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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Beetle Blogger

SaveCalifornia: Alameda School District Tramples Parents

In Alameda County, school districts are implementing plans for indoctrinating children in gay and lesbian themed lessons and forbidding parents from interfering.  Here it comes!  “Whether you like it or not!”

—Beetle Blogger

California school district tramples parents
From SaveCalifornia.com

Tuesday night, over the protests of parents, the Alameda Unified School Board voted to keep and recraft its “Lesson 9″ homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality curriculum.

The Dec. 8 vote was 4-1 to “retain Lesson 9 until a replacement that specifically addresses all six of the ‘protected classes’ is…adopted by the board.” Read the blow-by-blow account of the school board meeting.

This means the preying on children to indoctrinate them into the unnatural and unhealthy LGBTQ (“lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning”) lifestyles is even worse now, and will become a more salable model for school districts near you. This is because Alameda school board members voted to hide the curriculum under a more expansive “anti-bullying” label that will continue to teach children that “LGBTQ” lifestyles are good, natural, and maybe even for them.

Alameda’s attack on children and families comes a week after a judge, despite the arguments of pro-family attorneys, ruled that California law trumps a claim to parental rights in this situation. The judge ruled that parents cannot “opt out” their children from Alameda’s pro-LGBTQ lifestyle curriculum. See the school district’s triumphant Dec. 2 news release.

GRASP WHAT THIS MEANS

1. Any government school district can push homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality curriculum on students. There is no California state law prohibiting this. All pro-family efforts to protect kid’s minds have been and will continue to be defeated in Democrat-controlled committees of the California Legislature. “LBGTQ-friendly” curriculum is already taught to kids in San Francisco and Oakland. Now, with Alameda on board, it can easily spread to other California school districts (most of which are controlled by liberals or uncourageous conservatives) under the cover of “anti-bullying” curriculum. (See actual video clips of homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality indoctrination in Massachusetts.)

2. California school districts are more likely than ever to trump parental rights with immoral education: In a 1995 speech, Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools” project leader, homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, explained how he successfully imposed homosexuality-bisexuality-transsexuality indoctrination by packaging it as “safety.” This deception has been crushing moral standards in California public schools for several years now. Despite many U.S. Supreme Court rulings upholding the inherent right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children, SaveCalifornia.com has witnessed, over the last decade, the California Legislature passing law after law that either limit or eliminate parental rights in public schools.

3. School districts are already permitting student clubs and campus activities promoting homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to other children: Public schools can and do hold lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender “diversity day,” “week” and “month.” Public schools can and many do permit the pro-”LGBTQ” “Day of Silence” every April. Public school districts must permit “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs on high school and junior high campuses. We often hear other horror stories too.

4. Don’t think this isn’t happening your community? There are now 5 statewide California laws promoting homosexual, bisexual and transsexual lifestyles to children: Read what AB 537, SB 71, SB 777, AB 394 and SB 572 push on children as young as kindergarten.

Rainbow Curriculum

school_library

School Libraries in the Crosshairs

Elementary schools pride themselves on promoting reading and literacy.  These school libraries are often a child’s introduction to the world through literature…but what else are they promoting?

Public school libraries are often in the forefront of the marriage debates.  Under the banner of tolerance, some schools have allowed reading material to creep in that normalizes and in some cases even promotes the gay agenda.

Activists know that if the next generation can view the gay lifestyle as a closer shade of “normal”, the marriage battle will be won against traditional values over time.

This hopeful comment was from a woman named Meagan at keenspot forums:

“Give it another generation and the kids today will wonder why it was ever such an issue and have no problem passing laws to make marriage less discriminatory. Sometimes change is better over time, rather than revolutionary.”

She is right.  Unless parents remain vigilant on the school scene, the next generation will be an easy target for gay activists with the help of books like “King and King”, “Molly’s Family”, The White Swan Express” “And Tango Makes Three” as well as “One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads”.

king-kingone_dad_two_dadsmollysfamilywhite_swan_expressand-tango-makes-three

Short blurbs of each of these books and many others that promote the homosexual lifestyle to various school age groups can be found here.

Arthur Levine, the editorial director of his own imprint for Scholastic Press, one of the world’s largest children’s book publishers, is, as a gay parent himself, concerned with this issue.

“Ten percent of the children’s book readership, at least, will grow up to be gay or lesbian,” he said to AfterElton.com...  And an even higher percentage of picture book readership will grow up to know and love somebody who’s gay or lesbian. So when you think about it that way, a large percentage of your picture book audience can really benefit from naturalizing the idea that there are gay and lesbian people in the world. When you think about it that way, it’s even more of a mystery why there aren’t more of these books.”

In schools stateside and overseas, the battle is being waged for the minds of the young.  For or against, people are taking a stand to promote the world view they hope will be accomplished in the next generation.

