The Obama administration has repeatedly promised to the homosexualists that it would work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but its Justice Department is defending DOMA against a Massachusetts lawsuit, blaming Congress for DOMA.
-- From "US: Mass. can't force gay marriage benefits" by Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer 10/30/09
States that allow gay marriage can't force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples, the Obama administration argued Friday in court papers in a lawsuit by Massachusetts.
The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts - the first state to allow gay marriage - over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.
Joe Solmonese, head of the nation's largest gay rights group, Human Rights Campaign, said the law is discriminatory and the Obama administration should not defend it.
"While we hope Massachusetts prevails in this lawsuit, we are also looking to the administration to put its full weight behind efforts to repeal DOMA in Congress," Solmonese said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Law Allows Parents to Show Their Children Pornography
A Texas mother wants change to the state law that allow parents to provide pornography to their children.
-- From "Dallas-area mother challenges Texas law allowing parents to show children pornography" by Brooks Egerton, The Dallas Morning News 10/29/09
[Crystal Buckner,] a Dallas-area mother [said] that her ex-husband faces no punishment for showing their young daughters online images of three-way adult encounters.
She's getting support from a variety of sources, including a Panhandle prosecutor who wanted to charge the man but concluded he had no way to win a case.
He recently asked the Texas attorney general's office to check his reading of the penal code section that prohibits people from providing children "harmful material" – stuff that "appeals to the prurient interest" and is "utterly without redeeming social value for minors." The law includes a defense to prosecution for parents and guardians.
State Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, said he will push for change in the next legislative session.
"It's not going to be an easy issue," he said, because of concerns about parental rights.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Dallas-area mother challenges Texas law allowing parents to show children pornography" by Brooks Egerton, The Dallas Morning News 10/29/09
[Crystal Buckner,] a Dallas-area mother [said] that her ex-husband faces no punishment for showing their young daughters online images of three-way adult encounters.
She's getting support from a variety of sources, including a Panhandle prosecutor who wanted to charge the man but concluded he had no way to win a case.
He recently asked the Texas attorney general's office to check his reading of the penal code section that prohibits people from providing children "harmful material" – stuff that "appeals to the prurient interest" and is "utterly without redeeming social value for minors." The law includes a defense to prosecution for parents and guardians.
State Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, said he will push for change in the next legislative session.
"It's not going to be an easy issue," he said, because of concerns about parental rights.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Planned Parenthood Says Plan to Get Sexual Disease
Dr. Vanessa Cullins, V.P. of Planned Parenthood says, ". . . whether you're thinking this is a relationship going to end up in marriage or one that's going to end up as a one-night stand . . . in terms of sexually transmitted diseases, expect to have HPV once you become sexually intimate. All of us get it."
UPDATE 2/6/12 - Planned Parenthood's Business Model: Hooking Kids on Sex (Warning: Sexually graphic video)
UPDATE 2/6/12 - Planned Parenthood's Business Model: Hooking Kids on Sex (Warning: Sexually graphic video)
Appeals Court Decides Spam Obscenity Case
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld the obscenity convictions of two men for sending unsolicited e-mail advertisements for an adult website.
-- From "Ninth Circuit Upholds Obscenity Convictions Based on Spam" by a Metropolitan News-Enterprise Staff Writer 10/29/09
Jeffrey Kilbride and James Schaffer began operating their bulk e-mail advertising business in 2003. Although it was initially operated as an American corporation, Kilbride and Schaffer later shifted their operation overseas, running it through a Mauritian company utilizing Internet servers in the Netherlands.
The e-mails included sexually explicit images and contained fictitious information as to the source and routing information of the message’s sender. Kilbride and Schaffer also provided a false contact person and phone number in the registration of the domain names they used.
If a recipient of one of their e-mails signed on to the advertised website and paid a fee, Kilbride and Schaffer earned a commission from the entity promoted.
In 2005, the men were indicted for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with electronic mail, interstate transportation of obscene materials and conspiracy to commit money laundering
They were convicted on all counts following a three-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell of the District of Arizona. Kilbride was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment and Schaffer was sentenced to 63 months.
The case is United States v. Kilbride, 07-10528.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "A 'national standard' for obscenity?" by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow, 10/29/2009
"The two defendants were convicted under the Can-Spam Act, which prohibits individuals from spamming you in your e-mail account," reports [Pat Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)]. "But these two individuals were spamming people with hardcore pornography, so there was the additional charge of obscenity."
The court upheld the conviction, but also ruled that a national standard -- rather than community standard -- must be used in determining whether something is obscene. Trueman worries that with such a ruling, defense attorneys will now tell jury members they cannot determine whether something is obscene unless that has already been determined.
According to the ADF attorney, the way these cases have previously been handled has been on the basis of local community standards. But Trueman suggests that if the Ninth Circuit's ruling stands, it could make convictions far more difficult than they currently are. He is hopeful the decision will be appealed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Ninth Circuit Upholds Obscenity Convictions Based on Spam" by a Metropolitan News-Enterprise Staff Writer 10/29/09
Jeffrey Kilbride and James Schaffer began operating their bulk e-mail advertising business in 2003. Although it was initially operated as an American corporation, Kilbride and Schaffer later shifted their operation overseas, running it through a Mauritian company utilizing Internet servers in the Netherlands.
The e-mails included sexually explicit images and contained fictitious information as to the source and routing information of the message’s sender. Kilbride and Schaffer also provided a false contact person and phone number in the registration of the domain names they used.
If a recipient of one of their e-mails signed on to the advertised website and paid a fee, Kilbride and Schaffer earned a commission from the entity promoted.
In 2005, the men were indicted for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with electronic mail, interstate transportation of obscene materials and conspiracy to commit money laundering
They were convicted on all counts following a three-week jury trial before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell of the District of Arizona. Kilbride was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment and Schaffer was sentenced to 63 months.
The case is United States v. Kilbride, 07-10528.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "A 'national standard' for obscenity?" by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow, 10/29/2009
"The two defendants were convicted under the Can-Spam Act, which prohibits individuals from spamming you in your e-mail account," reports [Pat Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)]. "But these two individuals were spamming people with hardcore pornography, so there was the additional charge of obscenity."
The court upheld the conviction, but also ruled that a national standard -- rather than community standard -- must be used in determining whether something is obscene. Trueman worries that with such a ruling, defense attorneys will now tell jury members they cannot determine whether something is obscene unless that has already been determined.
According to the ADF attorney, the way these cases have previously been handled has been on the basis of local community standards. But Trueman suggests that if the Ninth Circuit's ruling stands, it could make convictions far more difficult than they currently are. He is hopeful the decision will be appealed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Since Embryos Aren't Persons, Court Can't Protect Them
A judge dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Obama administration's regulations for expanded embryonic stem-cell research funding.
-- From "Judge Rejects Challenge to NIH Stem Cell Guidelines" by Cary O’Reilly, Bloomberg 10/28/09
A U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by an embryo-adoption agency and the Christian Medical Association that sought to block new National Institutes of Health guidelines for stem-cell research.
The groups, who sued on their own behalf as well as on behalf of all embryos, lacked standing to bring the case, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled today in Washington.
“Embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law” and the unborn have no right to life protected under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Lamberth said, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
The case is Sherely v. Sebelius, 09-cv-1575, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Stem-Cell Challenge Turned Away by Judge" posted at CitizenLink.com 10/28/09
Several groups, including Nightlight Christian Adoptions, researchers, potential embryo adoptive parents and the Christian Medical Association, filed the suit.
Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight, said the judge ruled none of them had standing to bring the lawsuit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Judge Rejects Challenge to NIH Stem Cell Guidelines" by Cary O’Reilly, Bloomberg 10/28/09
A U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by an embryo-adoption agency and the Christian Medical Association that sought to block new National Institutes of Health guidelines for stem-cell research.
The groups, who sued on their own behalf as well as on behalf of all embryos, lacked standing to bring the case, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled today in Washington.
“Embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law” and the unborn have no right to life protected under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Lamberth said, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
The case is Sherely v. Sebelius, 09-cv-1575, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Stem-Cell Challenge Turned Away by Judge" posted at CitizenLink.com 10/28/09
Several groups, including Nightlight Christian Adoptions, researchers, potential embryo adoptive parents and the Christian Medical Association, filed the suit.
Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight, said the judge ruled none of them had standing to bring the lawsuit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Homosexualists Not Satisfied with Obama's Gay Agenda
As the White House strategizes a stealth implementation of the Gay Agenda upon America, homosexualist opinion leaders give Obama tepid applause, as stealth is not what they want. After all, the entire premise of the Gay Agenda is for society to PUBLICLY PROCLAIM homosexual behavior as glorious.
-- From "Hate Crimes Bill Frustrates Gay Rights Pundits" by Mara Gay, The AtlanticWire 10/29/09
Sexual orientation and gender identity are now included in the definition of a federal hate crime. When President Obama signed the legislation into law Wednesday, it was widely touted as a victory for gay rights groups. The Associated Press called the legislation, "the biggest expansion of the civil-rights era law in decades."
But some pro-gay rights pundits aren't celebrating. While they applaud the legislation for helping to prosecute hate crimes, they're taking the administration to task for failing to address their broader concerns. True political courage, they say, would mean addressing discrimination, repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, advocating for gay marriage, and supporting gay rights on the ballot in Maine, where it is currently in question.
* At The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan notes with frustration . . . "Their agenda for the gays is pretty much the Democratic party's: Separate, quiet . . . He's for gay rights, but not yet and shhhh!"
* The gay blog Queerty criticizes Democrats for attaching the hate crimes bill to defense spending legislation instead of championing the principle of gay rights on its own.
* At The Atlantic, Chris Geidner says ". . . will this be, like so often in legislative struggles, the single trinket doled out to a loyal constituency group until the next time the group demands action?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Hate Crimes Bill Frustrates Gay Rights Pundits" by Mara Gay, The AtlanticWire 10/29/09
Sexual orientation and gender identity are now included in the definition of a federal hate crime. When President Obama signed the legislation into law Wednesday, it was widely touted as a victory for gay rights groups. The Associated Press called the legislation, "the biggest expansion of the civil-rights era law in decades."
