I can’t teach about homosexuality in schools? “Give Me A Break!”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Teacher:  I can’t teach about homosexuality in schools? “Give Me A Break!”

In a teacher’s own words!  Can there be any question what will happen in our schools?  Don’t let it happen!  Get involved!  and then Vote Yes on 1!

Firefly Dove

See this from Stand for Marriage Maine:

National Public Radio interviewed Deb Allen, a Massachusetts sex education teacher, on the topic of how some teachers have responded to the teaching of sex education following the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts. The content is chilling and should be a wake up call to all those who believe our opponents lies that gay marriage won’t be taught in Maine simply because it is not expressly required in LD 1020.

The NPR reporter tells listeners that when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, homosexual activists went right to work developing a, “gay friendly curriculum for kindergarten and up.” The reporter notes that Allen “says the debate around gay marriage is prompting kids to ask a lot more questions like what is gay sex which Allen answers thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.”  But the most alarming quote in our ad is from Ms. Allen herself:

“I know that, OK, this is legal now. If somebody wants to challenge me I say give me a break.” — Deb Allen, Teacher

The ad actually does not tell the full extent that this teacher instructs 8th graders on gay sex. The news story shockingly reveals that students learn in detail about various ways lesbians engage in sex.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

WARNING: Graphic Contents

The full NPR story is available  here.

We entrust our young children to teachers every day that we send them to school. But because marriage has always been understood as being between a man and a woman, we have not had to worry about a trusted teacher teaching our sons and daughters about a new version of marriage and all that it entails. Yet all of that could change, as it has in other states, if we do not prevail on November 3rd.

Please help us get the word to Mainers that there are real consequences if Question 1 fails.  We have been working hard to explain to Mainers that there are significant, negative consequences to legalizing same-sex marriage that reach far beyond the boundaries of the two people who simply want to “marry”. We have laid bare the fact that legal scholars from across the country including those who support gay marriage predict a new flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations who may conscientiously object to providing their services to gay couples. We have shown proof that in other states where gay marriage is legal, it is taught to young children in school. We have made it abundantly clear that such instruction is, in fact, a part of public school curriculum. We have further established and the state Department of Education is on record agreeing with us that there is absolutely nothing in LD 1020 that prevents such instruction from taking place.

Time is of the essence to make sure that all Mainers know the very real, very serious, and very negative consequences to society should Question 1 fail on November 3rd. We are counting on your continued support.


Jane Galt–A Libertarian View


A Libertarian View

If this were an essay on economics, it would be the best essay on economics I’ve read in a year or more.
If this were an essay on social structures, it would be the best essay on social structures I’ve read on a year or more.
If this were an essay on conservative versus reformer mindsets, it would be the best essay on *that* that I’ve read in a year or more.
In fact, it was all three of those things, and I’m frankly stunned at how excellently you’ve made so many points in such a short space.

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other

Unlike most libertarians, I don’t have an opinion on gay marriage, and I’m not going to have an opinion no matter how much you bait me. However, I had an interesting discussion last night with another libertarian about it, which devolved into an argument about a certain kind of liberal/libertarian argument about gay marriage that I find really unconvincing.

Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.

A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. “Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual”

To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one’s masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.

To which, again, the other side replies “That’s ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!”

Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. “That’s ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!” This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can’t justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he’s only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you–highly educated, firmly socialized, upper middle class you–may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn’t mean that the institution of marriage won’t be weakened in America just the same.

This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn’t. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.

However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. “I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted.”

They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.

Let me take three major legal innovations, one of them general, two specific to marriage.

The first, the general one, is well known to most hard-core libertarians, but let me reprise it anyway. When the income tax was initially being debated, there was a suggestion to put in a mandatory cap; I believe the level was 10 percent.

Don’t be ridiculous, the Senator’s colleagues told him. Americans would never allow an income tax rate as high as ten percent. They would revolt! It is an outrage to even suggest it!

Many actually fought the cap on the grounds that it would encourage taxes to grow too high, towards the cap. The American people, they asserted, could be well counted on to keep income taxes in the range of a few percentage points.


Now, I’m not a tax-crazy libertarian; I don’t expect you to be horrified that we have income taxes higher than ten percent, as I’m not. But the point is that the Senators were completely right–at that time. However, the existence of the income tax allowed for a slow creep that eroded the American resistance to income taxation. External changes–from the Great Depression, to the technical ability to manage withholding rather than lump payments, also facilitated the rise, but they could not have without a cultural sea change in feelings about taxation. That “ridiculous” cap would have done a much, much better job holding down tax rates than the culture these Senators erroneously relied upon. Changing the law can, and does, change the culture of the thing regulated.