In one school, parents were able to get these controversial materials removed from school libraries:

Muslims’ fury forces schools to shelve anti-homophobia storybooks for 5-year-olds

By LAURA CLARK
London Daily Mail

Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about same-sex relationships after objections from Muslim parents.   Up to 90 gathered at the schools to complain about the books which are aimed at pupils as young as five.

One story, titled King & King, is a fairytale about a prince who turns down three princesses before marrying one of their brothers.

homosexual_promotion_books
Withdrawn: The fairytale King and King and Tango Makes Three

Another named And Tango Makes Three features two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

Bristol City Council said the two schools had been using the books to ensure they complied with gay rights laws which came into force last April.  They were intended to help prevent homophobic bullying, it said.

But the council has since removed the books from Easton Primary School and Bannerman Road Community School, both in Bristol.

A book and DVD titled That’s a Family!, which teaches children about different family set-ups including gay or lesbian parents, has also been withdrawn.

The decision was made to enable the schools to “operate safely” after parents voiced their concerns at meetings.  Around 40 are said to have gathered at Easton to speak to staff and another 50 at Bannerman Road.

Members of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said parents were upset at the lack of consultation over the use of the materials.

Farooq Siddique, community development officer for the society and a governor at Bannerman Road, said there were also concerns about whether the stories were appropriate for young children.

See full story from The Daily Mail here.

Parents are the most motivated elements in the school arena.  These are our children and we have a responsibility to protect and bring them up under healthy influences.

In another instance here in the U.S., these same controversial books were removed from a public school, only to be replaced even after more than 700 people voiced their objection to the books.

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said this illustrates the need for parents to be vigilant:

“Once pro-gay books or curricula get into the school system, it is very difficult to get them out,” she said. “That’s why it’s especially important for parents to be alert on the front end and be aware of gay-activist groups that are working to influence your schools.”

Homosexual Parenting? A Child’s Voice Heard

parenting

I recently came across the story of  Dawn Stefanowicz, a woman who grew up in a homosexual home in Canada.  Her story is more than just a story, it’s unvarnished insight into a life of experience most of us have only seen the opening lines of.  It is a story that needs to be told because it flies in the face of the golden sunshine tales of normalcy we are often fed in the media by homosexual activists, anxious to paint this lifestyle in shades of vibrant normalcy.

We risk children being exposed to these types of  “family options”, and the damage they cause, as society loosens the mores of familial stability in favor of adult personal gratification.   Here’s a look inside that lifestyle and the children who bear the burdens and pay the price.

—Beetle Blogger

Dawn’s Testimony

My name is Dawn Stefanowicz, I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60s and 70s in Toronto, exposed to many different people in GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, bisexual, Transsexual) subcultures, and explicit sexual practices. I am currently writing a book, soon to be published, on this experience. As well, I was a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-250 (hate crimes), and I have presented at the local school board.

My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.

I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father’s affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD’s as they traveled across North America. My father’s (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991.

Are my childhood experiences unique? According to a growing number of personal testimonies, experts, and organizations, there is mounting evidence of strong commonalities to my personal experiences. Not only do children do best with both a mother and a father in a lifelong marriage bond, children need responsible monogamous parents who have no extramarital sexual partners. Parental promiscuity, abuse and divorce are not good for children. If same-sex marriage is legalized, a person, couple or group who practice any form of sexual behavior would eventually be able to obtain children through previous heterosexual relationships, new reproductive technologies, and adoption due to the undefined term sexual orientation. This would force all public and private adoption agencies to hand over children into experimental relationships or risk charges of discrimination.

What is the most suitable environment for children to be born or adopted into? The many personal, professional and social experiences with my father did not teach me respect for morality, authority, marriage, and paternal love. I felt fearfully silenced as I was not allowed to talk about my dad, his male housemates, his lifestyle and encounters within the subcultures without being browbeaten and threatened by my father. While I lived at home, I had to live by his rules. Yes, I loved my dad. However, I felt abandoned and neglected as my needs were not met since my father would often leave suddenly to be with his partners for days. His partners were not really interested in me. I was outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities. I sought comfort looking for my father’s love from boyfriends starting at 12 years old.

From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father’s relationships.

My father prized unisex dressing, gender-neutral aspects and a famous cross-dressing icon when I was eight years old. I did not see the value of biological complementing differences of male and female or think about marriage. I made vows to never have children since I had not grown up in a safe, sacrificial, child-centered home environment. Due to my life experience, I ask, “Can children really perform their best academically, financially, psychologically, socially and behaviorally in experimental situations?” I can tell you that I suffered long term in this situation, and this has been professionally documented.

Over two decades of direct exposure to these stressful experiences caused me insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, dread, anxiousness, low self-esteem, sleeplessness and sexuality confusion. My conscience and innocence were seriously damaged. I witnessed that every other family member suffered severely as well.

