affecting families. Join us and find out what’s going on with the current issues surrounding the family in the political arena.


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

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

347- 215-6801

Calling Out for Backup! A Crucial Moment in Maine


Maine is in desperate need of financial assistance in the fight to protect marriage.  If they do not receive additional financial support soon they are at risk of losing the fight.  Your support can make all the difference.  What happens in Maine will affect the rest of the US.  Because of the support from people across the US and Canada California was able to overturn its same sex marriage ruling.  We must not stand aside now and let Stand for Marriage Maine’s efforts fail due to lack of funding.

They’re calling out for backup!  They’ve done so much with so little.  Let’s help push them over the top.  Protect Marriage!

—Beetle Blogger

Please read the message from Stand for Marriage Maine below and consider what you can do TODAY to make a difference!


We knew we were being vastly outspent from the fact that the No on 1 campaign was able to air their advertising upwards of 50% more than our Yes on 1 campaign ads. We had a clue that the other side was awash in money because of the dozens of paid staff members they have on board their campaign. But we never dreamed the situation was as dire as it is: our opponents have raised approximately $1.6 more than we have and are conducting a financial assault on the institution of marriage. Overall, they have raised an astonishing $2.7 million from gay marriage supporters across the country!

We are in desperate need of additional financial support or we risk losing because our opponents are attempting to buy themselves an election – and destroy the institution of marriage in the process.

The latest financial reports detailing the amount of money that has come in for both sides of the Question 1 campaign shows that our committee, Stand for Marriage Maine has raised approximately $1.1 million while our opponents have raised about 2.5 times more than we have. This is an astonishing financial advantage our opponents have amassed. It explains why they were able to be on the air with ads nearly three weeks before our campaign was able to begin advertising. It explains why they can afford to operate multiple campaign headquarters. It explains how they can afford a statewide staff of field organizers and operate dozens of phone banks. And it explains why the institution of marriage is teetering on the ledge – at risk of being forever redefined in Maine. Our opponents are raising money from across the country from gay marriage supporters who see an opportunity to win their first victory at the ballot box in the history of the nation.

We cannot let them get away with this. We cannot let homosexual marriage activists from virtually every state in the nation decide that marriage will be redefined in Maine. Please don’t let our opponents succeed with this financial assault on marriage. Will you please, right now, make a generous donation to our campaign?

The good news is that even though we are being vastly outspent, we have run a financially prudent and efficient campaign. Our polling shows that we are dead-even right now and in a good position to win the campaign. Voters recall our advertising more so than the ads from the other side. We are defining Question 1 on our terms. And we know that we will win when voters come to understand the many consequences to families, children and society as a whole if same-sex marriage is legalized in Maine.

The only way our opponents can win is if they try to confuse the issue by running millions of dollars in advertising with false claims that we are lying about the consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage. They don’t want to defend the teaching of homosexual marriage to young children in public schools, so they are spending millions to try to deny and deny. They don’t want to talk about individuals, small businesses and religious groups being sued for refusing to support homosexual marriage, so they are spending millions to calls us liars. And they don’t want to explain to voters why the law they sponsored and advocated strips from Maine’s marriage statutes the interests of nurturing children, so they are spending millions making the oxymoronic claim that we are trying to “harm children.” We are trying to prevent 5, 6 and 7 year old children from being taught about homosexual marriage in school against the wishes of their parents and we are accused of “harming children?” If it weren’t so serious, this would be like describing an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ situation.

But it IS so serious. Our campaign strategists, who helped pass Proposition 8 in California and who have won dozens of initiative campaigns around the country, tell us that we cannot win if we continue to be outspent as we have to this point. It is amazing that we are still in a dead heat. We’ve had to cut our voter contact program dramatically. Every week we’ve cut our advertising budget. We’ve eliminated a statewide bus tour that we had planned for next week. We’ve had to cut back on staffing. And collateral materials. And direct mail. Our grassroots organizing has suffered.

Yet still we are in a position to pass Question 1. This is a testament to your strong support and to the common sense of average Mainers who know in their heart that marriage is worth preserving.

But let’s not fool ourselves. We have to raise more money, right now, if we are to pass Question 1. Please make a sacrificial contribution today, as if the survival of marriage depended on it. Because, quite literally, it does.