Another example is welfare. To sketch a brief history of welfare, it emerged in the nineteenth century as “Widows and orphans pensions”, which were paid by the state to destitute families whose breadwinner had passed away. They were often not available to blacks; they were never available to unwed mothers. Though public services expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, that mentality was very much the same: public services were about supporting unfortunate families, not unwed mothers. Unwed mothers could not, in most cases, obtain welfare; they were not allowed in public housing (which was supposed to be–and was–a way station for young, struggling families on the way to home ownership, not a permanent abode); they were otherwise discriminated against by social services. The help you could expect from society was a home for wayward girls, in which you would give birth and then put the baby up for adoption.

The description of public housing in the fifties is shocking to anyone who’s spent any time in modern public housing. Big item on the agenda at the tenant’s meeting: housewives, don’t shake your dustcloths out of the windows–other wives don’t want your dirt in their apartment! Men, if you wear heavy work boots, please don’t walk on the lawns until you can change into lighter shoes, as it damages the grass! (Descriptions taken from the invaluable book, The Inheritance, about the transition of the white working class from Democrat to Republican.) Needless to say, if those same housing projects could today find a majority of tenants who reliably dusted, or worked, they would be thrilled.

Public housing was, in short, a place full of functioning families.

Now, in the late fifties, a debate began over whether to extend benefits to the unmarried. It was unfair to stigmatise unwed mothers. Why shouldn’t they be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to other citizens? The brutal societal prejudice against illegitimacy was old fashioned, bigoted, irrational.

But if you give unmarried mothers money, said the critics, you will get more unmarried mothers.

Ridiculous, said the proponents of the change. Being an unmarried mother is a brutal, thankless task. What kind of idiot would have a baby out of wedlock just because the state was willing to give her paltry welfare benefits?

People do all sorts of idiotic things, said the critics. If you pay for something, you usually get more of it.

C’mon said the activists. That’s just silly. I just can’t imagine anyone deciding to get pregnant out of wedlock simply because there are welfare benefits available.


Of course, change didn’t happen overnight. But the marginal cases did have children out of wedlock, which made it more acceptable for the next marginal case to do so. Meanwhile, women who wanted to get married essentially found themselves in competition for young men with women who were willing to have sex, and bear children, without forcing the men to take any responsibility. This is a pretty attractive proposition for most young men. So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded. In the early 1960s, a black illegitimacy rate of roughly 25 percent caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write a tract warning of a crisis in “the negro family” (a tract for which he was eviscerated by many of those selfsame activists.)

By 1990, that rate was over 70 percent. This, despite the fact that the inner city, where the illegitimacy problem was biggest, only accounts for a fraction of the black population.

But in that inner city, marriage had been destroyed. It had literally ceased to exist in any meaningful way. Possibly one of the most moving moments in Jason de Parle’s absolutely wonderful book, American Dream, which follows three welfare mothers through welfare reform, is when he reveals that none of these three women, all in their late thirties, had ever been to a wedding.

Marriage matters. It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important institution. It also turns out to be a lot more fragile than we thought back then. It looked, to those extremely smart and well-meaning welfare reformers, practically unshakable; the idea that it could be undone by something as simple as enabling women to have children without husbands, seemed ludicrous. Its cultural underpinnings were far too firm. Why would a woman choose such a hard road? It seemed self-evident that the only unwed mothers claiming benefits would be the ones pushed there by terrible circumstance.

This argument is compelling and logical. I would never become an unwed welfare mother, even if benefits were a great deal higher than they are now. It seems crazy to even suggest that one would bear a child out of wedlock for $567 a month. Indeed, to this day, I find the reformist side much more persuasive than the conservative side, except for one thing, which is that the conservatives turned out to be right. In fact, they turned out to be even more right than they suspected; they were predicting upticks in illegitimacy that were much more modest than what actually occurred–they expected marriage rates to suffer, not collapse.

How did people go so badly wrong? Well, to start with, they fell into the basic fallacy that economists are so well acquainted with: they thought about themselves instead of the marginal case. For another, they completely failed to realize that each additional illegitimate birth would, in effect, slightly destigmatise the next one. They assigned men very little agency, failing to predict that women willing to forgo marriage would essentially become unwelcome competition for women who weren’t, and that as the numbers changed, that competition might push the marriage market towards unwelcome outcomes. They failed to foresee the confounding effect that the birth control pill would have on sexual mores.

