Saturday, May 31, 2008
-- From "Guv strikes state's gender-specific restrooms" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 5/29/08
With today's signature on SB200, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, has eliminated gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide, giving woman and girls reason to fear being confronted by predators, cross-dressers "or even a homosexual or heterosexual male," according to a critic.
The state's new "transgender nondiscrimination" bill makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity.
Those who would attempt to protect females from this intrusion are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars.
"And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse,” [said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, the Christian publishing and broadcast ministry in Colorado Springs]
According to the bill, business owners and managers of restaurants, gyms, barber shops, massage parlors and managers of public facilities "of any kind whether indoor or outdoor" cannot deny a person employment or access to a facility based on gender identity or that "perception."
Dobson warned the Colorado bill now will be "coming to every state in the country."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Ritter signs bill giving gays equal access to accommodations" by Mark Barna 5/29/08 in the Colorado Springs Gazette
Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday signed a bill that makes it illegal in Colorado to discriminate against gays, bisexuals and transgendered people when buying a home, renting an apartment or using public accommodations.
"The governor felt that this bill, SB200, was about fairness and treating people equally," said Evan Dreyer, spokesman for the governor's office. "It essentially updates anti-discrimination laws that in some cases have not been updated for 50 years."
Bruce DeBoskey, regional director of Denver's Anti-Defamation League, a civil rights organization, said the law is a step forward for Coloradans.
. . . DeBoskey denounced Dobson's view.
"It is unfortunate that they feel they have to exaggerate the dangers and play on people's fears," DeBoskey said. "This law is about fairness and justice for all people living in this state."
"The passing of this bill shows that Colorado is a progressive state."
To read the entire Gazette article, CLICK HERE.
I guess it's not about what's best for kids after all...
From "The Right Question" with Stuart Shepherd, posted 5/30/08 at Citizenlink.com
Click HERE to watch the short, but very revealing video illuminating the true agenda of these people - to sexualize our kids.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. -John 3:19
Friday, May 30, 2008
From "Sex indoctrination opponents are like Hiter" posted 5/28/08 at WorldNetDaily.com
A school board member in California says those who oppose the state's SB777, a law approved by last year's legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that restricts public schools to teaching only positive perspectives of homosexuality, are "like Hitler."
The report comes from Karen England of Capitol Resource Family Impact, which is working on the Save Our Kids campaign to assemble enough petition signatures in the state to put SB777 on the 2008 election ballot.
"Last night the West Covina Unified School Board took a bold stand for families and our values by voting to pass a resolution supporting the Save Our Kids initiative," said England's report. "This is the first local school board to publicly protest SB777 and its harmful policies."
"Three brave members of the school board voted to support Save our Kids: Steve Cox, Mike Spence and Camie Poulos. However, two members refused to support the Save Our Kids resolution: George Fuller and Jessica Shewmaker," she said.
Read the rest of this article.
Please consider contacting these three courageous people to offer them your encouragement for rejecting the easy road of silence preferred by most.
1717 West Merced Ave.
West Covina, CA 91790
What happens when LGBT activists are given the power to influence children?
This video of the recent Massachussets Youth 'Pride' event will answer that question, at least in part. Click HERE to view...
This event was:
- Tax-payer funded
- Organized by LGBT adults for middle school and high school kids
- included Youth Gay ‘pride’ parade
- also “Queer Youth” Prom
“Gay Christian” propaganda was passed out to the kids:
*"Reading the Bible with New Eyes" - a pamphlet that portrays Jesus as having had a homosexual affair with Lazarus and Mary as a lesbian. It also describes the Book of Acts as "defining a lesbian and gay 'nation'". It also states that Jesus "was a functional, if not physical, eunuch." READ pamphlet (PDF)
*"Queer Spirituality" - "Coming out is a life long spiritual practice. Because we live in a heterosexist society, Queers will always be invited to claim their unique identity." Read pamphlet (PDF)
*"Embraced for a Spiritual Journey" Invitation to worship at "a Christian church in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer communities" which has "reclaimed from the homophobia and transphobia of the mainline church tradition that was the heart of the ministry of Jesus Christ." READ pamphlet (PDF)
*"History of Saints Servius and Bacchus", handed out by a man dressed as a Catholic friar, claiming that these two Catholic saints were actually homosexual lovers. READ pamphlet (PDF)
*"Catholic Theological Defense of Same-sex Marriage" pamphlet which states that there is "no moral right to declare marriage off limits to persons whom God has made gay" and that the Pope "is definitely wrong and he will be corrected some day by one of his successors." (Also handed out by the abovementioned "friar".) READ pamphlet (PDF)
NOTE: The MA Senate just approved $850,000 in funding for LGBT programs in public schools.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Only a Federal Marriage Amendment can preserve the family now. Ask the presidential candidates to state their position; send a one-click E-mail (IL residents)
-- From "Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif" by Michael Gormley, AP 5/29/08
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.
Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.
New York residents [can] flock to California, where gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 — unless that state's Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling same-sex gay marriage. Upon their return home, in the eyes of the state, their unions would be no different from those of their heterosexual neighbors.
Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies. It states that agencies must change policies and regulations to make sure "spouse," "husband" and "wife" are clearly understood to include gay couples.
In California, a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the state Supreme Court to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court.
Justices have until June 16 to rule on the stay request, according to the memo sent Wednesday by e-mail to the state's 58 county clerks.
The guidelines from Janet McKee, chief of California's office of vital records, contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter.
"Effective June 17, 2008, only the enclosed new forms may be issued for the issuance of marriage licenses in California," the directive reads.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere" by Jeremy W. Peters, posted on The New York Times 5/29/08
ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”
The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.
“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.
The directive is the strongest signal yet that Mr. Paterson, who developed strong ties to the gay community as a legislator, plans to push aggressively to legalize same-sex unions as governor. His predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, introduced a bill last year that would have legalized gay marriage, but even as he submitted it, doubted that it would pass. The Democratic-dominated Assembly passed the measure, but the Republican-led Senate has refused to call a vote on it.