But some pro-gay rights pundits aren't celebrating. While they applaud the legislation for helping to prosecute hate crimes, they're taking the administration to task for failing to address their broader concerns. True political courage, they say, would mean addressing discrimination, repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, advocating for gay marriage, and supporting gay rights on the ballot in Maine, where it is currently in question.
* At The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan notes with frustration . . . "Their agenda for the gays is pretty much the Democratic party's: Separate, quiet . . . He's for gay rights, but not yet and shhhh!"
* The gay blog Queerty criticizes Democrats for attaching the hate crimes bill to defense spending legislation instead of championing the principle of gay rights on its own.
* At The Atlantic, Chris Geidner says ". . . will this be, like so often in legislative struggles, the single trinket doled out to a loyal constituency group until the next time the group demands action?"
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'
In the dark of night in D.C., the Congress and the President have slipped a bill past the American voters by hiding it in this year's defense appropriations bill. The timing of the announcement, after dark, (see video below) was obviously intended to avoid the daily news cycle so fewer people will become wise of the administration's backing of the Gay Agenda.
This 'hate crimes' law will certainly have a chilling effect on the freedom of Christians to read the Bible publicly, despite the provision that is claimed to ensure such free speech. One must look no further than every other country with such 'hate crimes' laws to see how it muzzles preachers and even threatens grandmas from speaking freely.
Call to Action: Inform your church leaders of the pervasive effects of the Gay Agenda; obey 2 Chronicles 7:14. America's only hope is THE Church.
-- From "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law" posted at CNN 10/28/09
President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
The expanded federal hate crimes law, hailed by supporters as the first major federal gay rights legislation, was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill that Obama signed at a packed White House ceremony.
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
Earlier this month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Former President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure, but Obama brought a reversal of that policy to the White House.
Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military -- the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This 'hate crimes' law will certainly have a chilling effect on the freedom of Christians to read the Bible publicly, despite the provision that is claimed to ensure such free speech. One must look no further than every other country with such 'hate crimes' laws to see how it muzzles preachers and even threatens grandmas from speaking freely.
Call to Action: Inform your church leaders of the pervasive effects of the Gay Agenda; obey 2 Chronicles 7:14. America's only hope is THE Church.
-- From "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law" posted at CNN 10/28/09
President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
The expanded federal hate crimes law, hailed by supporters as the first major federal gay rights legislation, was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill that Obama signed at a packed White House ceremony.
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
Earlier this month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Former President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure, but Obama brought a reversal of that policy to the White House.
Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military -- the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Baby Jesus Banned from Michigan Highway
A man who says his family has erected a nativity scene in the Mound Road median since about 1945 has filed a federal lawsuit against the Macomb County Road Commission for denying him permission to do so this year.-- From "Warren man sues after county denies permission to put up nativity" by Paul Egan, The Detroit News 10/26/09
John Satawa of Warren alleges the commission has violated his constitutional rights. His lawsuit is backed by the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based law firm that promotes Christian heritage and values.
County Highway Engineer Robert Hoepfner said in a March 9 letter to Satawa's attorney that the road commission denied permission for Satawa to place the nativity scene in the Mound Road median south of Chicago Road in Warren because the scene "clearly displays a religious message."
To allow the scene on the public median would violate a clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits government from taking a position on religious issues, Hoepfner said in the letter.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "OK for 63 years, now Jesus in manger gets dumped" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/26/09
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the [Thomas More] Law Center, commented in a statement, "Every Christmas holiday, militant atheists … use the phrase 'separation of church and state' – nowhere found in our Constitution – as a means of intimidating municipalities and schools into removing expressions celebrating Christmas, a national holiday. Their goal is to cleanse our public square of all Christian symbols.
"However," Thompson continued, "the grand purpose of our Founding Fathers and the First Amendment was to protect religion, not eliminate it. Municipalities and schools should be aware that the systematic exclusion of Christmas symbols during the holiday season is itself inconsistent with the Constitution."
But in December of 2008, the Freedom from Religion Foundation sent the county a complaint letter.
It read, in part, "When the county displays this manger scene, which depicts the legendary birth of Jesus Christ, it places in imprimatur of the Macomb County government behind the Christian religious doctrine. This excludes citizens who are not Christian – Jews, Native American religion practitioners, animists, etc., as well as the significant and growing population that is not religious at all."
Citing a selection of Supreme Court cases, the letter concludes, "There are ample private and church grounds where religious displays may be freely placed, including, presumably, St. Anne's Parish, where this display clearly belongs. Once the government enters into the religion business, conferring endorsement and preference for one religion over others, it strikes a blow at religious liberty, forcing taxpayers of all faiths and of no religion to support a particular expression of worship."
After receiving the letter, the county road commission demanded Satawa remove the nativity scene because he had not obtained the appropriate permit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
ObamaCare: Congress Undecided How to Fool Americans on Abortion
With scores of pro-life Democrats threatening to torpedo any health care legislation that funds abortion, congressional leadership is struggling.
-- From "Handling Of Abortion During Floor Health Reform Debate Undecided, House Leadership Says" posted at Medical News Today 10/27/09
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday dismissed questions about abortion coverage in the House health reform bill (HR 3200), saying House leaders have not yet decided how to "procedurally" handle floor debate on the bill, CongressDaily reports. Pelosi's statement comes as the debate continues between House members who want stronger restrictions on abortion coverage and those who have tried to make the bill "abortion neutral" by maintaining existing restrictions. A Democratic aide who worked on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's abortion-coverage negotiations said, "Most people would have preferred not to have to talk about abortion at all in health reform."
Nonetheless, antiabortion-rights House Democrats are pushing the conversation, despite the inclusion of a compromise amendment specifying that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortion coverage and that abortion care must be financed with private premiums, CongressDaily reports (Hunt, CongressDaily, 10/26). On Friday, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is leading antiabortion-coverage efforts in the House, said about 40 House Democrats are prepared to block the bill from reaching the floor unless he is allowed to introduce a stand-alone amendment further restricting abortion coverage, The Hill's "Blog Briefing Room" reports.
NPR's "Weekend Edition" on Saturday included a discussion with NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner about the debate over abortion coverage in health care reform. Rovner said the abortion issue is "bigger than it is in many other bills because this time they're playing for keeps." She noted that most abortion-related policies are temporary and placed in annual spending bills that are renewed each year, "so it can be changed every time the president or the Congress changes positions on abortion." However, the health reform bill "will become permanent law" if it is passed, "[s]o both sides [of] the abortion debate know there is a lot at stake here."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Handling Of Abortion During Floor Health Reform Debate Undecided, House Leadership Says" posted at Medical News Today 10/27/09
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday dismissed questions about abortion coverage in the House health reform bill (HR 3200), saying House leaders have not yet decided how to "procedurally" handle floor debate on the bill, CongressDaily reports. Pelosi's statement comes as the debate continues between House members who want stronger restrictions on abortion coverage and those who have tried to make the bill "abortion neutral" by maintaining existing restrictions. A Democratic aide who worked on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's abortion-coverage negotiations said, "Most people would have preferred not to have to talk about abortion at all in health reform."
Nonetheless, antiabortion-rights House Democrats are pushing the conversation, despite the inclusion of a compromise amendment specifying that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortion coverage and that abortion care must be financed with private premiums, CongressDaily reports (Hunt, CongressDaily, 10/26). On Friday, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is leading antiabortion-coverage efforts in the House, said about 40 House Democrats are prepared to block the bill from reaching the floor unless he is allowed to introduce a stand-alone amendment further restricting abortion coverage, The Hill's "Blog Briefing Room" reports.
NPR's "Weekend Edition" on Saturday included a discussion with NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner about the debate over abortion coverage in health care reform. Rovner said the abortion issue is "bigger than it is in many other bills because this time they're playing for keeps." She noted that most abortion-related policies are temporary and placed in annual spending bills that are renewed each year, "so it can be changed every time the president or the Congress changes positions on abortion." However, the health reform bill "will become permanent law" if it is passed, "[s]o both sides [of] the abortion debate know there is a lot at stake here."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Obama on Abortion: It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is
Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.-- From "Obama Told House Democrat He Wasn’t Talking about House Health Bill When He Told Congress ‘Our Plan’ Doesn’t Fund Abortion" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief, CNSNews.com 10/26/09
“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.
Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.
In his speech to the joint session of Congress, Obama directly rebutted the claim that the plan would fund abortions, calling it a “misunderstanding.” But in his later telephone conversation with Stupak, according to the congressman, Obama said that when he claimed in the speech that the plan would not fund abortions he was not talking about the House plan, he was talking about his own plan.
“I called him,” said Stupak. “I called the president--had a discussion with the president. And I read [from President Obama's speech]. And he said: ‘What it says is “under my plan”’—meaning the president’s plan. And I said: ‘With all due respect, sir, you do not have a plan. The only plan we have out is the House plan.’ So, I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what.”
CNSNews.com then asked Stupak if Obama was referring to a plan that existed only ‘theoretically, some different plan than the one you actually drafted in committee?”
“Correct. Correct,” said Stupak. “And when I pointed this out, he said: ‘Go back and work with the people on your committee and get this matter worked out. Work with the speaker. Work with us, would you?’ And I said: Yes, I would. And we have tried. But we haven’t been able to resolve our differences because we do not want public funds going for abortion.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read how the White House spokesman has lied about health care abortion funding, and the feud between the Catholic bishops and the White House and Dems
Monday, October 26, 2009
Christian Grandmother's Letter to City Council a Hate Crime?
Pauline Howe, a 67-year-old grandmother, was questioned by police after council officials decided that her complaint about a gay pride march amounted to a "hate incident".
-- From "Pensioner questioned by police after complaining about gay pride march" by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent, London Telegraph 10/24/09
Mrs Howe, a committed Christian, said she had been frightened by the officers' questioning and shocked at being informed she may have committed a crime.
The pensioner had written to Norwich council complaining about its decision to allow the march in the city centre in July, at which she claims she was verbally abused.
In the letter, she wrote: "It is shameful that this small, but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals."
Mrs Howe referred to homosexuals as "sodomites" and blamed "their perverted sexual practice" for sexually transmitting diseases as well as the "downfall of every Empire".