But I think the core problems are two. The first is that they looked only at individuals, and took institutions as a given. That is, they looked at all the cultural pressure to marry, and assumed that that would be a countervailing force powerful enough to overcome the new financial incentives for out-of-wedlock births. They failed to see the institution as dynamic. It wasn’t a simple matter of two forces: cultural pressure to marry, financial freedom not to, arrayed against each other; those forces had a complex interplay, and when you changed one, you changed the other.

The second is that they didn’t assign any cultural reason for, or value to, the stigma on illegitimacy. They saw it as an outmoded vestige of a repressive Victorial values system, based on an unnatural fear of sexuality. But the stigma attached to unwed motherhood has quite logical, and important, foundations: having a child without a husband is bad for children, and bad for mothers, and thus bad for the rest of us. So our culture made it very costly for the mother to do. Lower the cost, and you raise the incidence. As an economist would say, incentives matter.

(Now, I am not arguing in favor of stigmatizing unwed mothers the way the Victorians did. I’m just pointing out that the stigma did not exist merely, as many mid-century reformers seem to have believed, because of some dark Freudian excesses on the part of our ancestors.)

But all the reformers saw was the terrible pain–and it was terrible–inflicted on unwed mothers. They saw the terrible unfairness–and it was terribly unfair–of punishing the mother, and not the father. They saw the inherent injustice–and need I add, it was indeed unjust–of treating American citizens differently because of their marital status.

But as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Now, of course, this can turn into a sort of precautionary principle that prevents reform from ever happening. That would be bad; all sorts of things need changing all the time, because society and our environment change. But as a matter of principle, it is probably a bad idea to let someone go mucking around with social arrangements, such as the way we treat unwed parenthood, if their idea about that institution is that “it just growed”. You don’t have to be a rock-ribbed conservative to recognize that there is something of an evolutionary process in society: institutional features are not necessarily the best possible arrangement, but they have been selected for a certain amount of fitness.

It might also be, of course, that the feature is what evolutionary biologists call a spandrel. It’s a term taken from architecture; spandrels are the pretty little spaces between vaulted arches. They are not designed for; they are a useless, but pretty, side effect of the physical properties of arches. In evolutionary biology, spandrel is some feature which is not selected for, but appears as a byproduct of other traits that are selected for. Belly buttons are a neat place to put piercings, but they’re not there because of that; they’re a byproduct of mammalian reproduction.

However, and architect will be happy to tell you that if you try to rip out the spandrel, you might easily bring down the building.

The third example I’ll give is of changes to the marriage laws, specifically the radical relaxation of divorce statutes during the twentieth century.

Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandoned you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband’s last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbors, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondents) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.

There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn’t have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgivable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?

Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.

That’s ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!

Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed. The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.

There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when “no fault” divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.

What’s more, easy divorce didn’t only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagant weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagant flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn’t mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we’re really doing something.

A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister’s parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren’t really making a lifetime commitment; you’re making a lifetime commitment unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that commitment, you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work. Again, this doesn’t mean I think divorce law should be toughened up; only that changes in law that affect marriage affect the cultural institution, not just the legal practice.

Three laws. Three well-meaning reformers who were genuinely, sincerely incapable of imagining that their changes would wreak such institutional havoc. Three sets of utterly logical and convincing, and wrong arguments about how people would behave after a major change.

So what does this mean? That we shouldn’t enact gay marriage because of some sort of social Precautionary Principle

No. I have no such grand advice.

My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can’t imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that’s either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I’m a little leery of letting you muck around with it.

Is this post going to convince anyone? I doubt it; everyone but me seems to already know all the answers, so why listen to such a hedging, doubting bore? I myself am trying to draw a very fine line between being humble about making big changes to big social institutions, and telling people (which I am not trying to do) that they can’t make those changes because other people have been wrong in the past. In the end, our judgment is all we have; everyone will have to rely on their judgment of whether gay marriage is, on net, a good or a bad idea. All I’m asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision. I realize that this probably falls on the side of supporting the anti-gay-marriage forces, and I’m sorry, but I can’t help that. This humility is what I want from liberals when approaching market changes; now I’m asking it from my side too, in approaching social ones. I think the approach is consistent, if not exactly popular.

A quick extra note on gay marriage

There are a lot of libertarians who dismiss arguments about gay marriage with the declaration that the state shouldn’t be in the business of sanctifying marriage anyway. I don’t find that a particularly satisfying argument. It’s quite possibly true that in some ideal libertarian state, the government would not be in the business of defining marriages, or would merely enforce whatever creative contracts people chose to draw up. That’s a lovely discussion for a libertarian forum. However, we are confronting a major legal change that is actually happening in the country we live in, where marriage is, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, an institution in which the government is intimately involved. While I’m happy to debate about whether or not the state should define the form of marriage in my libertarian utopia, I don’t think that this is necessarily a good guide to the kinds of laws I want to see enacted in America, which in so many, many ways does not look like my utopia.