The campaign reports made available today lay bare the falsehood of our opponents’ claim that they have a homegrown, grassroots Maine-based campaign. The truth is their support has come mostly from the gay activist political elite from all corners of the nation, including Hollywood, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, and the Democratic national political machine, Act Blue.com. They have raised money from virtually every state in the nation.

Why are homosexual marriage activists pouring money into Maine? Because never before have they been able to convince voters to approve homosexual marriage. Voters in thirty states have considered this issue, and in all thirty states they have voted to preserve traditional marriage and reject homosexual marriage. But our opponents think they can win in Maine. We are a small state. Raising millions of dollars to spend here will make a big difference. Recruiting hundreds of volunteers to come to Maine will make a big difference. And if they can win in Maine it would be historic. They will use a victory to attempt to convince the media that the mood of the nation has changed and that it is time for America to also abandon the God-created idea of marriage.

Will you let them get away with it?

So much is riding on the Question 1 election. We have three weeks left. We have three weeks to close the financial deficit we are in. We have three weeks to add to our advertising campaign. We have three weeks to buttress our grassroots operation. We have three weeks to talk to Maine voters about the importance of traditional marriage, and the consequences of abandoning it in favor of homosexual marriage.

But all this must start right now – today – and it must start with you and me. We’ve learned an important lesson. Our opponents are determined to do whatever they can to secure victory. We must respond, and respond now. It is up to you. There is no one but you. The only question is, will you be there for us when the fight for marriage needs you the most? We pray you will be.

Thank you for all your efforts to defend God’s precious institution of marriage. We look forward to your continued help. We are counting on you at this critical time.


Marc Mutty
Stand For Marriage Maine


From Broken Cars to Broken Families—AAA Headed Down the Wrong Road

wrong way driver

I just got my AAA renewal in the mail this month.  It’s nearly 80.00 for a membership that includes my husband and myself and our two cars—but it doesn’t cover the restructuring of families.

According to Equality Florida, a homosexual activist organization, the American Automobile Association (AAA) has begun offering “Family Memberships” to homosexual couples, recognizing the homosexual couple as being “married.”


Apparently AAA fell under fire earlier this summer from three GLBT rights groups, Georgia Equality, Equality Florida, and the Tennessee Equality Project.  In response to this pressure, AAA decided to change it’s policy, despite the fact that the vast majority of it’s customers believes that families should not be remanufactured in the GLBT image.

The old AAA policy was basically a don’t ask, don’t tell type deal, but that wasn’t enough for gay rights activists who are pushing for full societal acceptance.  By threatening boycotts activists urge targeted businesses to do the heavy lifting for them, in spite of what the majority of companies and customers privately believe.

Thirty states have overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.  Unfortunately AAA’s political stance no longer reflects that of it’s consumer base.  Instead, they are nudging societal consensus one notch further toward broken families and broken homes.

Over the past 7 or8 years that we’ve had AAA we’ve been pretty happy with it.  Our cars break down probably once a year and it is reassuring to know that if I have an emergency out driving alone, that I can always call someone for help.  However, with the new policy changes and the ripple effect changes like these have on societal acceptance, my family and I will be choosing our emergency auto coverage somewhere else (Check it out! It’s cheaper too!).

—Beetle Blogger

Want to have your say?  You can email AAA President Robert Darbelnet from the AFA website here.  If that doesn’t work, check out the competition: http://www.autoroadservice.com

A Plea for Fathers: by Pearl Diver

Happy Father’s Day

No society should ever promote fatherlessness.

“Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.” [Trayce L Hansen, PhD]

Special thanks to Elijah Bossenbroek for the awesome music.

Bookmark and Share


New York: Espada and Monserrate Flip to give Republicans Senate Leadership Again

Prayers for New York Working Already! Marriage Rally Tomorrow.

We don’t have too many details, but NY Senators Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate switched to the Republican party this afternoon. This switches the Senate control to the Republicans. The Democrats tried turning off the power to stop the vote. They’ll probably try to challenge it on Monday, but most likely everything followed protocol.

The good news: the marriage neutering bill is most likely dead for this year.

Keep up the phone calls to your representatives.

Keep up the prayers (hearts still need changing).

and find out about the NYCF marriage rally here.