Short of an act by the Legislature, the directive ordered by Mr. Paterson is the one of the strongest statements a state can make in favor of gay unions.
Groups that oppose gay marriage said the governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature.
“It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”
In the directive, Mr. Nocenti wrote that state agencies should review all rules and regulations to determine whether they conflict with recognition of same-sex marriages and report back to him by June 30. Mr. Nocenti said that state agencies that did not provide “full faith and credit to same-sex marriages” could be subject to liability.
It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody . . .
To read the entire second article, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Activist NY Judges Recognize Same-sex Marriage
(CNSNews.com) - In an Apr. 10 interview with The Advocate magazine, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said "homophobic" messages are coming from the pulpits of black churches because blacks attend church more regularly than other people and interpret the Bible more traditionally. In the same interview, Obama praised the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor and long-time spiritual adviser, for being on the right side of the homosexual debate.
"There's plenty of homophobia to go around, but you have a unique perspective into the African-American community," Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate, a homosexual publication, said to Obama, during the interview.
"I don't think it's worse than in the white community," Obama replied. "I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture."
"And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed," said Obama. "And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community, those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities."
"I mean, ironically, my biggest ... the biggest political news surrounding me over the last three weeks has been Reverend Wright, who offended a whole huge constituency with some of his statements but has been very good on gay and lesbian issues," Obama said. "I mean he's one of the leaders in the African-American community of embracing, speaking out against homophobia, and talking about the importance of AIDS."
In an essay entitled "What do I tell my Children?" that was published in the August 2007 issue of Trinity United Church of Christ's Trumpet Magazine, Wright criticized "black evangelism."
"My grandson, Jeremiah, has already run head-on into the contradiction called Christianity in his twenty-one years of life," Wright wrote. "He has seen the racism of Christianity that has produced slave castles and white supremacy. He has also seen the ignorance calling itself 'Black Evangelism' which produces a religion of hatred, gay bashing and heterosexism."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
The unavoidable consequences on children and society
-- From "Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad" by Frank Turek, Townhall.com, posted 5/26/08
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.
He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a
father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.
People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.
Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”
But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.
You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!).
To read the rest of the article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
-- From "UK Christian Charity May not Retain All-Christian Hiring Policy" by Hilary White posted on LifeSiteNews 5/26/08
READING, UK - Backed by the vociferously anti-Christian British Humanist Association (BHA), an Employment Tribunal has ruled that a Christian learning disabled charity may not maintain its policy of hiring exclusively practising Christians. The employment tribunal judged that the charity, Prospects, may not implement a policy of hiring only believing Christians on its staff on the grounds that it receives public funding and has hired non-Christians in the past. Further, the Tribunal ruled that a religious organisation was not qualified to judge what constitutes a "religious ethos" for purposes of hiring policies.
The Tribunal in Abergele, North West Wales this weekend ruled that only a court, not the organisation itself, may make an objective assessment of what constitutes its "religious ethos".
. . . The British Humanist Association called the decision a "landmark" that will broadly affect the right of Christian charities in the UK. Under current British law, religious organisations may maintain a religious hiring policy, but only if they can show that a particular religious belief is a "genuine occupational requirement".
Hanne Stinson, BHA Chief Executive, said, "A clear message has been sent out by this decision: that blanket discrimination in employment policies and practices on grounds of religion or belief is simply unacceptable, and that an instruction to discriminate against someone on the basis of that person's religion or belief will be unlawful."
. . . Governments in the UK and abroad are increasingly hostile to Christian organisations that attempt to maintain their religious identity. A very recent similar case in Canada ended when a Christian charity abandoned its employee code of conduct after a Human Rights Tribunal judged that it discriminated unfairly against people involved in the homosexual "lifestyle". Ontario-based Christian Horizons was fined $23,000 as punishment for attempting to maintain a Christian code of conduct for employees.
In a statement similar to that of the BHA, Barbara Hall, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission opined, "This decision is important because it sets out that when faith-based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of others, including employees, must be respected."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
-- From "Dem Senators Divided on Obama's Call for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act" by Josiah Ryan, CNSNews.com Staff Writer 5/21/08
On the Spot (CNSNews.com) - A sampling of Senate Democrats expressed sharply divergent views yesterday on whether they would support Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) call to "fully repeal" the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which in the wake of this week's California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage as well as a similar 2003 decision by the high court of Massachusetts, would have the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would support Obama's position, while Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.) said they would not. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) expressed surprise that Obama had taken a position in favor of full repeal of DOMA.
The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, protects states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states. Ordinarily, under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution, states are required to recognize "the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions," his campaign Web site says.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, May 26, 2008
"If people really understand what it costs to preach the Gospel, you'll understand the times we are in."
-- From "2 arrested for talking about Jesus" by Bob Unruh on WorldNetDaily 5/22/08
Larry Keffer, who works through the Biblical Research Center in Tampa, Fla., was accompanied by Norwegian evangelist Petar Keseljevic when both were arrested for sharing the Gospel along a parade route in Oslo, Norway, according to officials with the International Human Rights Group.
"Larry and Petar were standing in pedestrian areas behind the crowds gathering for the celebration holding an evangelical sign and sharing the Gospel with those who were gathered for the parade," [Spokesman Joel Thornton of] the IHRG said.
"Police asked them to move away from the palace of the king and take their message anywhere else along the route. They moved and were then approached by other police officers. Larry was never told that he would be arrested if he did not leave. One of the officers talked with Petar in Norwegian for a few minutes and then arrested them both," the IHRG said.
"The two men were not even preaching. Petar was holding a sign on a tall post and both men were conversing with the crowd. They were not using a bullhorn and their message was one of the need to be born again," Thornton told WND.
The sign read: "Only Jesus can save you from hell, read the Bible for the details."
"Several people cursed them and one person cursed America since one of the men was American," he said.