For example, in my libertarian utopia, there would be no social security. People would save for their own retirements; social insurance would be for people who had something actually unpredictable and unexpected happen to them.If there is anything more predictable than aging, I don’t want to run into it.

Does that mean that I would advocate, say, getting rid of Social Security today? Shut down the administration, turn off the check-writing machines, and tell our senior citizens to get a goddamn job?

Don’t be ridiculous. People planned their lives around this government assurance; you can’t just rip it away and let millions of people starve. You can’t just import one aspect of my libertarian utopia–no social security–without the crucial things that underpin it, like a population that knows it’s expected to save for its own retirement. Similarly, you can’t just import one feature of anarcho-capitalist life–anyone can marry anyone they want–as if all the vast social changes that an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist system would represent, are already there.

Update: A number of libertarians are, as I predicted, making the “Why don’t we just privatize marriage?” argument. I don’t find that useful in the context of the debate about gay marriage in America, where marriage is simply not going to be privatized in any foreseeable near-term future.

Also, a lot of readers are saying that I’m wrong about marriage always being between a man and a woman, citing polygamy. I have been told this is a “basic factual error.”

No, it’s not. Polygamous societies do not (at least in any society I have ever heard about) have group marriages. Men with more than one wife have multiple marriages with multiple women, not a single marriage with several wives. In fact, they generally take pains to separate the women, preferably in different houses. Whether or not you allow men to contract for more than one marriage (and for all sorts of reasons, this seems to me to be a bad idea unless you’re in an era of permanent war), each marriage remains the union of a man and a woman.

Original article found here: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

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


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

Stand for Marriage Maine—Safe Schools

In Maine, gay activists are trying to claim that homosexuality will not be taught in schools, but it already is in other states.  These activists target young children

“before they are old enough to have been convinced that there is another way of looking at life…”

Make no mistake.  Those pushing the gay agenda have put schools front and center in the battlefield over homosexual rights.

—Beetle Blogger

Questions & Answers About Question 1

What is Question 1?

A People’s Veto is a simple and straightforward voter-initiated measure that gives voters the power to decide if they accept or reject an act of the legislature. More than 100,000 Mainers signed the petition to place this People’s Veto on the November ballot as Question 1 to repeal the recent same-sex marriage proposal (LD 1020) passed by Maine’s legislature.

Passage of the Question 1 will restore the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman by asking the citizens of Maine, “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”

Marriage is a pillar of society and should be protected from distortion by politicians and homosexual marriage activists who want to redefine it to suit their objectives.

Question 1 will preserve the centuries-old definition of marriage.

What does a Yes Vote Mean?

Voting Yes on Question 1 does several important things:

  • It restores the definition of marriage to what Maine Law has always been and human history has understood marriage to be: between a man and a woman
  • It maintains the rights and benefits of Maine same-sex couples who are covered by our domestic partners law. A YES vote does not take anything away from homosexual couples, but protects traditional marriage.
  • It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage as happens in Massachusetts, where children as young as the second grade are being taught that they can grow up to marry either a boy or a girl, and either option is the same, while parents cannot opt their children out of such “instruction.”
  • And, a Yes vote on Question 1 puts the power in the hands of the voters, not politicians!

What does a NO Vote Mean?

If Question 1 is defeated, LD 1020 will take effect and the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed. Maine law will no longer promote monogamous marriages and the interests of children. Marriage’s powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost.

The defeat of the Question 1 would result in the very meaning of marriage being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between adults.

No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration.

Defeat of Question 1 will mean that homosexual marriage activists will have been able to redefine marriage for all of society, even for those people who have deep objections to it.

The marriage between a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time.

It promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and father in a family held together by the legal, communal and spiritual bonds of marriage.

And while divorce and death too frequently disrupt the ideal, as a society we should put the best interests of children first, and that is traditional marriage.

Voting No on Question 1 would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society.
Will Question 1 take away any rights for gay and lesbian domestic partners?

Question 1 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian partners who are covered by Maine’s domestic partners law.

Maine law guarantees gay couples many of the rights offered to heterosexual couples.

Passage of Question 1 will not change that.

Federal law controls other rights and changing the definition of marriage in Maine similarly won’t change that.
If Question 1 does not pass, will my children be forced to learn about homosexual marriage at school?