She argues that she is not homophobic, but was expressing her deeply held religious beliefs.
However, Bridget Buttinger, deputy chief executive at the council, replied to Mrs Howe in September, warning that she could face being charged with a criminal offence for expressing such views.
"As a local authority we have a duty along with other public bodies to eliminate discrimination of all kinds," she wrote.
"A hate incident is any incident that is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hatred. A hate crime is any hate incident that constitutes a criminal offence.
"The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation."
She added: "Your details and details of the content of your letter have been recorded as such and passed to the Police."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Pensioner questioned by police after complaining about gay pride march" by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent, London Telegraph 10/24/09
Mrs Howe, a committed Christian, said she had been frightened by the officers' questioning and shocked at being informed she may have committed a crime.
The pensioner had written to Norwich council complaining about its decision to allow the march in the city centre in July, at which she claims she was verbally abused.
In the letter, she wrote: "It is shameful that this small, but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals."
Mrs Howe referred to homosexuals as "sodomites" and blamed "their perverted sexual practice" for sexually transmitting diseases as well as the "downfall of every Empire".
She argues that she is not homophobic, but was expressing her deeply held religious beliefs.
However, Bridget Buttinger, deputy chief executive at the council, replied to Mrs Howe in September, warning that she could face being charged with a criminal offence for expressing such views.
"As a local authority we have a duty along with other public bodies to eliminate discrimination of all kinds," she wrote.
"A hate incident is any incident that is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hatred. A hate crime is any hate incident that constitutes a criminal offence.
"The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation."
She added: "Your details and details of the content of your letter have been recorded as such and passed to the Police."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
St. Louis Settles Lawsuit for Silencing Christians
Members of the St. Louis-based Apple of His Eye ministries said they were threatened with arrest in 2006 for handing out literature and talking about their beliefs during PrideFest, a two-day gay pride festival.
-- From "Settlement reached in St. Louis leafleting lawsuit" by Betsy Taylor, Associated Press Writer 10/22/09
Assistant City Counselor Dan Emerson said Thursday that St. Louis agreed to pay an $80,000 settlement for damages, attorney's fees and costs in the case. The city did not admit wrongdoing, but Emerson said the case brought some attention to an old law that St. Louis has since repealed.
Apple of His Eye ministries filed a lawsuit against the city in U.S. Eastern District Court in 2008. Lawyer Rick Nelson, who works with a group of Christian attorneys known as the Alliance Defense Fund, said the ministry was able to express its views and leaflet at the park this year after a judge ordered it should be allowed.
Alan Butterworth, a missionary for Apple of His Eye, said the organization also hands out fliers at other events. His belief is that "the Bible is the word of God and homosexuality is a sin in the Bible."
Chad Fox, now president of the nonprofit Pride St. Louis, which sponsors PrideFest, recalls Apple of His Eye members speaking to him at the 2006 event about how they believe homosexuality is a sin.
It's not clear if the park ranger who threatened to arrest the ministry members was aware of the city's ban at the time on leafleting in public parks, Emerson said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Settlement reached in St. Louis leafleting lawsuit" by Betsy Taylor, Associated Press Writer 10/22/09
Assistant City Counselor Dan Emerson said Thursday that St. Louis agreed to pay an $80,000 settlement for damages, attorney's fees and costs in the case. The city did not admit wrongdoing, but Emerson said the case brought some attention to an old law that St. Louis has since repealed.
Apple of His Eye ministries filed a lawsuit against the city in U.S. Eastern District Court in 2008. Lawyer Rick Nelson, who works with a group of Christian attorneys known as the Alliance Defense Fund, said the ministry was able to express its views and leaflet at the park this year after a judge ordered it should be allowed.
Alan Butterworth, a missionary for Apple of His Eye, said the organization also hands out fliers at other events. His belief is that "the Bible is the word of God and homosexuality is a sin in the Bible."
Chad Fox, now president of the nonprofit Pride St. Louis, which sponsors PrideFest, recalls Apple of His Eye members speaking to him at the 2006 event about how they believe homosexuality is a sin.
It's not clear if the park ranger who threatened to arrest the ministry members was aware of the city's ban at the time on leafleting in public parks, Emerson said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
NY to be Seventh State to Legalize Same-sex 'Marriage'
New York Gov. David Paterson said Thursday that he expects to sign a same-sex marriage bill into law in the coming weeks.
UPDATE 11/8/09: Homosexualists' prospects for New York diminished after this week's events
-- From "Paterson says gay marriage bill will pass in NY" by Michael Gormley, Associated Press Writer 10/23/09
Paterson said he expects the state Senate to give the measure final legislative approval in weeks ahead and then he will sign it, making New York the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage. Paterson can't force the Senate to take up the bill and admitted to reporters he can't guarantee its approval, but he says he's now confident it will pass, as advocates and sponsors of the bill in Albany have been quietly working to build support.
The bill was blocked by a summer coup in the Senate in the final days of the regular session in June. The Democrat-led Assembly has already passed the measure.
More than a year ago, Paterson had framed the debate as a civil right long denied. But divisions among Senate Democrats earlier this year made approval unlikely after a few Democrats in the 32-30 majority objected to the bill on religious grounds.
Now, however, Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Nassau County says GOP senators won't be asked to vote against the measure in a bloc and are free to vote for the bill.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. A referendum in Maine on Nov. 3 will determine the fate of a same-sex marriage bill passed by the Legislature in May.
Several other states offer civil unions, domestic partnerships or other arrangements that provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples, including California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/8/09: Homosexualists' prospects for New York diminished after this week's events
-- From "Paterson says gay marriage bill will pass in NY" by Michael Gormley, Associated Press Writer 10/23/09
Paterson said he expects the state Senate to give the measure final legislative approval in weeks ahead and then he will sign it, making New York the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage. Paterson can't force the Senate to take up the bill and admitted to reporters he can't guarantee its approval, but he says he's now confident it will pass, as advocates and sponsors of the bill in Albany have been quietly working to build support.
The bill was blocked by a summer coup in the Senate in the final days of the regular session in June. The Democrat-led Assembly has already passed the measure.
More than a year ago, Paterson had framed the debate as a civil right long denied. But divisions among Senate Democrats earlier this year made approval unlikely after a few Democrats in the 32-30 majority objected to the bill on religious grounds.
Now, however, Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Nassau County says GOP senators won't be asked to vote against the measure in a bloc and are free to vote for the bill.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. A referendum in Maine on Nov. 3 will determine the fate of a same-sex marriage bill passed by the Legislature in May.
Several other states offer civil unions, domestic partnerships or other arrangements that provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples, including California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Bishop Says Kennedy Ignorant on Health Care Legislation
In strong rhetoric, US Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Providence Diocese have exchanged nasty comments over abortion and proposals for a health care overhaul . . .
This follows the White House calling Catholic bishops ignorant on abortion funding legislation.
-- From "Kennedy spars with church on abortion" by Milton J. Valencia, Boston Globe Staff 10/24/09
In a statement released yesterday, Tobin lashed out at Kennedy, a son of one of the nation’s most prominent Catholic families, for incendiary remarks the congressman made in an interview about abortion.
Kennedy, speaking in support of a public option for a proposed universal health care plan, told Catholic News Service in an article posted Thursday that he found it perplexing that the church would oppose the health insurance plan.
Tobin had outlined his concerns in a Sept. 21 letter he sent to the Rhode Island congressional delegation, saying he could not support any legislation "that diminishes human dignity or threatens the right to life."
Yesterday, he was more direct, saying that Kennedy’s comments were "irresponsible and ignorant of the facts."
The bishop explained the church’s stance, saying that while the church supports health care overhaul, "we are adamantly opposed to health care legislation that threatens the life of unborn children, requires taxpayers to pay for abortion, rations health care, or compromises the conscience of individuals.
"Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of the state of Rhode Island," the bishop said. "I believe the congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide morally responsible leadership for our state."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This follows the White House calling Catholic bishops ignorant on abortion funding legislation.
-- From "Kennedy spars with church on abortion" by Milton J. Valencia, Boston Globe Staff 10/24/09
In a statement released yesterday, Tobin lashed out at Kennedy, a son of one of the nation’s most prominent Catholic families, for incendiary remarks the congressman made in an interview about abortion.
Kennedy, speaking in support of a public option for a proposed universal health care plan, told Catholic News Service in an article posted Thursday that he found it perplexing that the church would oppose the health insurance plan.
Tobin had outlined his concerns in a Sept. 21 letter he sent to the Rhode Island congressional delegation, saying he could not support any legislation "that diminishes human dignity or threatens the right to life."
Yesterday, he was more direct, saying that Kennedy’s comments were "irresponsible and ignorant of the facts."
The bishop explained the church’s stance, saying that while the church supports health care overhaul, "we are adamantly opposed to health care legislation that threatens the life of unborn children, requires taxpayers to pay for abortion, rations health care, or compromises the conscience of individuals.
"Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church and to the citizens of the state of Rhode Island," the bishop said. "I believe the congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide morally responsible leadership for our state."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Obama Nominates Another Lesbian to a Top Job
The President has nominated Assistant Minneapolis Police Chief Sharon Lubinski to be Minnesota's U.S. Marshal, one of the country's top law enforcement jobs.
UPDATE 12/28/09: Senate confirms first homosexual U.S. marshal
-- From "AP: Lubinski would be first openly gay U.S. Marshal" by Eric Roper, Minneapolis Star Tribune 10/21/09
An Associated Press profile of Lubinski released . . . notes that she would also be the first openly gay U.S. Marshal in the country (and the second woman). Lubinski came out publicly on the front page of the Star Tribune in 1993, inspiring other officers to do the same, the story says.
A quick search of our archives turns up the 1993 article by reporter Glenn Howatt titled "Lesbian officer looked within, and came out."
A few weeks later, Minneapolis Deputy Chief Robert Allen said he was gay as well.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "US marshal pick was already gay rights pioneer" by Patrick Condon, Associated Press 10/21/09
Though some gay rights activists have criticized the nomination as nothing more than a symbolic gesture from a president they say has lagged behind on key gay issues, others note the move is a step in the right direction toward ending a culture of discrimination.