Thornton said the IHRG is working with a team of Norwegian lawyers to try to resolve the case against the two ministers.
To read the entire article and view the videos, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Judge gives girl, 12, go-ahead to change sex" by Nick Squires in Sydney, posted at the Telegraph 5/26/08
A family court judgment said it was important to act quickly to prevent the onset of puberty as the girl dreaded the prospect of menstruation and developing breasts, and had threatened self-harm.
It was reported yesterday that during a hearing in December, the court heard that the girl from Victoria had thought of herself as a boy since the age of four. Several medical experts, including a psychiatrist, backed her application for a sex change.
"In my view, and on all the evidence, the treatment is in [the child's] best interests," the judgment said.
Further court applications will have to be made if the child wants to take the process further. Surgery to remove her womb and ovaries or construct a penis cannot be performed before the age of 18.
But the child's father bitterly opposed the decision, in part because of his daughter's young age, the court was told.
A medical ethicist, Dr. Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, said the decision was astounding. "Twelve is a time of great uncertainty for a young person ... I would question whether the medical evidence supports treating [her] in this way."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
-- From "GOP factions face off on abortion counseling" by Alexander Bolton, posted on TheHill 5/22/08
Illinois residents, CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman on this Title X issue (HR 4133).
A group of [twelve] centrist House Republicans are squaring off with GOP conservatives on a sensitive issue touching on abortion.
“We read with interest in a recent Hill article that a number of advocacy organizations have urged you to modify Title X regulations,” the group of House Republicans, led by Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.), wrote in a letter to Bush. “Changing the long-upheld regulations in a way that would restrict access to basic healthcare would be detrimental for many Americans.”
The Hill reported in early May that leading conservative advocacy groups had sent Bush a letter to reinstitute Reagan-era regulations that would strip federal funding for groups counseling patients on abortion.
“I am hopeful that President Bush will follow both President Reagan and his father’s presidency and ensure the non-abortion funding that flows to family planning through Title X does not indirectly support abortion referral or abortion services,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who has discussed the issue with Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt.
Reagan implemented the regulations more than 20 years ago, which the Supreme Court upheld in 1991. Former President Bill Clinton rescinded them shortly after taking office.
Conservatives expected Bush immediately to reinstate the counseling ban, but more than seven years have passed without action.
“We respectfully ask that you make the necessary changes to the Title X regulations, so that U.S. taxpayers’ funds are not used to promote and facilitate abortion,” leading conservative activists wrote in a May letter to Bush. “Collocation of family planning and abortion facilities sends the wrong message, defies congressional intent and should not be allowed.”
Title X provides nearly $300 million to family planning groups [including Planned Parenthood].
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, May 23, 2008
-- From "Coming to grips with same-sex marriage ruling" by Maria L. La Ganga, Hector Becerra and Rebecca Trounson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers 5/20/08
Pastor Gregory L. Waybright struggled from the pulpit Sunday to reconcile the laws of God with the laws of man.
Though he wanted his church "to be a welcoming and loving house," he told worshipers at Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena, the California Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize gay marriage in California "is a contradiction of what God's word says."
"These are the kinds of issues every religion has to grapple with," said James A. Donahue, president of the Graduate Theological Union, a Berkeley-based consortium of theological schools. "How do you factor in the role of contemporary human rights, civil rights, the data about homosexuality" with "core traditions and beliefs?"
. . . at All Saints Episcopal Church, the Rev. Susan Russell led a between-services forum on the religious, legal and political ramifications of the court's decision.
"The justices have ruled in favor of the sanctity of marriage and against bigotry," Russell declared, as the audience cheered. "This is good news for all Californians."
[It's] personal for Russell, who celebrated her union with her partner in an official blessing ceremony two years ago. Russell said she and her partner haven't begun discussing what the new ruling will mean for them. As for her church, she said, "I'm glad we have 30 days to think it through."
William McKinney, president of the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley and a professor of American religion there, said the ruling was applauded on his campus, which is a multidenominational, theologically liberal Christian seminary.
At Second Baptist Church in Los Angeles, the Rev. William Epps said his congregation has been focused on its 123rd anniversary -- which it celebrated Sunday -- and has given no thought to the Supreme Court ruling.
Traditional Baptist churches "would not embrace same-sex marriages," Epps said, although he would be happy to devote a Bible study session to the matter if anyone wanted.
He himself has never been asked to bless a same-sex union. And what would he do if a homosexual couple asked him to marry them now?
"I'd have to prayerfully think about it," Epps said in an interview. "I would think it would be something I would have to seriously grapple with."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Women win right to children without fathers" posted at TimesOnline 5/20/08
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will replace the rule with a “need for supportive parenting” after opponents were defeated in two votes by unexpectedly wide margins.
. . . The decisions mean that the legislation will grant the most significant extension to homosexual family rights since gay adoption was sanctioned.
It will stop fertility clinics turning away lesbians and single women because their children will not have a father or male role model. While the current law does not block such therapy, it is sometimes used to justify refusals.
. . . The law will now be brought into line with the Human Rights Act. The Bill will also allow both partners to be recognised as parents when lesbian couples conceive with donated sperm, or gay men use surrogacy. At present, only the natural mother or father is automatically considered to be a parent when gay couples have fertility treatment.
A Times/Populus poll last month found that 40 per cent of people were against the Government’s proposals and 32 per cent in favour. It also revealed a generational divide: while over-55s were strongly opposed, 18 to 34-year-olds were strongly in favour of reform.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
From "California Decision Will Radically Change Society" by Dennis Prager, posted 5/20/08 at Townhall.com
...If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.Read this entire commentary. I believe it will prove to be prophetic...
Says dissenters should be "publicly slapped"
From "Michigan Gay Activist Sean Kosovsky Backs Jail, Lawsuits, for Refusal to Recognize Homosexual Marriage" by Pete LaBarbera, posted 5/21/08 at Americans for Truth
LOS ANGELES — Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News reported Monday.