Without Question 1, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between homosexual marriage and traditional marriage and parents will lose control over what their kids learn in school about marriage and sexual orientation.

This is not a hypothesis.

It has already happened.

In states like Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been legalized.

Children as young as second graders are taught that there is no difference between marriage and same-sex “marriages.”

Worse, parents who do not want their children exposed to this homosexual marriage instruction have been denied an opportunity to opt their children out. (See Parker vs. Hurley)
Why was a People’s Veto needed? Don’t we already have a law clarifying the definition of marriage?
“An Act to Promote Marriage Equality and Affirm Religious Freedom” was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor on May 6, and is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the adjournment of the Legislature in mid-June. Without a People’s Veto, Mainers will be denied the right that voters in 30 other states have already exercised, which is to decide this critically important question for ourselves. It is wrong for politicians and homosexual marriage activists to redefine marriage for all of society without giving Maine voters an opportunity to have their say.

Who supports this initiative?

A wide range of national, state and local pro-family organizations, churches and individuals have formed a broad-based coalition to enact a People’s Veto, which more than 100,000 Mainers supported to qualify for the November ballot..

People of a variety of different faiths stand united in preserving the definition of marriage in Maine.

To view a list of supporters, visit http://www.standformarriagemaine.com
What will happen to the existing same-sex partnership laws if Question 1 passes?


All laws on the books regarding same-sex couples will remain intact.

Gays and lesbians in a committed relationship will continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy, under existing Maine law. Question 1 does not affect those rights and benefits.
Where can I find more information about Question 1 or get involved in the campaign?

You can visit the People’s Veto site at http://www.standformarriagemaine.com or send an email at info@standformarriagemaine.com.

There are a number of ways to get involved with the campaign, including volunteering, donating and helping to spread the word about the importance of voting YES on Question 1.


Related Posts:

Riddle Me This—Where is True Tolerance on the Riddle Homophobia Scale?


Where’s the Tolerance?

School education systems,  are pushing “tolerance” training and acceptance on children, teachers, and families, with less true “tolerance” for differing views than you might imagine.

This is the training our children are getting when they talk about learning to be “allies” in public school.  Parents beware.

In doing research for the Alameda School District “tolerance” training, I came across the Riddle Homophobia Scale, used in many districts and programs to instruct students and teachers on how to avoid being homophobic.  This measuring stick seems designed to beat down opposing modes of thought, labeling any view that does not welcome homosexual behavior with open arms as strictly homophobic.

Interestingly the assumption Dr. Riddle’s “Homophobia Scale” makes is that homosexual feelings and homosexual acts are one and the same.  There is no room for the idea that you can love the person yet still disagree with the actions of that person.

In this assumption, Dr. Riddle and the purveyors of “Ally” week do the homosexual community a great disservice.  By lumping actions with desires and forcing the categorization of thoughts to one extreme or another, the majority of the religious who do not necessarily believe “God hates fags” yet disagree with the lifestyle are alienated.

Why make enemies unnecessarily? Tolerance is a two way street.  There are millions of people who will never change their minds on homosexual behavior, yet who are or can be encouraged to be truly tolerant.  If you can’t be tolerant of their ideas, how can you possibly expect them to be tolerant of yours?

—Beetle Blogger

Riddle Homophobia Scale:  Attitudes Toward Differences

from SafeZone Student Resources

In a clinical sense, homophobia is defined as an intense, irrational fear of same sex relationships that becomes overwhelming to the person.  In common usage, homophobia is the fear of intimate relationships with persons of the same sex.  Below are listed four negative homophobic levels, and four positive levels of attitudes towards lesbian and gay relationships/people.  They were developed by Dr. Dorothy Riddle, a psychologist from Tucson, Arizona.

Homophobic Levels of Attitude

Repulsion: Homosexuality is seen as a “crime against nature.”  Gays/lesbians are sick, crazy, immoral, sinful, wicked, etc. Anything is justified to change them:  prison, hospitalization, behavior therapy, electroshock therapy, etc.

Pity: Heterosexual chauvinism.  Heterosexuality is more mature and certainly to be preferred.  Any possibility of “becoming straight” should be reinforced, and those who seem to be born “that way” should be pitied, “the poor dears.”

Tolerance: Homosexuality is just a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people “grow out of.”  Thus, lesbians/gays are less mature than “straights” and should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence one uses with a child.  Lesbians/gays should not be given positions of authority because they are still working through their adolescent behavior.

Acceptance: Still implies there is something to accept.  Characterized by such statements as “You”re not lesbian to me, you”re a person!”  or “What you do in bed is your own business.” or  “That”s fine with me as long as you don”t flaunt it!”