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who recommended Lubinski for the job, said Wednesday she did so because of Lubinski's leadership and her respect from fellow officers — not her sexual orientation.
Hestness, who described Lubinski as a friend outside work, said she's been with her partner, a landscape designer, for more than 20 years. Not long after coming out, Lubinski led a police task force on gay issues, and she currently teaches a course in police diversity in the criminal justice program at a Minnesota community college.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/28/09: Senate confirms first homosexual U.S. marshal
-- From "AP: Lubinski would be first openly gay U.S. Marshal" by Eric Roper, Minneapolis Star Tribune 10/21/09
An Associated Press profile of Lubinski released . . . notes that she would also be the first openly gay U.S. Marshal in the country (and the second woman). Lubinski came out publicly on the front page of the Star Tribune in 1993, inspiring other officers to do the same, the story says.
A quick search of our archives turns up the 1993 article by reporter Glenn Howatt titled "Lesbian officer looked within, and came out."
A few weeks later, Minneapolis Deputy Chief Robert Allen said he was gay as well.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "US marshal pick was already gay rights pioneer" by Patrick Condon, Associated Press 10/21/09
Though some gay rights activists have criticized the nomination as nothing more than a symbolic gesture from a president they say has lagged behind on key gay issues, others note the move is a step in the right direction toward ending a culture of discrimination.
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who recommended Lubinski for the job, said Wednesday she did so because of Lubinski's leadership and her respect from fellow officers — not her sexual orientation.
Hestness, who described Lubinski as a friend outside work, said she's been with her partner, a landscape designer, for more than 20 years. Not long after coming out, Lubinski led a police task force on gay issues, and she currently teaches a course in police diversity in the criminal justice program at a Minnesota community college.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Congress Passes Special Homosexual Rights (Hate Crimes) Bill
As President Obama signs the defense appropriation bill that includes this hate crimes law, the full force of the Federal government will weigh on every Christian in America -- Big Brother is monitoring you.
UPDATE 10/27/09: Obama ceremony for "hate crimes" law spotlights homosexualists, but kept in shadows away from American's eyes
-- From "Senate passes measure that would protect gays" by Ben Pershing, The Washington Post 10/23/09
The Senate cleared a historic hate crimes bill Thursday for President Obama's signature, approving new federal penalties for attacks on gay men and lesbians.
The legislation, which was attached to the conference report for the bill outlining the Pentagon's budget, marks the culmination of a years-long fight by civil rights groups to codify the expanded protections.
The measure would extend the current definition of federal hate crimes -- which covers attacks motivated by race, color, religion or national origin -- to include those based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also would make it a federal crime to attack U.S. military personnel because of their service.
The measure was approved, 68 to 29, with a majority of Republicans voting against it. The House passed the same bill Oct. 8, also with most Republicans opposed.
"Expanding hate crimes puts America in lock step with the stated agenda of homosexual activists who will turn next to the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, followed by the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military and then the Defense of Marriage Act," the Family Research Council warned on its Web site.
Religious groups have also complained that the measure could criminalize the act of criticizing or preaching against homosexuality, but the bill's backers and the administration contend that is a misinterpretation of the legislation.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 10/27/09: Obama ceremony for "hate crimes" law spotlights homosexualists, but kept in shadows away from American's eyes
-- From "Senate passes measure that would protect gays" by Ben Pershing, The Washington Post 10/23/09
The Senate cleared a historic hate crimes bill Thursday for President Obama's signature, approving new federal penalties for attacks on gay men and lesbians.
The legislation, which was attached to the conference report for the bill outlining the Pentagon's budget, marks the culmination of a years-long fight by civil rights groups to codify the expanded protections.
The measure would extend the current definition of federal hate crimes -- which covers attacks motivated by race, color, religion or national origin -- to include those based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also would make it a federal crime to attack U.S. military personnel because of their service.
The measure was approved, 68 to 29, with a majority of Republicans voting against it. The House passed the same bill Oct. 8, also with most Republicans opposed.
"Expanding hate crimes puts America in lock step with the stated agenda of homosexual activists who will turn next to the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, followed by the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military and then the Defense of Marriage Act," the Family Research Council warned on its Web site.
Religious groups have also complained that the measure could criminalize the act of criticizing or preaching against homosexuality, but the bill's backers and the administration contend that is a misinterpretation of the legislation.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Gay Agenda of the American Library Association Documented
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) says there's an entire community of people across the world who say that their sexual orientation changed from gay to straight. But they're not getting their message out, the group says, because libraries across the country refuse to carry literature that describes these experiences or any studies that support them.
-- From "Libraries Should Include Ex-Gay Books, Group Says" by Matt Bartosik, posted at NBC Chicago 10/23/09
"According to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the [American Library Association's] Office for Intellectual Freedom, ALA policy recommends diversity in book collection development by libraries, regardless of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. However, Caldwell-Stone refuses to state whether that diversity policy includes ex-gay books," PFOX executive director Regina Griggs said in a press release.
"Books about leaving homosexuality are censored in most high school libraries, although gay-affirming books for youth are readily available," she continued.
However, the American Psychological Association, along with most mainstream medical groups, has said that mental health professionals and parents should avoid telling young people that they can change their sexual orientation.
In 2008, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of California:
"Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it, which are sometimes referred to as 'reparative therapy.' No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books" by Diane Macedo, FOX News 10/22/09
. . . a book like "My Genes Made Me Do It!: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation" — which argues that sexuality is shaped by a variety of factors, not just biological — can't get a spot on the school library shelf.
Neither can "You Don't Have to Be Gay," which describes author Jeff Konrad's struggle to overcome his unwanted same-sex attractions.
But "Baby Be-Bop," the coming-out story of a gay teen, which includes descriptions of his sexual encounters in bathroom stalls with men he never talks to, makes the stacks.
So does "Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth," which describes a gay teen's relationship with his tutor with excerpts like: "Matt had one leg locked between mine, so that his d—- was smashed between his stomach and my thigh. And as his hand jerked up and down on me his hips humped with the same rhythm."
Calls from Foxnews.com to Caldwell-Stone were directed to American Library Association Media Relations Manager Macey Morales, who asked for more information about PFOX's allegations and then failed to return follow-up e-mails and phone calls.
To read the entire article above, which includes links to extensive documentation, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Libraries Should Include Ex-Gay Books, Group Says" by Matt Bartosik, posted at NBC Chicago 10/23/09
"According to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the [American Library Association's] Office for Intellectual Freedom, ALA policy recommends diversity in book collection development by libraries, regardless of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. However, Caldwell-Stone refuses to state whether that diversity policy includes ex-gay books," PFOX executive director Regina Griggs said in a press release.
"Books about leaving homosexuality are censored in most high school libraries, although gay-affirming books for youth are readily available," she continued.
However, the American Psychological Association, along with most mainstream medical groups, has said that mental health professionals and parents should avoid telling young people that they can change their sexual orientation.
In 2008, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of California:
"Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it, which are sometimes referred to as 'reparative therapy.' No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books" by Diane Macedo, FOX News 10/22/09
. . . a book like "My Genes Made Me Do It!: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation" — which argues that sexuality is shaped by a variety of factors, not just biological — can't get a spot on the school library shelf.
Neither can "You Don't Have to Be Gay," which describes author Jeff Konrad's struggle to overcome his unwanted same-sex attractions.
But "Baby Be-Bop," the coming-out story of a gay teen, which includes descriptions of his sexual encounters in bathroom stalls with men he never talks to, makes the stacks.
So does "Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth," which describes a gay teen's relationship with his tutor with excerpts like: "Matt had one leg locked between mine, so that his d—- was smashed between his stomach and my thigh. And as his hand jerked up and down on me his hips humped with the same rhythm."
Calls from Foxnews.com to Caldwell-Stone were directed to American Library Association Media Relations Manager Macey Morales, who asked for more information about PFOX's allegations and then failed to return follow-up e-mails and phone calls.
To read the entire article above, which includes links to extensive documentation, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Fed Judge: Student's T-shirt Slamming ObamaCare OK
Christian middle-school student who sued his school will be allowed to wear pro-life T-shirts-- From "Middle-school student may wear pro-life t-shirt" by staff and wire reports, Lancaster Newspapers 10/21/09
A federal judge has ruled that a Lewisberry middle-schooler may wear a pro-life t-shirt carrying the message "Abortion is not Healthcare."
Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center, which defended the student, announced the ruling today.
The West Shore School District had prohibited the student, identified in court records only as E.B., from wearing the t-shirt because administrators feared it might offend other students. They ordered him to wear the shirt inside out.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court: Boy can wear 'insulting' pro-life shirt" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 10/21/09
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed the complaint in federal court against the West Shore School District in Lewisberry, Pa., Oct. 5 on behalf of E.B.
The boy's parents, identified as the Boyers, said they were concerned about the president's speech and the national health-care debate, including reported funding of abortion within proposed legislation.
"[T]he Boyers, like many others, felt that President Obama was bypassing them and speaking directly to their children without their permission," the complaint states. "… Like many others, the Boyers struggled with whether they should send their children to school on that day. E.B. attended school and decided to voice his religious viewpoint as it relates to the issue of abortion."
The boy wore the T-shirt to his classes at Crossroads Middle School and said he received no complaints until his fifth-period teacher ordered him to go to the principal's office to determine whether the shirt was "appropriate."
According to the lawsuit, the school's "draconian censorship of plaintiff's religious and political speech, and the policies on which that censorship was based, violate First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
The complaint states that E.B. wishes to wear T-shirts expressing his Christian faith and political views because he "desires to reach out to his peers and to offer them advice, assistance, and education" and to "discuss relevant issues facing students at school, including faith and religion, personal responsibility, sexual abstinence, keeping children in the event of pregnancy, just to name a few."
The West Shore School District agreed to an Oct. 19 order prohibiting school officials from enforcing the controversial policies and temporarily allowing E.B. to wear his T-shirts.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Should Children Design School Sex Education?
The liberal media and the educators are placing significance in a survey of Washington D.C. students' opinions of how to conduct health and sex education programs. In addition, the students want a different brand of condoms to be distributed.
Students don't like how nurses seem to be negative about the kids' sexcapades
UPDATE 5/24/10: Students' demands accepted -- the kids can now choose the larger magnum Trojan brand condoms . . . wonder if they'll survey who took which size?