<>the pomegranate apple


[source: AP] see also

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



Video| New Hampshire: HB 436 Marriage Bill

More State Reps Present for Marriage Redefinition vote than Both Budget Votes!

From CPR Action:

Though we were very pleased with the outcome of the vote in the House this week to block Governor Lynch’s gay marriage amendment, the numbers tell the real story – where are their priorities?  Not only has the legislature spent more time and debate on the gay marriage issue, but as it turns out, there were more legislators present to vote on gay marriage than there were on the two budget bills!! Apparently the legislature sticking families with massive tax hikes, like the capital gains, estate, and gas taxes, just aren’t as important to them as gay marriage is!
Vote on the Lynch Gay Marriage Amendment:
(YEAS, NAYS) A NAY vote was against the Lynch Amendment


Today, CPR-Action Executive Director, Kevin Smith, commented on the statement from Governor Lynch’s Office that if the legislature passes legislation that maintains his "principles", he will sign the bill.

"Once again, we see the Governor going back on his word.  After declaring for years that he opposed gay marriage, the Governor then stated he had to ‘do what was best’ for the state only after the House and Senate passed gay marriage, breaking his word to the citizens of New Hampshire.  Now, after stating he would only sign the bill if the legislature passed ‘this language’, he is again hedging his word by stating it (only) needs to maintain its ‘principles’." 

Smith continued, "It is incredibly ironic at this point that the Governor would even be speaking of ‘principles’ when he can’t even abide by the simple principle of keeping ones word."

Confused about What is Going on in New Hampshire?

From Citizen Leadership of New Hampshire

Its been brought to my attention that Fox news has reported HB 436 as being defeated by the House …..  that is FALSE!  Only an amendment to the bill was defeated.

The bill is going to  Conference Committee where House Speaker Norelli gets to pick her favorites to participate in redesigning the bill and who knows what the bill is going to look like when they are done. 
The bill will have to go back to the Full House after the Conference Committee for another vote; then on to Gov Lynch.  We will still have another round to go at the State House.

Its important the citizens continue to call, email and write letters in defense of traditional marriage.

Gov Lynch needs to be held accountable to his public statement that if the amendments were not added he would veto the bill.
NH citizens have done a fantastic job motivating the Republican Representatives and Senators to get to the State House and VOTE!  There time and energy is paying off  because they all showed up yesterday!

Other articles:

Opine: NOM Director Urges NH Gov to Keep His word

Pearl: NOM and CPR Action Present: “I’m Confused”

Keyser’s Causes: Huge Victory for Marriage in New Hampshire

<>Pomegranate Apple


Critical Marriage Vote in Vermont—Holding the Veto

by Corey Ann

by Corey Ann

Along the same thoughts as yesterday, Look at what is happening in Vermont.  Today in Vermont they have a vote that will determine the future of their state.  So far, gay “marriage” has steamrolled quickly through.  No vote from the people has been allowed, no referendum held, no input from the people at all.  In fact, just the opposite.  The opposition’s goal is to get this through as quickly and quietly as possible, BEFORE the people have a chance to fully examine the issue.

Think this is a fair vote?  These tactics ought to raise red flags right there.

In votes high on rhetoric and low on facts, votes that do not reflect the constituents’ viewpoints, Vermont’s legislators are climbing over themselves to be first in line to vote “gay marriage” into their state. In the Senate, the vote was nearly unanimous for same sex “marriage”.  In the house yesterday the vote came down 95 yes to 52 no.  Vermont is on the cusp of having the dubious, yet apparently much coveted title of being the first state in the union to actually VOTE gay marriage into the system.

Nice how that’s phrased.  The opposition wants to say “The people Voted!”  They want the line Californians have…but in name only.  The reality is that the Legislature is acting alone, and without the people.  In voting for the much ballyhooed “gay marriage” vote, these legislators also voted to flatly deny the people’s request for a referendum on the issue.  This referendum would have allowed the people to decide this important issue without government politics and interference.  That vote was denied by nearly the exact same margins.

It appears that a vote for gay marriage in Vermont is also a vote against democracy.

The ONLY thing holding the line against the abuse of power in this state is the Governor, Jim Douglas.  He has promised to veto the legislation.  He is the only one. He needs at least 50 votes to hold the veto.  He has currently 52.  The pressure is on the legislature today to turn a few of those votes.