Statements attributed in the column to homosexual lobbyist Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, were denounced Wednesday by American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004 to constitutionally reaffirm the legal definition of marriage in Michigan as only between one man and one woman.
“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.
Read the rest of this article.
Talk about bullying...
In the society homosexual activists have in mind, there is no room for freedom of conscience, religion, or speech. Dissenters will be punished.
In fact, people are already being punished for acting in accordance with and proclaiming God's design for human sexuality. Consider the following U.S. news stories from just the past two years:
- NM: Photographer Fined $6000 for Refusing to Photograph Same-Sex Ceremony
- Anti-Discrimination Law May Force the Closing of Catholic Charities
- University Fires Employee Specifically for Biblical View of Homosexuality
- Lesbian Couple Uses Legal System to Force Club to Give Them Family Membership
- Christian Group Loses Tax-Exempt Status for Refusing to Rent Property for Lesbian Civil Union Ceremony
- Philadelphia Evict Boy Scouts for Refusing Gay Men Access to Boys
Etc., etc., etc.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
From "Hurrah for Gay Marriage" by Erica Jong, posted 5/18/08 at Yahoo News
I've never understood the objection to gay marriage. We humans are pair-bonding creatures and we seem to feel safest when coupled. It's not true for everyone, of course, but most of us eventually want a partner to merge our books and lives with. Marriage provides certain extremely useful perks: a partner to be with you when you are ill, someone to share your poverty or wealth with, someone to share your celebrations and devastations, someone to raise children with. You'd think the right wing would be pleased that gay people share the same needs as other Americans.
In the past, gay people had to adopt their lovers to leave them their goodies. Or they had to go without a next-of-kin to depend on in hospital. All sorts of legal mumbo-jumbo was required because marriage was forbidden. And why? Because a bigoted old Bible seemed to imply that God made Adam and Eve -- not Adam and Steve -- as the anti-gay faction likes to say.
I've often found that gay people are better at marriage than straight people. They don't get all bent out of shape about sex for sex's sake. At least this is true for gay men. And they don't run to bust up a perfectly cozy union because one member of the couple -- or both -- has a fling. Some couples are faithful and some not. And they seem to practice this without the territoriality and hypocrisy of mixed-sex couples. Actually, they should be our role models in marriage. They take it far more seriously than straight people -- perhaps because it was forbidden for so long.
Read the rest of the commentary, which goes on to suggest that those who uphold traditional marriage are unable to think rationally and are motivated by economic greed.
II Timothy 4:3-4: For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths (NIV).
Derby city council blocked an application from Eunice and Owen Johns to provide respite care for under-10s after they admitted they could never tell a child that being homosexual was acceptable.
However, the authority has backed down after the Johns, both devout Christians, threatened to seek a judicial review.
The couple, who have four grown-up children of their own, were celebrating on Sunday after learning by letter that they can resume the application process.
To read the rest of the article, CLICK HERE.
From "MPs back creation of human-animal embryos" by Mark Henderson and Francis Elliot, posted 5/20/08 at timesonline.co
British scientists will be allowed to research devastating diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s using human-animal embryos, after the House of Commons rejected a ban yesterday.
An amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would have outlawed the creation of “human admixed embryos” for medical research was defeated in a free vote by a majority of 160, preserving what Gordon Brown regarded as a central element of the legislation.
...A second amendment, which would have banned the creation of “true hybrids” made by fertilising an animal egg with human sperm, or vice-versa, was...defeated yesterday by a majority of 63. Another free vote last night was expected to approve the use of embryo-screening to create “saviour siblings” suitable to donate umbilical cord blood to sick children.
Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough, moving the amendment to ban all admixed embryos, said that mingling animal and human DNA crossed an “ultimate boundary”. He said that exaggerated claims were giving patients false hope and that the dangers of the research were unknown. “In many ways we are like children playing with landmines without any concept of the dangers of the technology we are handling,” he said.Read the rest of this article.
Monday, May 19, 2008
-- From "Registrar sues for right not to marry gays" by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs correspondent, The Telegraph 5/18/08
Islington council in London has told Lillian Ladele she could lose her job unless she agrees to preside at the ceremonies. She claims “discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief”.
The employment tribunal ruling could set a precedent over whether employees can be required to act against their consciences.
The Civil Partnership Act was introduced in 2004, giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples. Miss Ladele, who has worked at the council since 1992, feels she should be given exemption.
“I feel strongly about maintaining my Christian beliefs and conscience,” she said.
“I can’t go against what it says in the Bible. I don’t understand why the council can’t use other people who have no problem with the ceremonies.”
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said it was important that objections on grounds of conscience should be recognised. But Ben Summerskill, of Stonewall, the homosexual rights group, said: “Doctors and nurses can’t choose who they treat, and nor should a registrar be allowed to discriminate.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
From "Polygamy? It's positively biblical..." by Martha Nussbaum, posted 5/18/08 at the Philadelphia Enquirer
What is wrong with polygamy?
Nineteenth-century Americans coupled it with slavery, calling both "the twin relics of barbarism." Today, it is used as a scare image to deter people from approving same-sex marriage, lest it lead down a slippery slope to that horror of horrors.
But what, exactly, is bad about it? Looking at the Texas sect at the Yearning for Zion ranch, so much in the news, will not tell us, because that sect allegedly forced underage girls into marriage. The case then becomes one of child sexual abuse, a crime hardly unknown in the monogamous family, although it gets less splashy publicity when it occurs there. Disturbing things are fun to contemplate when they can be pinned on distant "deviants," but threatening when they occur in families like one's own.
...All this shows us a deplorable, if ubiquitous, human tendency: People who feel threatened by a new group demonize the group by imputing to it allegedly nefarious practices in the areas of gender and sexuality. Think of anti-Semitism in European history, Islamophobia, and - perhaps above all - fear and loathing of gays and lesbians. (That would be us insecure, conservative, Bible believing Christians, of course...)
But what should we say about polygamy itself, in our own time? What, if anything, is really wrong with it?