Positive Levels of Attitudes

Support: The basic ACLU position.  Work to safeguard the rights of lesbians and gays.  People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the homophobic climate and the irrational unfairness.

Admiration: Acknowledges that being lesbian/gay in our society takes strength.  People at this level are willing to truly examine their homophobic attitudes, values, and behaviors.

Appreciation: Value the diversity of people and see lesbians/gays as a valid part of that diversity.  These people are willing to combat homophobia in themselves and others.

Nurturance: Assumes that gay/lesbian people are indispensable in our society.  They view lesbians/gays with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be allies and advocates.

Obear, K. (1989, March).  Opening doors to understanding and acceptance:  Facilitating workshops on lesbian, gay and bisexual issues.  Materials presented at the ACPA meeting in Washington, DC.

Voice of the Nation–Arthur A. Goldberg


Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio

This Thursday Live at 2pm PST

On Thursday: Voice Of The Nation will be discussing the recent same-sex marriage changes on the horizon with Washington, New Jersey, New York and Iowa. Can homosexuals transform their sexuality? We’ll also be discussing the social science behind same sex attraction as well as it’s effect on parenting.

Guest Arthur A. Goldburg will be joining us this week. Arthur Goldburg is the Executive Secretary of NARTH, Co-Founder and Co-Director, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), President of PATH (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality) and Principal of the International Center for Gender Affirming Processes (CGAP).

He was professor at the Connecticut University law school and Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey.

Can homosexuals transform their sexuality? Torah, Talmud and time-tested advances in gender psychology answer YES! The Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), Arthur Goldberg, tells how in his book “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change.” This groundbreaking book explodes the “gay gene” mystique, offering hope, compassion, direction and vitally needed information for those who struggle with same sex attraction, their families, friends, and surrounding community.

Open Chat and Call lines: We’ll be taking your questions via online chat during the show and if you want to ask your own questions, feel free to call in! 347- 215-6801.

The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations.  The show highlights current Family Values news and discusses the logic behind the Pro-Family Movement.


Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION every Thursday at 2pm PST.

347- 215-6801

U.S. to Sign UN declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexual acts

obama pushes gay agenda                                                                             

Obama Administration to Endorse Decriminalization of Homosexual Acts

I thought it wasn’t cool for the U.S. to be bossing other nations. But I guess not because the Obama Administration is going to sign a UN declaration calling for world wide forced acceptance of homosexual acts. No matter the cultural/religious and/or societal traditions of other nations.

The declaration is problematic for many reasons. One, it makes comment on other nations’ laws (based on their citizens’ morality). Two, the declaration conflicts with U.S. state and federal laws:

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.

From MSNBC article here

*Ruby Eliot


photo by victoria bernal

Faith Forbidden By License

arizona-lawyerArizona Bar Proposes PC Lawyer Litmus Test

Arizona’s State Bar is considering forbidding the licensing of lawyers who have a religious conviction against homosexuality from being able to practice law in that state.  This is an outrageous litmus test against freedom of conscience.

Throwing out constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association, the proposed revision to the attorneys’ oath of office would silence certain viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows:

“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”

The pressure to present the homosexual lifestyle as a right not a choice has been stopped in Arizona government by the voice of the people, but the AZ State Bar is moving forward with this attempt to silence moral opposition regardless.

According to the East Valley Tribune, The move has provoked severe objections from 31 attorneys who sent a letter to state Bar President Ed Novak.

“Tim Casey, one of those who is unhappy with the proposal, said it raises all sorts of issues. Casey, who is Catholic, said the language of the oath is so broad that it could require an attorney to accept a case that goes against his or her moral beliefs.”

The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys practicing law in Arizona, and they have the power to revoke the license of any attorney they believe has violated this provision.  A clause like this has no place in an oath of office.  Oaths are used generally to swear allegiance to the laws of the land and nothing more.  Adding a controversial restriction on  First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct agenda is an inappropriate abuse of power by the Bar.

Regardless of what you personally believe about homosexuality, this kind of limitation on religious liberty should not be tolerated.

—Beetle Blogger

‘Licensing’ morality out of the law

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow

Could lawyers be thrown out of the profession based on their religious conviction against homosexuality?

The State Bar of Arizona is considering whether to require new attorneys to swear they will not let their views on sexual orientation get in the way of providing legal services. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s Law School, is concerned.

“I believe that this is a major threat to the practice of law,” he contends. “This is an attempt to literally license those out of business and to revoke the license of those who, in fact, have traditional moral values.”