Marriage has been trashed in this state by it’s legislature.  In California it was nearly the same.  The people voted their hearts, the legislature worked against them.  Why?  Because there is no opposition at the ballot box for voting against marriage and family.   And why is that?  Because the Federal Government binds religious family organizations and restricts their speech when it comes to actual politicians.

The threat of losing “tax exempt” status is the 800 pound gorilla in these elections that hushes the voices of reason on politician’s moral stances.

If the people don’t speak for themselves, they have few voices in the family arena who are free to speak for them.  This is why our states like California and Vermont have these runaway legislatures that actually work against the people.  This is why it is so critical that we as individuals stand up and make our voices heard.  The opposition has no Government imposed limitations.  Their organizations are free to speak and influence legislators, and to call them to the plate when it’s time for an accounting.

This issue will affect the children of Vermont, the families of Vermont and unless they stand up today, make their voices heard TODAY,  none of those families will get to have a say in what will ultimately affect them deeply.
—-Beetle Blogger

See this list of legislators and their votes.  The Democrats who voted no are under extreme pressure today by their party leaders to conform to the party line against families.  Since when did we have a party against families?

They need our support.

Take it to the People!

Craig Bensen, Editor

What Do We Do Next?
Help Our Representatives Sustain VETO

Thank you for all who turned out for our noon rally yesterday. News reports in today’s papers show once again that the press can’t count. We told them about Vermont Renewal’s Dwight MacPherson reporting passing out 420 pro-marriage stickers. The Burlington Free Press reported 200 at the rally.

Last night’s BIG VOTE was 95 YES – 52 NO.

== Just before Dinner Break the House defeated an Amendment to put the question to Public Referendum. The vote was 52 Yea to 96 Nay. ==

Today there will be a Third Reading of the bill and another vote before sending the bill to the Senate for a revote. The House version has some differences from the Senate bill that the Senate will be asked to approve — likely a Monday night vote.

WHAT WE DO NOW is to keep contacting our representatives, no matter how they voted. The issue is not settled until the last vote — “Will the House sustain Governor Douglas’ veto?”

The 52 NO votes are enough to keep the veto but we have to keep the votes. Some, especially the Democrats who voted NO will be under huge pressure to switch “for the sake of the party.”

The Democrat Representatives who voted NO need strong congratulations. And they need to hear “Please continue to vote your conscience and your district, not the party line.”

Representatives’ Contact Links

Find your State Representative(s) contact information here.

How they voted on S.115 (same sex marriage bill)

NO — Democrats in BOLD print

Joe Acinapura, R-Brandon
Steven Adams, R-Hartland
David Ainsworth, R-Royalton
Kenneth Atkins, D-Winooski
Sonny Audette, D-South Burl.

Joseph Baker, R-West Rutland
Clem Bissonnette, D-Winooski
Carolyn Branagan, R-Georgia
Patrick Brennan, R-Colchester
Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington
Bill Canfield, R-Fair Haven
Gregory Clark, R-Vergennes
John Clerkin, R-Hartford
Howard Crawford, R-Burke
Tim Corcoran, D-Bennington
Michel Consejo, D-Sheldon

Dennis Devereux, R-Mount Holly
Eileen Dickinson, R-St. Albans
Andrew Donaghy, R-Poultney
Debbie Evans, D-Essex
Peter Fagan, R-Rutland City
Peg Flory, R-Pittsford
Robert Helm, R-Castleton
Mark Higley, R-Lowell
Richard Howrigan, D-Fairfield
Ronald Hubert, R-Milton
William Johnson, R-Canaan
Duncan Kilmartin, R-Newport City
Thomas Koch, R-Barre Town
Joseph Krawczyk, R-Bennington
Leigh Larocque, R-Barnet
Richard Lawrence, R-Lyndon
Robert Lewis, R-Derby
Michael Marcotte, R-Coventry
Norman McAllister, R-Highgate
Patricia McDonald, R-Berlin
Francis McFaun, R-Barre Town
James McNeil, R-Rutland Town
John Morley, R-Barton
Mary Morrissey, R-Bennington
Linda Myers, R-Essex
Chuck Pearce, R-Richford
Janice Peaslee, R-Guildhall
Peter Perley, R-Enosburg
David Potter, D-Clarendon
Gary Reis, R-St. Johnsbury
Brian Savage, R-Swanton
Robert South, D-St. Johnsbury
Donald Turner, R-Milton
Scott Wheeler, R-Derby
Phillip Winters, R-Williamstown
Jeff Young, D-St. Albans City