...The history of Mormon polygamy shows us that the state and public opinion are very bad judges of what adult men and women may reasonably do. When people are insecure, they cling to the "normal" and vilify those who choose to live differently. Someday down the road, we may recognize that adults are entitled, as John Stuart Mill saw long ago, to conduct such "experiments in living" as suit their own plans and projects, as long as they inflict no harm on nonconsenting parties. The state must protect vulnerable dependents: children and the elderly. It must also protect adult men and women against fraud and force. Beyond that, it should leave the field of intimate sexual choice to a regime of private contractual arrangement.
It was all too predictable...
If consent and adulthood really are the only criteria for marriage, then there should be no problem with adult consensual incest.
You laugh? A brother and sister and Germany are fighting to get it legalized.
Remember when Senator Rick Santorum caught holy hell for warning that if the laws criminalizing sodomy were struck down, there would be no avoiding the slippery slope?
Here's what he said:
"If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex within your home," he told a reporter, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
It brings me no pleasure to say he was right...
Homosexual activists have made it no secret that their goal is the destruction of monogamous, heterosexual marriage as our societal ideal. Their online manifesto calls for the legal recognition of just about any sexual arrangement people dream up - including polygamy. Read it HERE and weep.
Is Polyamory (multiple partners) Going Mainstream?
Marriage: At the Bottom of the Slippery Slope
Lawful Incest May be on its Way
From "Gay-marriage" not Legal in Massachusetts or California" by Gregg Jackson, posted 5/18/08 at PunditReview.com
Here is my letter to the editor submitted yesterday in response to their front page innacurate and misleading headline on the front page yesterday, “Massachusetts lives happily with same-sex marriage law.”
Your above the fold headline in today’s LA Times, “Massachusetts lives happily with same-sex marriage law,” by Elizabeth Mehren is totally inaccurate and misleading, and it is vital that you clarify this error for your readers.
The truth is that “same sex marriage” is not legal in Massachusetts which is why only about a month ago legislation was introduced to amend the current Massachusetts marriage statute (chapter 207) to legalize “same sex marriage.” (H1710 and S918) which were both defeated. This alone disproves your inaccurate headline!
Under the Massachusetts’ Constitution, the oldest functioning constitution in the world authored by John Adams, which served as the model for our Federal Constitution:
“[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)And “the people” via their elected representatives never “consented” to “same sex marriage.” The current marriage statute was never amended or suspended and to this day doesn’t include a provision for “same sex marriages.”
Many, including former Governor Romney, have claimed that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, “legalized same sex marriage” in issuing their Goodridge opinion in 2003, and that he was “ordered to enforce the law.” Both assertions are totally false.
Even the Goodridge Court admitted that their opinion in no way “legalized” same sex “marriage”:
Read the rest of this letter HERE.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
From "Religious Americans are Generous" by Charlie Butts, posted5/16/08 at OneNewsNow.com
Carol Adelman of the Hudson Institute cites the information in a study done with Notre Dame University. "We didn't realize it would be as large as it was, and we came out with a number of $8.8 billion worth of goods and services that churches are giving overseas to developing countries," she points out.
That figure represents nearly 40 percent of the foreign aid provided by the United States to the same region -- and the money from churches is apparently doing a lot of good, says Adelman.
Read the rest of this newsbrief.
In this Stoplight video commentary from CitizenLink, Stuart Shepard considers the logic behind the CA Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage a 'natural right.'
Click HERE to view.
Friday, May 16, 2008
From "California Supremes Order Homosexual 'Marriage' - Will Citizens Submit?" By Jan LaRue, Esq. Culture and Media Institute, May 15, 2008
I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?
By one vote, the California Supreme Court today rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.By one vote, the California Supreme Court today rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California’s recognition of same-sex “marriages” consummated elsewhere. In a decision derided by a dissenting California justice as “legal jujitsu,” the Supreme Court majority held that the ban on same-sex marriage is an infringement of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry.
California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to “marry.” But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don’t recognize same-sex “marriage” from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages—and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].
Read the rest of this article.
The CA court has now legally validated sin. This ruling places conservative, Bible believing Christians (who MUST discriminate against sin) in a very difficult position.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
by James Pittman
Earlier this week we reported that University of Toledo employee, Crystal Dixon, lost her job because she wrote a newspaper commentary that questioned whether homosexuality is a civil rights issue.
Any person who is somewhat familiar with Jesus and the bible can easily see through the farce that equates the homosexual agenda with the civil rights movement. One is a physical characteristic the other is a sexual practice. What bothers me most about this issue, and what I am waiting to see, is the church's reaction to it.
Dixon did have a rally at her church where 60 supporters showed up to encourage her and hear her statement. I am waiting to hear from the rest of her supporters who, by God, have been given a national platform as Christian leaders. Where are the national leaders who will speak out on behalf of a women who was fired for standing on God's moral principle and calling sin, sin?
Where is the pressure from those who sell millions of books and enjoy airtime on multiple radio stations? I just did a Google search on this subject and saw not one national Christian leader weighing in on the subject. Not one of them quoted a nationally known Christian leader or clergyman weighing in on the subject. Perhaps they are speaking out, but not getting media coverage?
I desperately hope that is the case, but what I fear is that the national leaders have not and will not weigh in. They may be too busy writing and selling books and/or preparing for their nationally syndicated radio programs...
-James Pittman is a leader at New Hope Community Church in Palatine, IL
-- From "Friend or Foe Graduation Prayer Campaign" posted at Liberty Counsel
The purpose of Liberty Counsel's annual "Friend or Foe" Graduation Prayer Campaign is to protect religious viewpoints at graduation. Liberty Counsel will be the friend of schools that recognize the free speech rights of students and the foe of those that violate their constitutional rights. The key to graduation prayer is that the school should remain neutral - neither commanding nor prohibiting voluntary prayer or religious viewpoints.