Staver believes the campaign is going nationwide and will be a tool used by homosexuals to hold back Christian lawyers. “If they then can hold over your head the license and the ability to practice law, that will be a devastating blow to those of us who believe in traditional family values,” he points out.

According to Staver, this is an issue that lawyers and law school students cannot ignore. “It’s a ticking time bomb,” he concludes. “It is a land mine just waiting for someone to step on them.”

The Arizona Bar plans to make a decision in January.

Gay and Born That Way Since 1973


Gay and Born That Way? Only Since 1973.

In 1973 attitudes about homosexuality radically changed.  The American Psychiatric Association used to classify any sexual orientation outside of a man/woman relationship as abnormal.  In 1973, a board meeting of the APA changed all that and with the stroke of a pen, homosexuality went from deviant to normal, laying the groundwork for the activist onslaught against traditional marriage that has been building ever since.

Was the decision research based or politically based?  How did attitudes magically switch from the understanding that a gay sexual orientation was abnormal to being normal?

I recently came across this article from NARTH that I thought was exceptional in it’s explanation of what happened.   —Beetle Blogger

The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber

To keep the record straight against the threat of psychological revisionism, from time to time, NARTH publishes important historical articles.

In our April 1999 NARTH Bulletin, we reprinted “On Arriving at the American Psychiatric Association Decision on Homosexuality,” by Irving Bieber, M.D. The full-length article is available by contacting NARTH and requesting our April back issue. We will summarize it here.

Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.

His paper describes psychiatry’s attempt to adopt a new “adaptational” perspective of normality. During this time, the profession was beginning to sever itself from established clinical theory–particularly psychoanalytic theories of unconscious motivation–claiming that if we do not readily see “distress, disability and disadvantage” in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered.

On first consideration, such a theory sounds plausible. However we see its startling consequences when we apply it to a condition such as pedophilia. Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning pedophile “normal”? As Dr. Bieber argues in this article, psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness–that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively–“may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order.”

NARTH President Charles Socarides argued the same point in a review he wrote of gender researcher Robert Stoller’s Pain And Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores The World Of S & M. In that book, Dr. Stoller acknowledged the psychodynamic causes of sadomasochism, and then described practices, utensils, and bodily parts used in sadomasochistic performances. He offered a six-page listing of the various methods used to inflict pain and humiliation on willing victims, including the different hanging techniques used to achieve orgastic ecstasy. But then Stoller claimed sadomasochism was no more abnormal than “dislike of zucchini”–asserting that only our “deep prejudices” about perversion lead us to label it abnormal.

Indeed, as some prominent cultural observers have noted, the political drive toward ever-greater equality has turned Americans against any conclusion which entails values and consequences – resulting in our culture’s trend toward rejection of all evaluative conclusions as unkind and “undemocratic.” Legal scholar Robert Bork sees this as a natural consequence of democracy untethered from its Judeo-Christian roots of self-restraint and responsibility, after which it began to be dominated by the philosophy of radical egalitarianism.

Reading the account by the eminent Irving Bieber, the reader is reminded of the historic role played by both Dr. Bieber, and NARTH President Charles Socarides. Both influential and courageous men stood, we believe, for truth in a profession that has increasingly set itself adrift from its theoretical and philosophical roots.

Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual as “the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals.”

“It is my aim here,” he wrote, “to separate out the psychiatric and conceptual issues from the sociopolitical issues; to document my own theoretical and clinical position; and to describe the events that I participated in and observed–all of which I trust will bring into focus the elements that went into the American Psychiatric Association’s decision.”

What is Homosexuality?

He describes the difficulty of putting homosexuality in an appropriate category: Is it a developmental arrest, or an illness? Is it a constitutional disorder, a genetic misprint, a habit? Through his longterm research on the subject, Dr. Bieber concludes that homosexuality is not a normal sexual adaptation.

Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if, as homosexuals, they were accepted as normal. “They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort.” To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, “Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal.”

He describes in detail the well-known research study he conducted in 1962, involving a 500-item questionnaire and 106 male homosexuals, with a comparison group of 100 male heterosexuals.

Mother of Homosexuals

He found a close-binding, intimate mother who tended to interfere with her son’s assertiveness, and who tended to dislocate his relationship with the father, siblings, and peers. However, Dr. Bieber found that homosexuality can develop without the frequently occurring close-binding-intimate, mother-son bond.