Patricia O’Donnell, R-Vernon

(Will Vote NO)

Shap Smith, D-Morristown (Speaker)

Richard Westman, R-Cambridge.
YES– Republicans in BOLD print

Janet Ancel, D-Calais
Peg Andrews, D-Rutland City
Bill Aswad, D-Burlington
Charles Bohi, D-Hartford
Bill Botzow, D-Pownal
Christopher Bray, D-New Haven
Mollie Burke, P-Brattleboro
Margaret Cheney, D-Norwich
Alison Clarkson, D-Woodstock
Jim Condon, D-Colchester
Chip Conquest, D-Newbury
Sarah Copeland-Hanzas, D-Bradford
Gale Courcelle, D-Rutland City
Susan Davis, P-Washington
David Deen, D-Westminster
Anne Donahue, R-Northfield
Johannah Donovan, D-Burlington
Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro
Alice Emmons, D-Springfield
Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln
Bill Frank, D-Underhill
Patsy French, D-Randolph
Eldred French, D-Shrewsbury
Frank Geier, D-South Burlington
Gary Gilbert, D-Fairfax
Maxine Grad, D-Moretown
Adam Greshin, I-Warren
Sandy Haas, P-Rochester
Helen Head, D-South Burlington
Martha Heath, D-Westford
Mary Hooper, D-Montpelier
Stephen Howard, D-Rutland City
Richard Hube, R-Londonderry
Tim Jerman, D-Essex
Willem Jewett, D-Ripton
Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero
Kathleen Keenan, D-St. Albans City
Warren Kitzmiller, D-Montpelier
Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier
Patti Komline, R-Dorset
Diane Lanpher, D-Vergennes
Mark Larson, D-Burlington
Joan Lenes, D-Shelburne
Lucy Leriche, D-Hardwick
Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg
Jason Lorber, D-Burlington
Terry Macaig, D-Williston
Steven Maier, D-Middlebury
John Malcolm, D-Pawlet
Ann Manwaring, D-Wilmington
Richard Marek, D-Newfane
Cynthia Martin, D-Springfield
Linda Martin, D-Wolcott
Jim Masland, D-Thetford
Jim McCullough, D-Williston
Virginia Milkey, D-Brattleboro
Alice Miller, D-Shaftsbury
Sue Minter, D-Waterbury
Mark Mitchell, D-Barnard
Anne Mook, D-Bennington
John Moran, D-Wardsboro
Mike Mrowicki, D-Putney
Floyd Nease, D-Johnson
Betty Nuovo, D-Middlebury
Anne O’Brien, D-Richmond
Michael Obuchowski, D-Rockingham
Scott Orr, D-Charlotte
Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham
Kathy Pellett, D-Chester
Peter Peltz, D-Woodbury
Paul Poirier, D-Barre City
Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington
Kesha Ram, D-Burlington
John Rodgers, D-Glover
Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe
Ernest Shand, D-Weathersfield
Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol
Megan Smith, D-Mendon
Kristy Spengler, D-Colchester
William Stevens, I-Shoreham
Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury
Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor
Tess Taylor, D-Barre City
George Till, D-Jericho
Kitty Toll, D-Danville
Larry Townsend, D-Randolph
Ira Trombley, D-Grand Isle
Linda Waite-Simpson, D-Essex
Kate Webb, D-Shelburne
Rachel Weston, D-Burlington
Jeff Wilson, D-Manchester
Suzi Wizowaty, D-Burlington
Kurt Wright, R-Burlington
John Zenie, D-Colchester
David Zuckerman, P-Burlington

We’ve got radio ads running, phone banks going. This costs hard cash. As I mentioned to a reporter this week, when all is done the other side will have outspent us 20 to 1.

This would be a great time for 100 people to donate $50, or 200 donate $25, etc. You know how it works. You can make online donations from our website at

Thanks for your support! Especially those who have already pitched in!
TIP, P.O. Box 4147, Burlington, VT 05406 http://www.TakeItToThePeople.org

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.”



photo by debaird

« Older entries