Liberty Counsel is distributing red prayer wristbands which students can wear as a reminder to pray at graduation and all throughout the school year. The wristbands are embossed with "I WILL PRAY" and "PRAY WITHOUT CEASING - I THESS. 5:17." Students have the constitutional right to wear religious jewelry and to pray during noninstructional times while at school. Liberty Counsel also has a free legal memo on graduation prayer.
In order to receive federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, every local school district must certify that it is not engaging in any policy or practice which interferes with constitutionally protected prayer. Schools may lose federal funds if they fail to comply with the guidelines.
For more information from Liberty Counsel, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
UIC Professor: the Bible "gives people free will. In the Greek world, people are fated. You can't possibly get over any dysfunction."
From "Oedipus Wrecks" by Mike Thomas at suntimes.com, posted 5/12/08
Goodbye, Oedipus. Hello, Isaac. That's the basic premise of a new online course being offered through the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine.
Funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation and titled "A Biblical Approach to Mental Health," the class examines how hope-filled Bible stories can and should substitute for the fatalistic Greek narratives that serve as case studies in traditional psychotherapy. Abraham and Isaac, for instance, would bump Oedipus and Laius.
Abraham, not Oedipus Rex
As mythology buffs and fans of the Doors might recall, Laius' son Oedipus is pre-destined to kill his pop and bed his mom in the strife-rife Greek tale -- so Laius tries to have his boy offed before that happens.
In the Old Testament story, Abraham's nearly sacrificed son Isaac is divinely spared slaughter by Dad's knife and becomes his father's blessed disciple. Instead of discord, there's harmony. Instead of despair, there's joy.
The Western world "has it all reversed," Kaplan says. "They look at the Bible as being an enslaving doctrine. That's not the way we see it at all. It gives people free will. In the Greek world, people are fated. You can't possibly get over any dysfunction."
Read the rest of this story.
From "Christian Ministry to Disabled Drops its Code of Conduct Under Human Rights Tribunal Pressure" by Mark Westen, posted at Lifesite 5/12/08
Christian Horizons, the non-profit, Christian charitable organization has dropped its requirement that employees sign their basic morality statement, in compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal's ruling against them.
The ruling originates from the case of former Christian Horizons (CH) employee, Connie Heintz, who brought a complaint against CH, claiming that she was forced out of her employment (she was not dismissed but chose to resign) after she publicly admitted to being an active lesbian. She had previous signed CH's code of conduct and worked for them for years prior to 'discovering' her homosexuality. The CH "Lifestyle and Morality Statement" asks that its employees refrain from a number of sexual and other unacceptable behaviours including; "homosexual relationships," "extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)," "pre-marital sexual relationships (fornication)," "viewing or reading pornographic material," "endorsing" alcohol or cigarettes and "lying." [See previous article]
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Ordered that CH pay Ms. Heintz two years wages as well as $23, 000 in damages. Furthermore, and of great concern to Canadian Christianity in general, the tribunal ordered that "Christian Horizons cease and desist from using their current pre-employment contract...", that the organization must submit a review of all of its employment practices to the tribunal to ensure adherence to the Ontario Human Rights Code and that all CH employees undergo "human rights" training.
Although CH has launched an appeal in reference to the tribunal's other rulings, it has agreed to drop its "Lifestyle and Morality Statement." This decision on the part of CH has come as somewhat of a shock to many Christians as it severely impacts the current status of Christian rights in Canada.
Speaking of the Human Rights Tribunal's decision and of CH's resulting compliance in dropping their morality statement, Brian Rushfeldt Co-Founder & Executive Director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, stated that this decision brings with it a very "broad public danger" to all Christian groups operating in Canada. As the Tribunal's decision to demand that CH drop its code of conduct "was justified by the fact that CH provides services to the general public", that same standard "could be used against any Christian school, church or other organization that serves the public." It should be noted that through evangelization activities and even simply through the church's open invitation to the public to participate in services, it could, and may well be argued that "Christian churches and schools provide services to the public." If this is the case then Christian institutions "would no longer be permitted to uphold Christian values."
Unfortunately, Christian Horizons doesn't seem to realize that if they cannot hold their employees accountable to Christian standards of behavior, they will not have a Christian organization. They might as well be the Rotary Club...
Pray that Canadian Christians will be faithful and uncompromising in these difficult days.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
-- From "The Pulpit Initiative: Reclaiming pastors’ constitutional right to speak Truth from the pulpit"
On Sunday, September 28, 2008, we are seeking pastors who will preach from the pulpit a sermon that addresses the candidates for government office in light of the truth of Scripture. The sermon is intended to challenge the Internal Revenue Code’s restrictions by specifically opposing candidates for office that do not align themselves and their positions with the Scriptural truth. By standing together and speaking with one voice, it is our hope to recapture the rightful place of pastors and churches in American life.
-- From "'Intimidation' of pastors at issue" by Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 5/13/2008
Protecting pastors' constitutionally protected right to preach on biblical issues related to politics is the motive behind one Christian law firm's "Pulpit Initiative."
For almost the first 180 years of American history, pastors routinely addressed political issues and candidates from the pulpit. "Until about 1954, churches were free to endorse or oppose particular candidates from the pulpit -- and, in fact, churches did that," says Erik Stanley with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). "Some pastors opposed Thomas Jefferson as being a deist. Other pastors opposed William Howard Taft as a Unitarian. Some pastors opposed Al Smith in the 1928 presidential election -- and the list goes on and on."
But that changed in 1954, says Stanley, when Congress passed a law forbidding churches from endorsing or opposing candidates. The so-called "Johnson Amendment" was passed without any debate or analysis. Stanley says that provision has since been used to keep churches from speaking out when politics intrudes into moral issues addressed by scripture.
"The IRS has been used as a willing accomplice with groups like Americans United [for Separation of Church and State] to silence pastors from speaking biblical values from the pulpit," alleges the attorney. "[W]e believe that pastors ... shouldn't be intimidated into giving those up."