It took me until I was into my 20s and 30s, after making major life choices, to begin to realize how being raised in this environment affected me. My healing encompassed facing reality, accepting long-term consequences, and offering forgiveness. Can you imagine being forced to tolerate unstable relationships and diverse sexual practices from a young age and how this affected my development? My gender identity, psychological well-being, and peer relationships were affected. Unfortunately, it was not until my father, his sexual partners and my mother had died, was I free to speak publicly about my experiences.out-from-under-the-impact-of-homosexual-parenting_thumb4

“I believe same-sex marriage will dispose of unique values esteemed within marriage as recognized throughout history. Marriage needs to remain a societal foundation that constitutes, represents, and defends the inherently procreative relationship between the husband and the wife for the welfare of their biological children. Children need consistent appropriate boundaries and secure expressions of emotional intimacy that are not sexualized in the home and community. “

For more information on Dawn and her experiences, see her book: Out From Under, the Impact of Homosexual Parenting

Same Sex Marriage–Social Experimentation?

The Great Human Experiment

Same Sex Marriage in our schools

Would you willingly abandon your child to the moral whims of a teacher whose moral agenda you hardly know?  Now you don’t have to choose.  California has chosen for you.

Human experimentation without consent has been outlawed since before Nazi Germany.  Wikipedia’s page on Nazi Human Experimentation says: “Prisoners were coerced into participating: they did not willingly volunteer and there was never informed consent.” Now this is the United States, not Nazi Germany, but some of the elements are uncomfortably similar.  Change is here, as Mayor Newsom says, “whether you like it or not”, and parental consent is not part of the deal.

According to teachers in Hayward California, change includes what amounts to immoral social experimentation on children, as gay activists use schools to promote their lifestyle choices.  This unlimited access to our children’s moral education is mandatory as we found out in Hayward this week.   It is wrong to do experimental research on human beings, yet that is exactly what is being done with our most impressionable children, as same-sex marriage and other gay and lesbian issues are being taught in California.

Under the guise of anti discrimination education, some schools are using tolerance laws (SB 71) as a cover for gay indoctrination in our classrooms, because under this law parents are not informed and are not allowed to object to what’s taught.  Schools say it’s ok because it’s all under the guise of lessening “discrimination” and “raising awareness.”  In Deerfield Illinois where similar tolerance laws are enforced, 14 year old children were given instruction on gay and lesbian issues at school and had to sign agreements not to tell their parents what they learned. Is this “raising awareness?”

Wait!  Didn’t Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Jack O’Connell say on TV that we would be able to opt out of such material?  Not so.  This startling information is from the flyer given to kindergarten parents in Hayward:

“Anti bias trainings covering gender, sexual orientation, or family are not sexual education.  Therefore, parents do not need to be notified of this instruction and they may not remove their children from it.”

–Letter to Hayward Parents

Schools are increasingly saying: We have rights to your children! and gay and lesbian groups have access to our schools through tolerance laws.   What about our rights to our children?  “Parental rights”, according to gay groups, “have never meant that a parent can demand prior notice and the right to opt a child out of mere exposure to ideas in the public schools that a parent disapproves of.”

What effect will teaching young children about homosexual lifestyles have on our society?  On our children?  We don’t know for sure, but the studies we have available to us are alarming.  These are a few comments from scientifically interested observers to the greatest human experiment ever conducted in the United States:

–When I look at what’s happening in California, I think there’s a lot to be learned to explore how human beings relate to one another,” said Sondra E. Solomon, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Vermont.  (from The New York Times)

–Dr. Meilee Clunis and Dr. Dorsey Green write on page 243 of “The Lesbian Parenting Book’ that “It will be interesting to see over time whether lesbian sons have an easier or harder time developing their gender identity than do boys with live-in fathers”

Those who contend that there are controls on the indoctrination of our children need to read the news.  Hayward California Schools have proven that parents absolutely could not opt out from having their children indoctrinated in gay issues.

This is social experimentation at it’s worst.  Why should California’s youngest be the guinea pigs for the nation?   In Hayward, our children were coerced into participating: they did not willingly volunteer and there was never informed consent.” Human Experimentation wasn’t right for Germany in the 20th century and it’s not right for the United States today.

See the flyer parents were sent home here:http://ifprop8fails.org/DNA/LetterToParents.pdf

District gags 14-year-olds

‘Confidentiality’ promise requires students ‘not to tell their parents’


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


Deerfield, Ill., High School, where officials required students to attend a “gay” indoctrination seminar

Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

“This is unbelievable,” said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. “It’s not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they’ve essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it.”

In what CWA called a “shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights,” the school’s officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a “Gay Straight Alliance Network” panel discussion led by “gay” and “lesbian” upperclassmen during a “freshman advisory” class which “secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors.”