-- From "D.C. students say schools' sex education is antiquated" by Darryl Fears, The Washington Post 10/22/09
D.C. public high school students who participated in focus groups on sexual health said they were unimpressed with the District's sex education curriculum, do not trust the school nurses who are charged with counseling them about disease prevention and disdain the brand of condoms distributed by schools.
The students, particularly girls, said they were too suspicious or embarrassed to talk to school nurses about sex or ask about condoms. "It's like talking to your mom," one student said.
Those were some of the findings of a survey conducted by the Youth Sexual Health Project, funded by the D.C. Council Committee on Health, whose chairman, council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), had a hearing on the issue Wednesday.
Researchers said the participants' responses were unusually frank and provided valuable insights into how to approach sexual health and education for teenagers who think the curriculum is antiquated and out of touch with their experiences.
Sex education and condom distribution in high schools are key, health officials say, because 13 percent of students who were screened for sexually transmitted diseases last year tested positive, according to the health department. Sexually transmitted diseases increase the risk of contracting HIV.
Students in the survey also said that school nurses were "judgmental and untrustworthy," making it unlikely that teens would seek their advice.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
The desire of educators to sexualize children is rampant (click below for previous posts):
Illinois Schools Consider Children's Recommendation for Sex Instruction
Planned Parenthood 'Special Forces' Raid Schoolyards
Students don't like how nurses seem to be negative about the kids' sexcapades
UPDATE 5/24/10: Students' demands accepted -- the kids can now choose the larger magnum Trojan brand condoms . . . wonder if they'll survey who took which size?
-- From "D.C. students say schools' sex education is antiquated" by Darryl Fears, The Washington Post 10/22/09
D.C. public high school students who participated in focus groups on sexual health said they were unimpressed with the District's sex education curriculum, do not trust the school nurses who are charged with counseling them about disease prevention and disdain the brand of condoms distributed by schools.
The students, particularly girls, said they were too suspicious or embarrassed to talk to school nurses about sex or ask about condoms. "It's like talking to your mom," one student said.
Those were some of the findings of a survey conducted by the Youth Sexual Health Project, funded by the D.C. Council Committee on Health, whose chairman, council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), had a hearing on the issue Wednesday.
Researchers said the participants' responses were unusually frank and provided valuable insights into how to approach sexual health and education for teenagers who think the curriculum is antiquated and out of touch with their experiences.
Sex education and condom distribution in high schools are key, health officials say, because 13 percent of students who were screened for sexually transmitted diseases last year tested positive, according to the health department. Sexually transmitted diseases increase the risk of contracting HIV.
Students in the survey also said that school nurses were "judgmental and untrustworthy," making it unlikely that teens would seek their advice.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
The desire of educators to sexualize children is rampant (click below for previous posts):
Illinois Schools Consider Children's Recommendation for Sex Instruction
Planned Parenthood 'Special Forces' Raid Schoolyards
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Pro-life Activist Assaulted During Prayer Vigil
It's been a week now, and not one secular news organization has covered the assault of a participant in the 40 Days for Life event at Planned Parenthood in Fresno, California.
WARNING: Video includes attacker's profanity
-- From "40 Days for Life Participant in Fresno, California Assaulted by Abortion Advocate" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 10/16/09
The woman [assailant] first attempted to break a security camera pro-life advocates installed to protect themselves and catch any harmful activity on tape. The attacker then cut [the arm of Victor Fierro, director of the Hispanic pro-life group Latinos4Life] with an unknown object, drawing blood, stormed back to her car and fled the scene.
Josh Brahm, the education director of Right to Life of Central California, told LifeNews.com that much of the encounter took place right behind the camera, but the audio was captured by the device. It also registered her face and license plate number.
“We're just trying to hold a peaceful prayer vigil out here. We're law-abiding citizens, standing on a public sidewalk, with the full support of the Fresno Police Department," he told LifeNews.com.
"Yet, several pro-abortion-choice people have been harassing us since day one. Now it’s turned physical," he added.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
WARNING: Video includes attacker's profanity
-- From "40 Days for Life Participant in Fresno, California Assaulted by Abortion Advocate" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 10/16/09
The woman [assailant] first attempted to break a security camera pro-life advocates installed to protect themselves and catch any harmful activity on tape. The attacker then cut [the arm of Victor Fierro, director of the Hispanic pro-life group Latinos4Life] with an unknown object, drawing blood, stormed back to her car and fled the scene.
Josh Brahm, the education director of Right to Life of Central California, told LifeNews.com that much of the encounter took place right behind the camera, but the audio was captured by the device. It also registered her face and license plate number.
“We're just trying to hold a peaceful prayer vigil out here. We're law-abiding citizens, standing on a public sidewalk, with the full support of the Fresno Police Department," he told LifeNews.com.
"Yet, several pro-abortion-choice people have been harassing us since day one. Now it’s turned physical," he added.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Maine Same-sex 'Marriage' Vote is Toss-up
Just six months after Governor John Baldacci signed a law legalizing gay marriage in Maine, voters will decide whether to preserve it, making the state the latest battleground in the national fight over same-sex marriage.
-- From "Same-sex marriage fight roils Maine" by Sarah Schweitzer, Boston Globe Staff 10/20/09
For both sides, the Nov. 3 ballot initiative, Question One, is seen as a crucial juncture. Opponents want to show that momentum has shifted to their side, building on last year’s California vote to approve a ban on gay marriage. Supporters - with victories in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Iowa - are eager to demonstrate that California was a temporary setback.
But the outcome for either side is far from assured. Polls indicate that the contest is so far evenly divided in the independent-minded state, where conservative moral beliefs and entrenched live-and-let-live attitudes often go together.
Both sides have invoked “Maine values” in their play for votes, particularly among Catholics, who are believed to be crucial swing votes. Supporters of same-sex marriage have appealed to what they call Mainers’ sense of fairness and equality, arguing that even if they disagree with gay marriage, they should permit others to live the way they want to live. Opponents have argued that gay marriage “throws to the trash heap Maine’s decades-old interest in traditional marriage.”
Maine is among five New England states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage as a result of judicial decisions in 2003 and 2008, respectively, while Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire followed this spring with legislative action. Iowa is the only state beyond New England where gay and lesbian people can wed.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Same-sex marriage fight roils Maine" by Sarah Schweitzer, Boston Globe Staff 10/20/09
For both sides, the Nov. 3 ballot initiative, Question One, is seen as a crucial juncture. Opponents want to show that momentum has shifted to their side, building on last year’s California vote to approve a ban on gay marriage. Supporters - with victories in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Iowa - are eager to demonstrate that California was a temporary setback.
But the outcome for either side is far from assured. Polls indicate that the contest is so far evenly divided in the independent-minded state, where conservative moral beliefs and entrenched live-and-let-live attitudes often go together.
Both sides have invoked “Maine values” in their play for votes, particularly among Catholics, who are believed to be crucial swing votes. Supporters of same-sex marriage have appealed to what they call Mainers’ sense of fairness and equality, arguing that even if they disagree with gay marriage, they should permit others to live the way they want to live. Opponents have argued that gay marriage “throws to the trash heap Maine’s decades-old interest in traditional marriage.”
Maine is among five New England states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage as a result of judicial decisions in 2003 and 2008, respectively, while Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire followed this spring with legislative action. Iowa is the only state beyond New England where gay and lesbian people can wed.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Scientists Can't Tell Difference Between a Man and a Woman
"I think most people think of it in binary terms -- that is, you're either one or the other," male or female, said Myron Genel, a professor emeritus of pediatrics at Yale University. "In reality, it's more of a continuum."
-- From "Which side are you on?" by David A. Fahrenthold, The Washington Post 10/20/09
"There's not one sign or unique parameter or marker . . . that clearly defines sex -- as in clearly separates, unequivocally, males from females," said Eric Vilain, a professor of human genetics at UCLA.
The signposts of a person's sex include the chromosomes, X and Y and others, that are the blueprints for sexual development. Hormones such as testosterone and estrogen are the chemical messages. There is sexual anatomy, built on those chemical orders.
And there is a psychological sense of identity -- which some scientists refer to as "gender," as opposed to "sex," which is everything physical.
But the signs don't always point in the same direction.
. . . conditions can set women's hormones and genetics at odds in the opposite way, making them appear unusually masculine despite their female XX chromosomes. And still others can create confusing markers of sex in men, leaving them with male anatomy and hormone levels but two or more X chromosomes.
In other cases, the cause of the disagreement is a sex-change procedure; in these circumstances, anatomy and chromosomes would no longer agree. The National Center for Transgender Equality estimates that 0.25 percent to 1 percent of the U.S. population has changed gender, or intends to in the future.
Together, cases such as these have led some researchers to believe it's impossible to find a universal boundary between male and female.
At the same time, courts and government agencies in the United States have been engaged in a parallel struggle to define gender, mostly driven by cases where people have changed their sex and want the government to recognize it.
In the D.C. suburbs, for instance, many authorities have decided on a simple test: Surgery makes the gender. In Maryland and Virginia, for instance, officials will alter the sex on a driver's license if presented with proof of sex-reassignment surgery. The District, by contrast, doesn't inquire about surgery: It requires that a medical provider or social worker attest that a person has a new "gender identity."
To read all of this extremely lengthy article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Which side are you on?" by David A. Fahrenthold, The Washington Post 10/20/09
"There's not one sign or unique parameter or marker . . . that clearly defines sex -- as in clearly separates, unequivocally, males from females," said Eric Vilain, a professor of human genetics at UCLA.
The signposts of a person's sex include the chromosomes, X and Y and others, that are the blueprints for sexual development. Hormones such as testosterone and estrogen are the chemical messages. There is sexual anatomy, built on those chemical orders.
And there is a psychological sense of identity -- which some scientists refer to as "gender," as opposed to "sex," which is everything physical.
But the signs don't always point in the same direction.
. . . conditions can set women's hormones and genetics at odds in the opposite way, making them appear unusually masculine despite their female XX chromosomes. And still others can create confusing markers of sex in men, leaving them with male anatomy and hormone levels but two or more X chromosomes.