To read this entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, May 12, 2008
-- From "'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States" by Alexander J. Sheffrin, Christian Post Reporter 5/10/08
Opponents and those who challenge some or all of the tenets of Darwinism have been encouraged recently as the “Academic Freedom” legislation advanced for review in four states.
If passed, the bills would guarantee the freedom of both teachers and students throughout public schools to share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom without fears of reprisal.
Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan said that the efforts to pass the bills were a response to the concerns of teachers and students who reportedly felt marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized if they shared personal views that ran counter to Darwinism.
The Academic Freedom legislation, however, has been faced with some opposition.
Efforts in Florida to pass a bill that would have given students the opportunity to “think critically” and “constantly raise questions” regarding evolution fell flat last week when opponents criticized the bill as an attempt to infuse religion in schools.
But supporters argue that such legislation efforts are about freedom and civil discussion.
“Charles Darwin himself said that fair results could only be obtained by fully balancing and stating the facts and arguments on both sides of each question,” noted Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, in a statement.
Luskin credited Ben Stein's new film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” with contributing to the proliferation of Academic Freedom legislation. The film, which released nationwide last month, features researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
To read the entire Christian Post Reporter article, CLICK HERE.
For background article on the Expelled movie, CLICK HERE.
-- From "3rd-graders asked to help classmate in gender change" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 5/10/08
A Pennsylvania elementary school has angered parents by giving them one-day's notice of planned counseling sessions with 100 third-grade students to explain that one of their male classmates would soon begin wearing girls' clothing and taking a female name and to ask that they accept him as a girl and not make unkind remarks.
The exercise in "social transition" was initiated by the boy's parents who approached the administration at Chatham Park Elementary School in Haverford Township asking that the school help in having their child's female identity find acceptance among his peers. After consulting experts on transgender children, the Haverford School District sent letters to parents advising them the school guidance counselor would meet with their children, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer.
In the letter to parents, Chatham Park principal Daniel Marsella assured parents the counseling would use "developmentally appropriate language" to explain "how we need to help this student make a social transition in school."
"This is something that was going to come out," said Mary Beth Lauer, district director of community relations. "Isn't it better to be proactive, and let people know what is happening and how we're dealing with it?"
Paul McHugh, a psychiatrist and professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was critical of the school's handing of the issue.
"They do not have a right to stop the child, but it's different when they gather everyone around and say, 'Johnnie is Jeanie," he said.
McHugh, who has studied sexual reassignment surgery for 30 years, particularly in the 1970s when Hopkins was a leader in the field, said society should not support decisions of immature persons.
"People came to us saying that if we changed them, we'd solve all their problems," he said. "So we changed them, and their problems remained."
Chatham Park guidance counselor Catherine Mallam said the students she spoke to seemed to be accepting of the boy's change of identity.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
The emperor has no clothes.
The only question is: Like the hero in the fairytale, will American Christians testify to that fact, or will we simply go along with the insanity?
NOTE: At least one state, (CA) has a law that requires the public schools to treat students according to their 'perceived gender'.
Links to previous articles demonstrating how this trend in public schools is being encouraged by the "professionals" and our culture, in general:
Colorado 8-year-old boy supported by school as a girl
Children's Hospital Boston program for sex change of healthy children
Oprah featuring and supporting transgenderism for children
Background on transgender movement
Saturday, May 10, 2008
-- From "New York’s highest court validates lesbian couple’s Canadian marriage" on EmpireStateNews.net 5/7/08
ALBANY - New York’s highest court Tuesday handed down a victory for many gay and lesbian couples throughout the state by letting stand an appellate court’s groundbreaking ruling that recognized same-sex couples’ valid out-of-state marriages.
“Today is a great day for fairness in New York State,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This is a victory for families, and it’s a victory for human rights. Congratulations to all gay and lesbian couples validly married outside of New York State. Now we need to work toward a New York where you don’t have to cross state or country lines to get married.”
. . . In February of this year, an appellate court unanimously affirmed the couple’s marriage – the first appellate court decision in the state and the first known decision in the country to hold that a valid same-sex marriage must be recognized. Monroe County then requested that the state’s highest court review and overrule the Fourth Department’s decision.
With the highest court letting the earlier ruling stand, the appellate court’s decision continues to remain the statewide law in New York with respect to recognition of gay and lesbian couples’ valid out-of-state marriages.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/3/13: Islam Favored over Christianity in Florida Textbook
-- From "History textbooks promoting Islam" By Bob Unruh © WorldNetDaily 5/10/08
The new report is from the American Textbook Council, which was established in 1989 as an independent national research organization to review social studies textbooks and advance the quality of instructional materials in history.
In the two-year project, whose report was authored by Gilbert T. Sewall, the ATC reviewed five junior and five high school world and American history texts, concluding:
"Many political and religious groups try to use the textbook process to their advantage, but the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are uniquely disturbing. History textbooks present an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security."
"The upsetting part is not only do they go into the history (which would be acceptable) but also the teaching of Islam," [a parent] said. "This book does not really go into Christianity or the teachings of Christ, nor does it address religious doctrine elsewhere to the degree it does Islam."
[The parent continued saying] the book's one page referencing Jews "is only to convey that they were tortured by Crusaders to get them to convert to 'Christianity.' (It fails to mention that the biggest persecutors of Jews throughout history and still today are Arab Muslims). It gives four other one-liner references to the Jews being blamed for the plagues and problems in the land. It does not talk about the Jews as making a significant impact on the culture at large."
"In a passage meant to explain jihad, they encountered this: 'Muslims should fulfill jihad with the heart, tongue, and hand. Muslims use the heart in their struggle to resist evil. The tongue may convince others to take up worthy causes, such as funding medical research. Hands may perform good works and correct wrongs,'" the new report said.
The ATC report noted a complicating factor is a ban in California, to whose standards most textbook publishers align their work, on "adverse reflection" on religion in school.
"Whatever 'adverse reflection' is, such a mandate may be conceptually at odds with historical and geopolitical actuality," the study said.