(Story continues here)

School Clams Up on ‘Gay’ Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Kindergartners as "Allies"

Kindergartners as "Allies"

A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign “pledge cards” in support of gays.

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

The cards asked signers to be “an ally” and to pledge to “not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts.”

The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.

Parent Adela Voelker, who declined to be interviewed in depth for this report, said she was furious when she found her child’s signature on one of the cards. She said she contacted a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in parents’ rights.

Meanwhile, a school board member, Jeff Cook, says some type of action should be taken.  “We have a general rule that all instruction should be age appropriate, and this clearly was not,” said Cook, who has served on the school board for five years.

Article continues here

It’s not just about love

It’s not just about love

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

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

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

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

www.iprotectmarriage.com

Whether You Like It Or Not–My needs above yours

Whether You Like It Or Not

My needs above yours…at any cost.

In my post, “It’s Not Just About Love” I brought up the idea that there are more intentions, more drives at play with the same sex marriage debate than just love.  There is more at stake as well, but for a moment I want to focus on the intentions, the goals of the gay movement.  They say it’s just about love, but I think it’s about affirmation and acceptance, about domination of ideas, my needs above yours at any cost.

Our friends in the gay community ask us to accept changing the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, because their heart’s desires are excluded.  Are we unfair?  Biased?  Bigoted?  Homophobic?  No.  The idea that desires sometimes go unmet for the greater good is part of life for responsible adults.  Gay marriage at the expense of our children’s development, and our social stability is not a responsible path.  If my heart’s desire is to two partners, I am free to act on that desire, but I am not free to call it marriage, no matter how much I may want it and feel lost without it.  The consequences for society are too great.

It seems that there is a need in the gay community for affirmation, for society to stop “looking down” on the gay lifestyle.  There is a tendency to blame all the misery they feel, and the harm they do to themselves and others on society because their lifestyle choices are not morally accepted in society.  Somehow everything is supposed to change, people will be happy,  once they’re accepted.  How does changing the definition of marriage all of a sudden bring the light of happiness into a same sex couple’s life like we’re being told it will?  It doesn’t.

I’ve made enough mistakes in my life to know, that just because someone says what I’m doing is ok, it doesn’t make the guilt I feel go away.  People have no effect on God’s laws.  If it’s wrong now, it will still be wrong even if all the courts in the land say it’s not.  Morality is not peer driven.  Does the gay community believe their misery will be lifted if we’re all affirming their lifestyle by inclusion?  The guilt will not go away, it will just spread as we include our children in the sphere of exposure.  If you’re not happy now, changing the definition of marriage won’t make you happy either.

Here’s an article that was amazing to read because of it’s source.

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

by Al Rantel

“…Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall. While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone…”

Juxtapose that with the following statement by Mayor Newsom in his now famous video clip about the doors being wide open, whether we like it or not… and the point is really brought home for me, that this truly is about more than love.  It’s about a lot of things, primarily putting the needs of a few above the good of the whole….Whether you like it or not.

Warning from the UK–Don’t follow our lead

Enough! No More Ground!

The more I’m involved in this campaign, the more I see the face of the other side, the more I realize, these are not your average happy go lucky people with merely a different opinion.  There are elements of the Gay movement that are out for blood.  It’s these activist groups that persuade us to hand over more and more of our rights.  I’m realizing that even if we win this thing in California….this issue isn’t beaten.  It’s only the beginning.  We’ve got to fight for a constitutional amendment at the federal level.  Winning California will give us the momentum we need to launch a national campaign.  We need to do it.

I think the groundwork has been laid in the California fight for a huge nationwide backlash against the gay rights movement. We are feeling the tide turning out here in the trenches.  We are going to win this thing.  We’ve been out in the streets, in our neighborhoods and I can feel the wind shifting in our favor.  The support is growing, the tide is changing.  It’s incredible.

We’ve got to do more of what we’ve been doing….but get it going at a national level.  Talk about it to our neighbors, write about it to the editors of our newspapers. The gay lobby has incredible amounts of money, but we have numbers on our side. The vast majority of the US wants no part of gay marriage in their state. If proposition 8 passes in California, we will have a mandate that could help turn the tide in our favor. We should use that momentum to get a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution. If we leave the decision up to the Supreme Court, there is a chance that it would lose and the price is too high to risk that. We’d see all fifty states fall at once if the Supreme Court went left on us.

The only way to protect this nation is to specify the obvious—marriage is between a man and a woman— only on a national level. The voters will support it, the question is if our legislators will support it. The longer we wait on the issue though, the slimmer our chances get. Awareness is growing now. Now is the time to move on it.

Come Stand With Us!

Is Same Sex Marriage a Civil Right?

Same-sex Marriage vs. Civil Rights

By Jeff Jacoby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racism was about EQUALITY.

Same sex marriage is not about equality.

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

Protect and Restore True Marriage in Calilfornia

Yes on prop 8!

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.