In other cases, the cause of the disagreement is a sex-change procedure; in these circumstances, anatomy and chromosomes would no longer agree. The National Center for Transgender Equality estimates that 0.25 percent to 1 percent of the U.S. population has changed gender, or intends to in the future.
Together, cases such as these have led some researchers to believe it's impossible to find a universal boundary between male and female.
At the same time, courts and government agencies in the United States have been engaged in a parallel struggle to define gender, mostly driven by cases where people have changed their sex and want the government to recognize it.
In the D.C. suburbs, for instance, many authorities have decided on a simple test: Surgery makes the gender. In Maryland and Virginia, for instance, officials will alter the sex on a driver's license if presented with proof of sex-reassignment surgery. The District, by contrast, doesn't inquire about surgery: It requires that a medical provider or social worker attest that a person has a new "gender identity."
To read all of this extremely lengthy article, CLICK HERE.
New York Times Reporter: Cap-And-Trade For Babies?
" . . . probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children."
UPDATE 12/11/09: Copenhagen Hears Birth Control Solution to Climate Change
-- From "Cap-And-Trade For Babies?" posted at Investor's Business Daily 10/19/2009
It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere and endangering its species. Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing — carbon dioxide — has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant.
New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled "Covering Climate: What's Population Got To Do With It?" People who need people they are not.
Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, "if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?"
"More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions," Rivkin has blogged, wondering "whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation." Save the trees, not the children.
Rivkin's views are unfortunately shared by people with power and influence. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of Britain's Sustainable Development Commission, believes that "having more than two children is irresponsible" and that people should "connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint."
This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science adviser John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level. He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource, as we do.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/11/09: Copenhagen Hears Birth Control Solution to Climate Change
-- From "Cap-And-Trade For Babies?" posted at Investor's Business Daily 10/19/2009
It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere and endangering its species. Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing — carbon dioxide — has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant.
New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled "Covering Climate: What's Population Got To Do With It?" People who need people they are not.
Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, "if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?"
"More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions," Rivkin has blogged, wondering "whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation." Save the trees, not the children.
Rivkin's views are unfortunately shared by people with power and influence. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of Britain's Sustainable Development Commission, believes that "having more than two children is irresponsible" and that people should "connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint."
This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science adviser John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level. He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource, as we do.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Planned Parenthood 'Special Forces' Raid Schoolyards
America's educators bring the top abortion provider into schools to sexualize children starting in Kindergarten, then recruit and train teens to teach other children the art of casual sex.
. . . yet they say that Christians' emphasis on abstinence is stupid!
UPDATE 12/30/10: Planned Parenthood's Sexual Assault on Kids
UPDATE 5/11/11: Sex Training by Kids is Planned Parenthood
UPDATE 12/16/11: Planned Parenthood Lures Teen clients via Texting
UPDATE 2/6/12 - Planned Parenthood's Business Model: Hooking Kids on Sex (Warning: Sexually graphic video)
-- From "FYI Peer Education Program" on the Planned Parenthood website
FYI began in 2008 with a group of high school students dedicated to providing their peers with accurate sexual health information. The purpose of the program is to train Knoxville-area teens to become peer educators who will in turn help other teens avoid unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by making healthy decisions.
The teens are required to attend 40 hours of training/skills building, complete 100 informal educational contacts with their peers and complete a community service project.
The FYI teens accomplish the goals of the program by responding accurately to questions from their peers about family communication, decision making, human sexuality, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, birth control, community resources and more. They encourage their peers to engage in healthy behaviors that avoid teen pregnancy and STIs.
Posted at the Knoxville News Sentinel by Olivia Spooner, Advocacy Coordinator for FYI, Knoxville 10/19/09
I am a Knoxville teen involved in Planned Parenthood’s peer education program, FYI.
We work to get teens information to help them in their personal, sexual health. A nationwide study found that teens who had comprehensive sexual education were less likely to become pregnant than teens who had no sex education or were in abstinence-only programs.
. . . President Barack Obama [is] supporting medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education that helps reduce teen pregnancy and prevent STIs.
This month, Planned Parenthood is urging everyone to participate in community events with the theme “Sex Ed: Protecting our Future,” and help our goal to fully fund comprehensive sexuality education. Our group, FYI, will be doing advocacy events to promote comprehensive sexual education. We hope you will join us in the effort.
From "Planned Parenthood Teaches Sex Ed Classes in Cleveland Public Schools" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer 10/19/09
A sex ed administrator with the Cleveland Metropolitan School District says that half of the “Responsible Sexual Behavior” classes for 9th and 10th grade students are taught by Planned Parenthood personnel.
"Planned Parenthood is one of our partners that teaches about 50 percent of our 9th and 10th graders,” Lita-Marie Townsen told CNSNews.com. She made the comment at an event on Capitol Hill last week where sex education activists pushed for federal funding of programs that do not focus solely on marriage and heterosexual couples.
Townsend told CNSNews.com that Planned Parenthood is one of 20 agencies named as medical resources in a handout given to students.
Literature distributed at the event about the Cleveland sex education curriculum states that the K-12 Responsible Sexual Behavior Education Initiative was approved by the school board in 2002 as part of a Comprehensive Health Plan.
The “Responsible Sexual Behavior” sex education program begins in kindergarten with the “All About Life” curriculum, which is taught through 3rd grade.
Kindergarteners are asked to define the word “family,” identify family members and relationships with family members, explain how families are alike/different and “describe the difference between good and bad touch.”
Third graders are asked to define “puberty,” “self-esteem,” and “appropriate touch.”
The “F.L.A.S.H.” program for grades four, five and six includes students being asked to “identify common gender stereotypes” and “identify who is at risk for HIV/AIDS and other STDs, and how disease transmission can be prevented, including abstinence and consistent, correct condom use.”
According to its 2007-2008 annual report, Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in federal grants and contracts that year.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
. . . yet they say that Christians' emphasis on abstinence is stupid!
UPDATE 12/30/10: Planned Parenthood's Sexual Assault on Kids
UPDATE 5/11/11: Sex Training by Kids is Planned Parenthood
UPDATE 12/16/11: Planned Parenthood Lures Teen clients via Texting
UPDATE 2/6/12 - Planned Parenthood's Business Model: Hooking Kids on Sex (Warning: Sexually graphic video)
-- From "FYI Peer Education Program" on the Planned Parenthood website
FYI began in 2008 with a group of high school students dedicated to providing their peers with accurate sexual health information. The purpose of the program is to train Knoxville-area teens to become peer educators who will in turn help other teens avoid unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by making healthy decisions.
The teens are required to attend 40 hours of training/skills building, complete 100 informal educational contacts with their peers and complete a community service project.
The FYI teens accomplish the goals of the program by responding accurately to questions from their peers about family communication, decision making, human sexuality, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, birth control, community resources and more. They encourage their peers to engage in healthy behaviors that avoid teen pregnancy and STIs.
Posted at the Knoxville News Sentinel by Olivia Spooner, Advocacy Coordinator for FYI, Knoxville 10/19/09
I am a Knoxville teen involved in Planned Parenthood’s peer education program, FYI.
We work to get teens information to help them in their personal, sexual health. A nationwide study found that teens who had comprehensive sexual education were less likely to become pregnant than teens who had no sex education or were in abstinence-only programs.
. . . President Barack Obama [is] supporting medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education that helps reduce teen pregnancy and prevent STIs.
This month, Planned Parenthood is urging everyone to participate in community events with the theme “Sex Ed: Protecting our Future,” and help our goal to fully fund comprehensive sexuality education. Our group, FYI, will be doing advocacy events to promote comprehensive sexual education. We hope you will join us in the effort.
From "Planned Parenthood Teaches Sex Ed Classes in Cleveland Public Schools" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer 10/19/09
A sex ed administrator with the Cleveland Metropolitan School District says that half of the “Responsible Sexual Behavior” classes for 9th and 10th grade students are taught by Planned Parenthood personnel.
"Planned Parenthood is one of our partners that teaches about 50 percent of our 9th and 10th graders,” Lita-Marie Townsen told CNSNews.com. She made the comment at an event on Capitol Hill last week where sex education activists pushed for federal funding of programs that do not focus solely on marriage and heterosexual couples.
Townsend told CNSNews.com that Planned Parenthood is one of 20 agencies named as medical resources in a handout given to students.
Literature distributed at the event about the Cleveland sex education curriculum states that the K-12 Responsible Sexual Behavior Education Initiative was approved by the school board in 2002 as part of a Comprehensive Health Plan.
The “Responsible Sexual Behavior” sex education program begins in kindergarten with the “All About Life” curriculum, which is taught through 3rd grade.
Kindergarteners are asked to define the word “family,” identify family members and relationships with family members, explain how families are alike/different and “describe the difference between good and bad touch.”
Third graders are asked to define “puberty,” “self-esteem,” and “appropriate touch.”
The “F.L.A.S.H.” program for grades four, five and six includes students being asked to “identify common gender stereotypes” and “identify who is at risk for HIV/AIDS and other STDs, and how disease transmission can be prevented, including abstinence and consistent, correct condom use.”
According to its 2007-2008 annual report, Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in federal grants and contracts that year.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Gender Not Biologically Fixed Says U.N. Report
The U.N. worldview is exhibited in a new counter-terrorism report to the United Nations General Assembly; the study wanders into a politically-correct diatribe spouting that "gender is not static; it is changeable over time and across contexts."
-- From "UN Report Says 'Gender Is Not Static, It Is Changeable'" by Adam Brickley, CNSNews.com 10/19/09
The report, written by UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, is titled “Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism.” While the main focus of the document is gender-based issues that arise from counter-terrorism efforts, [it's] the report’s definition of gender that has generated opposition.
“While many of the measures discussed in the report relate to the human rights of women,” Scheinin wrote in his report summary, “gender is not synonymous with women, and, instead, encompasses the social constructions that underlie how women’s and men’s roles, functions and responsibilities, including in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, are understood.”
Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent women, [said] “By including such broad topics as the social construct of men and women’s roles, sexual orientation and gender identity, they dilute the important purpose of this report and have managed to turn this into something that looks more like some politically correct corporate human resources manual.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "UN Report Says 'Gender Is Not Static, It Is Changeable'" by Adam Brickley, CNSNews.com 10/19/09
The report, written by UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, is titled “Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism.” While the main focus of the document is gender-based issues that arise from counter-terrorism efforts, [it's] the report’s definition of gender that has generated opposition.