"None of this is accidental. Islamic organizations, willing to [provide] misinformation, are active in curriculum politics. These activists are eager to expunge any critical thought about Islam from textbook and all public discourse. They are succeeding, assisted by partisan scholars and associations… It is alarming that so many individuals with the power to shape the curriculum are willfully blind to or openly sympathetic to these efforts," the report said.
Regarding the TCI book, the report said its lessons contain "stilted language that seem scripted or borrowed from devotional, not historical, material." Also, the "Medieval to Early Modern Times" book features a two-page prayer to Allah "the Merciful."
Glossing over the actual physical conquering of some peoples, the "World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times" says people were converted to Islam because they were "attracted by Islam's message of equality and hope for salvation," the report said.
Another book teaches: "Q: How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim Empire treat those they conquered? A: They treated them with tolerance."
"At a time when intolerance marks Islamic cultures worldwide and multiculturalism is a ruling idea in U.S. schools, these 'wonderland-of-tolerance' tropes constitute a major content distortion," the report said.
"When … Muslims groups attack Christian peoples, kill them, and take their lands, the process is referred to as 'building' an empire. Christian attempts to restore those lands are labeled as 'violent attacks' or 'massacres,'" the report said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
See also recent post of Islam in public school HERE.
Friday, May 09, 2008
For background, read Swiss Grant Rights to Animals, Considering Same for Plants
-- From "The Silent Scream of the Asparagus" by Wesley J. Smith in the Weekly Standard 5/12/2008, Volume 013, Issue 33
You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."
. . . Switzerland's enshrining of "plant dignity" is a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns. It also reflects the triumph of a radical anthropomorphism that views elements of the natural world as morally equivalent to people.
Why is this happening? Our accelerating rejection of the Judeo-Christian world view, which upholds the unique dignity and moral worth of human beings, is driving us crazy. Once we knocked our species off its pedestal, it was only logical that we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
THREE days after their teenage daughter went in to a coma following surgery, doctors started pressuring Sabrina Lopez' parents to withhold treatment and feeding.
From "Doctors vs. Parents: Who Decides Right to Life? by Chris Vogel, posted 5/1/08 at Houstonpress.com:
Lopez and Murray say that doctors and hospital staff began pressuring them to withhold treatment and feeding, which would ultimately starve Sabrina to death. To the parents, this was unacceptable. They wanted their daughter to live.
"I was very disappointed with the way Memorial Hermann handled things," Lopez says. "They put it out on the table that we were being selfish."
Murray and Lopez accuse the hospital staff, doctors and nurses of doing everything they could to try to end Sabrina's life during the ensuing six weeks, including:
• Refusing to implement simple procedures such as giving Sabrina feeding and breathing tubes that would have enabled the parents to take their daughter home and care for her themselves,
• Attempting to turn relatives and friends against Lopez and Murray by encouraging them to persuade the parents to withhold treatment, all the while violating federal privacy laws by discussing Sabrina's healthcare information,
• Entering two separate do-not-resuscitate orders against her parents' wishes, and
• Threatening the family with convening the hospital's ethics committee, which under Texas law can overrule the family's wishes and withhold life-support treatment from a patient.
"It was like we were caught in a bad dream," says Murray. "We couldn't believe this was happening."
Lopez and Murray allege that the hospital staff did not properly monitor Sabrina's sodium levels after the first surgery and did not give her the fluids she needed that they say would have prevented the strokes. Instead, doctors and nurses kept giving Sabrina morphine, a drug known to deplete sodium.
As Lopez and Murray saw it, the hospital and physicians that caused their daughter's condition were now trying to end her life. And it seemed like there was nothing they could do to stop it.
This is a long story but very important to read. Sabrina awakened and is now living with her disability and cared for by her parents. And while I can't take a position about this particular case, I can say I hear from such desperate families on a continuing basis from all over the country. Futile care needs to be stopped.
"Texas is ground zero for Futile Care Theory because of its pernicious law that permits ethics committees to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment over patient/family objections. Readers of SHS will recall that when such a decision is rendered, families have a mere 10 days to find alternative care, which can lead to desperate situations, as I have reported on several occasions."
-- First article from "Methodists wrap up General Conference" by Allie Martin on OneNewsNow 5/3/2008
Delegates to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church declined to elect a conservative majority to the church's top court, upheld the denomination's affirmation of traditional marriage, and agreed to form a committee that could mean a new hymnal for the denomination.
Delegates elected five new members to the Judicial Council. Of the five, only one is a conservative who supports the denomination's current policy that says homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.
Although 30 percent of United Methodists live in Africa, no African will serve on the Judicial Council. The African Bishops in the UMC are conservative and are also known for their emphasis on evangelism. Delegates also voted to reject same-sex unions, but approved a resolution opposing "homophobia."
United Methodist bishops also led anti-war protests throughout the ten-day meeting.
To read the entire first article, CLICK HERE.
-- Second article from "General Conference 2008 Information and Updates" by Dr. Riley B. Case of Confessing Movement UMC 5/2/08
A majority of the agenda time on Thursday (May 1) was spent considering the proposal for a total restructuring of the church with the creation of “Regional” conferences.
The reason for the proposal has to do with the fact that much of what the General Conference deals with presently applies primarily to the church in the U.S. (almost all of the resolutions for example). Supposedly, matters of importance to the whole denomination would be dealt with by the General Conference while articles of national interest would be dealt with by the Regional Conference.
No one yet can explain how this would work practically. What is known already is that there is a difference of opinion as to whether the Social Principles (and particularly the part dealing with homosexuality) are principles to be applied globally or regionally. Arguments are already being made that homosexuality, for example, is a regional issue. What the African culture believes to be sin is not considered sin in the U.S.
The implications of this are easy to see. It was the [African] delegates whose votes were decisive in the petitions relating to homosexuality. If the [African] votes were removed the U.S. delegates might well vote to change the church’s stance on homosexuality.
To read the entire second article, CLICK HERE.