But the most significant finding was that of the detached father. “The father-son relationship was almost the diametrical opposite of that between mother and son. The paternal portrait was one of a father who was either detached or covertly or overtly hostile,” he reported. While there was some variance in the mother-son relationship, Dr. Bieber reported,

“The father-son relationship, however, revealed uniformly an absence of loving, warm, constructive paternal attitudes and behavior. In my long experience, I have not found a single case where, in the developing years, a father had a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with the son who becomes homosexual. This has been an unvarying finding. It is my view, and I have so stated and written, that if a father has a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with his son, he will not produce a homosexual son, no matter what the mother is like.”

Dr. Bieber’s study in fact found a continuity of poor relationships with males, beginning with the father, older brothers, and same-sex peers in childhood. He concludes,

“The consistent history of unremitting fear of and hostility to other males throughout childhood has led me to conclude that male homosexuality is basically an adaptation to a disorder of a man’s relationship with other men.”

Of the 106 homosexuals who started psychoanalytic therapy, 29 changed to exclusively heterosexuality, which represented 27 percent of the total sample.

Dr. Bieber discussed the issue of the definition of normality. Because homosexual fantasies and behavior are fear-based, he concluded, we cannot call them normal.

The New Diagnostic Criteria

The A.P.A. at that time had adopted a new set of criteria for defining psychological disorder. To be disordered, a condition must:

  1. regularly cause distress, or
  2. interfere with social effectiveness.

The Psychiatric Association pointed to the excellent occupational performance and good social adjustment of many homosexuals as evidence of the normalcy of homosexuality. But such factors do not, Dr. Bieber countered, exclude the presence of psychopathology. Psychopathology is not always accompanied by adjustment problems; therefore, the criteria are in reality, inadequate to identify a psychological disorder.

Dr. Bieber stated that psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; that social effectiveness–that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively–may in fact coexist with psychopathology.

A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.

Will preventive therapy for homosexuality be prohibited, Dr. Bieber wondered, when homosexuality is normalized?

Furthermmore–is it the proper domain of psychiatry to remove diagnoses to eliminate prejudice?

Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.


The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:

  1. Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
  2. A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.
  3. There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

For more information see:

Homosexuality 101: What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know

Warwick Marsh—Australian Hatemonger?


In the spirit of squashing free speech and truth in the aftermath of the proposition 8 battle, there comes this news from Australia: Men’s Health Ambassador, Warwick Marsh, lost his job this week after being labeled a “Hatemonger” for studying and reporting the detrimental effects of homosexuality.

From Lifesite News:

Australian Health Minister Fires Men’s Health Ambassador for Documenting Risks of Homosexuality

“Today someone who dares to speak the truth about homosexuality will lose his job. Tomorrow he will likely see prison, fines and other draconian penalties imposed.”

By Ellen M. Rice

SYDNEY, December 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Last week, Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon appointed Warwick Marsh of the Fatherhood Foundation as one of six men’s health ambassadors who were charged with the task of building a federal men’s health policy, in part to address the epidemic of male suicide in Australia.  The Australian homosexualist group, Coalition for Equality, however, immediately demanded Marsh’s firing, and two days later, on November 27, he was gone.

Marsh drew fire from the Coalition for Equality largely because he was one of 34 co-authors of the Fatherhood Foundation’s document, “21 Reasons Why Gender Matters.” The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the pro-homosexual Coalition immediately urged Ms. Roxon to fire Mr. Marsh, and fellow men’s health ambassador Barry Williams, of the Lone Fathers Association, another co-author of the Gender Matters document.  Coalition for Equality Spokesman Rodney Croome said, “If the federal government is sincere about an inclusive and effective men’s health agenda it must remove these hatemongers immediately.”

Article continued here…

Hatemongers??  The idea that anyone who disagrees with gay rights advocates is a bigot or hatemonger has been taken in, hook, line and sinker by this government agency.

A men’s health agenda should not be blind to issues of homosexuality.  If homosexuality were truly a healthy alternative lifestyle, wouldn’t they welcome this study and others like it?  Wouldn’t they be eager to dispel ignorance once and for all and trumpet from the housetops?  What agenda are they truly pushing by ignoring the reports showing the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle?

This is something I think we will see more of as more attention is paid to the issue of lifestyle equality.  Not all lifestyles are created equal.  People, yes, choices, no.  This squashing of truth on one side of the argument shows the insecurity of those on the side of gay activism.  What are they afraid of that they have to demonize and censor all opposition to their agenda?

Any idea that has to cripple the opposing view by demonization does their movement a disservice.  The homosexual movement needs to admit that there are differing sides and let the public decide on the facts whether it’s a healthy lifestyle to embrace or not.

The fact that they’re so adamant about society only hearing one side of the story speaks volumes.

–Beetle Blogger