“While many of the measures discussed in the report relate to the human rights of women,” Scheinin wrote in his report summary, “gender is not synonymous with women, and, instead, encompasses the social constructions that underlie how women’s and men’s roles, functions and responsibilities, including in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, are understood.”
Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent women, [said] “By including such broad topics as the social construct of men and women’s roles, sexual orientation and gender identity, they dilute the important purpose of this report and have managed to turn this into something that looks more like some politically correct corporate human resources manual.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Unmarried People to be Next 'Protected Class?'
"I'm feeling like single people's rights are really being thrown aside. . . . There is all this talk about gay marriage being good for people to get all these benefits. What about for those who don't want to get married?"
-- From "Are single people getting a raw deal?" by Kara Spak, Staff Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 9/18/09
"Why should equal rights depend upon your marital status?" said Tom Coleman, executive director of Unmarried America, the group behind Unmarried and Single American Week which starts Sunday.
Nearly 96 million Americans over 18 years old are not married, a group that includes those who are divorced and widowed, said Bella DePaulo, a Harvard-trained social scientist, fellow at the Chicago-based Council on Contemporary Families and author of Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.
Single people -- gay or straight, alone or in a committed relationship outside of marriage -- are paying more for everything from travel packages to dinners out, she said.
"It's still predominantly a married person's world, and [marriage] is still seen as being the preferred state," he said. "I think where we are moving is to see marriage as one option among several."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Are single people getting a raw deal?" by Kara Spak, Staff Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 9/18/09
"Why should equal rights depend upon your marital status?" said Tom Coleman, executive director of Unmarried America, the group behind Unmarried and Single American Week which starts Sunday.
Nearly 96 million Americans over 18 years old are not married, a group that includes those who are divorced and widowed, said Bella DePaulo, a Harvard-trained social scientist, fellow at the Chicago-based Council on Contemporary Families and author of Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.
Single people -- gay or straight, alone or in a committed relationship outside of marriage -- are paying more for everything from travel packages to dinners out, she said.
"It's still predominantly a married person's world, and [marriage] is still seen as being the preferred state," he said. "I think where we are moving is to see marriage as one option among several."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Contraceptive Failures: 1/3 French Pregnancies Unplanned, Most Aborted
Despite expanded use of a variety of contraceptives in France, unplanned pregnancies common
-- From "French Abortions Do Not Decrease Despite Increase in Contraception: Study" by James Tillman, LifeSiteNews.com 10/8/09
According to a new study by the French National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED), although the number of unplanned pregnancies in France has fallen, the number of abortions in such cases has increased, reports the Monde Actu 24h/24.
Unplanned pregnancies fell from 46% to 33% from 1975 to 2004, ostensibly due to use of contraceptives, according to the study, but the number of abortions of such pregnancies increased from 40% to 60% over the same period.
Over 40% of French women have an abortion at least once in their life.
The study says that women using contraception have a greater desire to control their fertility and thus are more likely to abort a child who is not consistent with their plans.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Despite Widespread Contraceptive Use, 1/3 of Pregnancies in France ‘Unplanned,’ New Study Confirms" by Karen Schuberg, CNSNews.com 10/16/09
Despite the legalization of contraception in France in 1967 and its widespread use in the country today, the number of “unplanned pregnancies” there is 36 percent, according to a new study.
In its study, “After 40 Years of Contraceptive Freedom, Why So Many Unplanned Pregnancies in France?” the Institut National D’Etudes Demographiques (National Institute of Demographics Studies) concluded that despite “improved fertility control, one-third of pregnancies in France are unintended.”
The percentage of French women who use the contraceptive pill is around 60 percent today.
The report said: “The propensity to terminate an unwanted pregnancy seems to have increased in parallel with the progress of birth control. As planned childbearing became the norm, unintended pregnancies became increasingly difficult to accept.”
“It has become ‘normal’ to be free from the risk of unwanted pregnancy,” the report stated. “More than 8 births in 10 today are ‘planned,’ sometimes down to the finest detail.”
[Joseph Meaney, a spokesman for Human Life International, a Catholic pro-life organization, told CNSNews.com] “Alan Guttmacher, founder of the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, admitted some time ago that the widespread use of contraception would lead to an increase, not a decrease, in recourse to abortion because all forms of contraception fail in some cases, and abortion would be needed to ‘be a back-up’ for contraception.”
Meaney added that the paradoxical effect of increased contraceptive use on rising abortion figures “matches precisely the then-mocked predictions of Pope Paul VI in his controversial 1967 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "French Abortions Do Not Decrease Despite Increase in Contraception: Study" by James Tillman, LifeSiteNews.com 10/8/09
According to a new study by the French National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED), although the number of unplanned pregnancies in France has fallen, the number of abortions in such cases has increased, reports the Monde Actu 24h/24.
Unplanned pregnancies fell from 46% to 33% from 1975 to 2004, ostensibly due to use of contraceptives, according to the study, but the number of abortions of such pregnancies increased from 40% to 60% over the same period.
Over 40% of French women have an abortion at least once in their life.
The study says that women using contraception have a greater desire to control their fertility and thus are more likely to abort a child who is not consistent with their plans.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Despite Widespread Contraceptive Use, 1/3 of Pregnancies in France ‘Unplanned,’ New Study Confirms" by Karen Schuberg, CNSNews.com 10/16/09
Despite the legalization of contraception in France in 1967 and its widespread use in the country today, the number of “unplanned pregnancies” there is 36 percent, according to a new study.
In its study, “After 40 Years of Contraceptive Freedom, Why So Many Unplanned Pregnancies in France?” the Institut National D’Etudes Demographiques (National Institute of Demographics Studies) concluded that despite “improved fertility control, one-third of pregnancies in France are unintended.”
The percentage of French women who use the contraceptive pill is around 60 percent today.
The report said: “The propensity to terminate an unwanted pregnancy seems to have increased in parallel with the progress of birth control. As planned childbearing became the norm, unintended pregnancies became increasingly difficult to accept.”
“It has become ‘normal’ to be free from the risk of unwanted pregnancy,” the report stated. “More than 8 births in 10 today are ‘planned,’ sometimes down to the finest detail.”
[Joseph Meaney, a spokesman for Human Life International, a Catholic pro-life organization, told CNSNews.com] “Alan Guttmacher, founder of the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, admitted some time ago that the widespread use of contraception would lead to an increase, not a decrease, in recourse to abortion because all forms of contraception fail in some cases, and abortion would be needed to ‘be a back-up’ for contraception.”
Meaney added that the paradoxical effect of increased contraceptive use on rising abortion figures “matches precisely the then-mocked predictions of Pope Paul VI in his controversial 1967 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
ObamaCare Means More Teen Sex, Less Abstinence
Liberal sex education "experts" expect Obama and a compliant Congress to stop the Bush-era federal promotion of wholesome living and marriage to students, in favor of sexualization and homosexual indoctrination
-- From "Sex Ed Should Not Promote Only Marriage or Heterosexual Relationships, Advocates Say" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer 10/16/09
A coalition of liberal sex education advocates says the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress will end support for abstinence-only programs that emphasize marriage and heterosexual relationships.
“The appropriations bills this year represent the most profound change in national sex education policy that we have ever had in the history of this country,” said William Smith, vice president for education and training with the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), at an event held Thursday on Capitol Hill.
Martha Kempner, vice president for information and communications with SIECUS, said the sex education programs used over the past eight years in America’s middle and high schools had a pro-marriage agenda.
“It’s six years of marriage promotion,” Kempner said. “You’re going on a journey and basically students are told that the only life goal that is acceptable is heterosexual marriage, and there’s one journey to follow to get there and it requires abstinence until you get there. . . They were still espousing marriage as the only appropriate adult relationship, including inaccurate information … promoting biases against sexual orientation, gender and family structure.”
Virginity pledges, Kempner added, not only don’t keep teens from having sex, but they also unfairly target homosexuals.
“Asking a gay or lesbian teen to sign this in high school is tantamount to asking them to agreeing to a lifetime without sexual behavior,” she said. “These programs are really made -- I would say they are made -- for a heterosexual classroom, but they are really made for a heterosexual world and obviously that’s inappropriate.”
Randall Moody, a lobbyist for the NEA, said the organization and its members support sex education that includes “sexual abstinence, birth control, family planning, diversity of sexual orientation, gender identification, parenting skills, STDs, HIV-AIDS, sexual harassment and abuse and problems associated with and resulting from teenage pregnancy.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "How to Lobby Against Sex Ed" by Joe Eaton, Atlantic Online 10/14/09
In late September, the Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment to its health care bill from Utah Republican Orrin Hatch that would reinstate $50 million in annual funding to abstinence-only programs. Earlier this year, President Obama removed funding for the programs from his budget.
. . . A spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which opposes abstinence-only education, said the Hatch amendment was not a surprise. But the spokeswoman, who declined to be identified by name, said she hopes and expects that the amendment will be cut from any final health reform bill before it leaves Congress . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Sex Ed Should Not Promote Only Marriage or Heterosexual Relationships, Advocates Say" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer 10/16/09
A coalition of liberal sex education advocates says the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress will end support for abstinence-only programs that emphasize marriage and heterosexual relationships.
“The appropriations bills this year represent the most profound change in national sex education policy that we have ever had in the history of this country,” said William Smith, vice president for education and training with the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), at an event held Thursday on Capitol Hill.
Martha Kempner, vice president for information and communications with SIECUS, said the sex education programs used over the past eight years in America’s middle and high schools had a pro-marriage agenda.
“It’s six years of marriage promotion,” Kempner said. “You’re going on a journey and basically students are told that the only life goal that is acceptable is heterosexual marriage, and there’s one journey to follow to get there and it requires abstinence until you get there. . . They were still espousing marriage as the only appropriate adult relationship, including inaccurate information … promoting biases against sexual orientation, gender and family structure.”
Virginity pledges, Kempner added, not only don’t keep teens from having sex, but they also unfairly target homosexuals.
“Asking a gay or lesbian teen to sign this in high school is tantamount to asking them to agreeing to a lifetime without sexual behavior,” she said. “These programs are really made -- I would say they are made -- for a heterosexual classroom, but they are really made for a heterosexual world and obviously that’s inappropriate.”
Randall Moody, a lobbyist for the NEA, said the organization and its members support sex education that includes “sexual abstinence, birth control, family planning, diversity of sexual orientation, gender identification, parenting skills, STDs, HIV-AIDS, sexual harassment and abuse and problems associated with and resulting from teenage pregnancy.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "How to Lobby Against Sex Ed" by Joe Eaton, Atlantic Online 10/14/09
In late September, the Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment to its health care bill from Utah Republican Orrin Hatch that would reinstate $50 million in annual funding to abstinence-only programs. Earlier this year, President Obama removed funding for the programs from his budget.
. . . A spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which opposes abstinence-only education, said the Hatch amendment was not a surprise. But the spokeswoman, who declined to be identified by name, said she hopes and expects that the amendment will be cut from any final health reform bill before it leaves Congress . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Notre Dame Pays Students for Homosexual Activism
A surprise decision by the University of Notre Dame to send five students to last weekend's gay rights march in the District has produced fury among alumni still smarting from the Catholic institution's invitation to President Obama in May.
-- From "Notre Dame feels political heat again" by Julia Duin, Washington Times 10/16/09
Five students belonging to the school's Progressive Student Alliance were given an undetermined amount from the university's student activities fund - from fees assessed to students - to drive to Washington, bunk with friends and participate in the National Equality March last Sunday. Thousands of participants marched from the White House to the Capitol to support gay rights.
Since the news broke Tuesday in the Observer, the student newspaper, comments and postings about the school's sponsorship of the trip have ricocheted on Catholic blogs and some gay outlets.
The Roman Catholic Church has taken one of the strictest stands against homosexual acts of any Christian denomination, calling such acts sinful and homosexual desires "disordered." The church's stance has been reiterated repeatedly under the present Pope Benedict XVI, during whose reign the Vatican has prohibited any priesthood candidate who has "present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or supports the so-called 'gay culture'" to enroll in seminary.
[Notre Dame has] a Core Council for Gay and Lesbian Students consisting of eight undergrads, the majority of whom are gay, and four administrators from the school's student affairs division. . . .
The school's campus ministry office also has an annual retreat for gay students, organizes a "solidarity Sunday" each fall to pray for "increased inclusion of all members of the church" and maintains a room of gay/lesbian reference materials.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Notre Dame feels political heat again" by Julia Duin, Washington Times 10/16/09
Five students belonging to the school's Progressive Student Alliance were given an undetermined amount from the university's student activities fund - from fees assessed to students - to drive to Washington, bunk with friends and participate in the National Equality March last Sunday. Thousands of participants marched from the White House to the Capitol to support gay rights.
Since the news broke Tuesday in the Observer, the student newspaper, comments and postings about the school's sponsorship of the trip have ricocheted on Catholic blogs and some gay outlets.
The Roman Catholic Church has taken one of the strictest stands against homosexual acts of any Christian denomination, calling such acts sinful and homosexual desires "disordered." The church's stance has been reiterated repeatedly under the present Pope Benedict XVI, during whose reign the Vatican has prohibited any priesthood candidate who has "present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or supports the so-called 'gay culture'" to enroll in seminary.
[Notre Dame has] a Core Council for Gay and Lesbian Students consisting of eight undergrads, the majority of whom are gay, and four administrators from the school's student affairs division. . . .
The school's campus ministry office also has an annual retreat for gay students, organizes a "solidarity Sunday" each fall to pray for "increased inclusion of all members of the church" and maintains a room of gay/lesbian reference materials.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Conservatives Oppose GOP NY Congressional Candidate
Conservative leaders nationwide back the third party candidate running against a Republican and a Democrat
-- From "House Republicans may face a ‘civil war’ over Scozzafava bid" By Reid Wilson, The Hill 10/15/09
The House GOP conference is bitterly divided over a centrist New York Republican’s run for the House seat vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh.
Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who backs abortion rights and has voiced support for gay rights, has drawn a challenger from the right who is running on the Conservative Party line. And though House leaders have urged conference members to donate, many have pointedly refused to back Scozzafava.
The Club for Growth, Concerned Women of America, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and evangelical leader Gary Bauer have all endorsed Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate.
The divide could foreshadow bigger troubles ahead for a party that hopes to make big gains in the House in 2010 and dreams of taking back the majority. Some members think that will be impossible as long as the party is divided over supporting centrist candidates.
Scozzafava was nominated by the chairmen of the local county party, and is competing for a district with about 46,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. However, it gave President Barack Obama 52 percent of the vote in 2008.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "House Republicans may face a ‘civil war’ over Scozzafava bid" By Reid Wilson, The Hill 10/15/09
The House GOP conference is bitterly divided over a centrist New York Republican’s run for the House seat vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh.
Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who backs abortion rights and has voiced support for gay rights, has drawn a challenger from the right who is running on the Conservative Party line. And though House leaders have urged conference members to donate, many have pointedly refused to back Scozzafava.
The Club for Growth, Concerned Women of America, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and evangelical leader Gary Bauer have all endorsed Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate.
The divide could foreshadow bigger troubles ahead for a party that hopes to make big gains in the House in 2010 and dreams of taking back the majority. Some members think that will be impossible as long as the party is divided over supporting centrist candidates.
Scozzafava was nominated by the chairmen of the local county party, and is competing for a district with about 46,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. However, it gave President Barack Obama 52 percent of the vote in 2008.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
After Parent Complaints, Schools Drop Sexually Explicit Book Studies
The book "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" has been removed from Roanoke County school libraries after a parent publicly complained, resulting in a flood of citizen complaints.
-- From "Teachers tense after book complaint" by Courtney Cutright, Roanoke Times 10/15/09
The review of "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is under way but school spokesman Chuck Lionberger did not specify when it will be done.
Two copies of the novel were removed from William Byrd High and a third was taken off the shelves at Hidden Valley High School. A third county school library, Cave Spring High School, also had the book until last school year when it was reported missing. Per the division's policy, the ruling on the challenged book applies to only the school where the complaint originated.
John Davis, the parent who complained, said in an interview last week he awaited the panel's decision. "It's not really anything I was looking for except making folks aware," he said. "I was hoping to get the Gospel out some more. We need repentance in the land."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gulf High IB student gets reprieve on book she objected to" St. Petersburg Times 9/17/09
It appears Marí Mercado won't have to read "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle" after all. And she won't have to take a reduced score on her required International Baccalaureate program world literature essay, either.
Marí's father, Rafael, told the Gradebook that he sat with officials from Gulf High School this afternoon, and they agreed to give his daughter a new novel for her assignment.
Marí, a 16-year-old junior, had objected to the required reading of The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, saying she was offended by the graphic sexual content in the book's early pages. Initially, school officials stated that they could not change the assignment. After additional review directed by the Pasco school district's curriculum department, the position seems to have softened.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Teachers tense after book complaint" by Courtney Cutright, Roanoke Times 10/15/09
The review of "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is under way but school spokesman Chuck Lionberger did not specify when it will be done.
Two copies of the novel were removed from William Byrd High and a third was taken off the shelves at Hidden Valley High School. A third county school library, Cave Spring High School, also had the book until last school year when it was reported missing. Per the division's policy, the ruling on the challenged book applies to only the school where the complaint originated.
John Davis, the parent who complained, said in an interview last week he awaited the panel's decision. "It's not really anything I was looking for except making folks aware," he said. "I was hoping to get the Gospel out some more. We need repentance in the land."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gulf High IB student gets reprieve on book she objected to" St. Petersburg Times 9/17/09
It appears Marí Mercado won't have to read "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle" after all. And she won't have to take a reduced score on her required International Baccalaureate program world literature essay, either.
Marí's father, Rafael, told the Gradebook that he sat with officials from Gulf High School this afternoon, and they agreed to give his daughter a new novel for her assignment.
Marí, a 16-year-old junior, had objected to the required reading of The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, saying she was offended by the graphic sexual content in the book's early pages. Initially, school officials stated that they could not change the assignment. After additional review directed by the Pasco school district's curriculum department, the position seems to have softened.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law
White House Civil Rights Czar said the Justice Department will change radically to fight discrimination against homosexuals as the Hate Crimes and ENDA bills pass through Congress.
-- From "Justice Department Expects to Crack Down on 'Gay Discrimination'" by Devlin Barrett, Associated Press 10/15/09
Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general in charge of the department's Civil Rights Division, said pending legislation in Congress will allow the department to attack discrimination against lesbian, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, a group often referred to by the acronym LGBT.
That would be new territory for the division that has historically gone after discrimination based on race, gender or religion. It would also be a major shift from the division's work during the Bush administration, which opposed expansion of the federal hate crimes law to prosecute those who attack gays.
Perez on Wednesday he gave his first speech to division employees, saying the division must be transformed "so that we are capable of tackling the civil rights challenges of the 21st century," include issues not historically addressed by the department.
"We must fight for fairness and basic equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters who so frequently are being left in the shadows," he said, and to "ensure that there's a level playing field in which our LGBT brothers and sisters are judged by the content of their character."
Perez's goal of greater government action on gay rights speech can only come if Congress changes civil rights law.
Conservative activists argued that such moves could come at the expense of people of religious faith.
"Too often it's religious liberty that's at stake when homosexuality is promoted in our society. The rights of people of faith who adhere to a biblical view of sexuality should not be crushed under the Obama administration's political promises to homosexual activists," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Focus on the Family Action.
To read this entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Justice Department Expects to Crack Down on 'Gay Discrimination'" by Devlin Barrett, Associated Press 10/15/09
Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general in charge of the department's Civil Rights Division, said pending legislation in Congress will allow the department to attack discrimination against lesbian, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, a group often referred to by the acronym LGBT.
That would be new territory for the division that has historically gone after discrimination based on race, gender or religion. It would also be a major shift from the division's work during the Bush administration, which opposed expansion of the federal hate crimes law to prosecute those who attack gays.
Perez on Wednesday he gave his first speech to division employees, saying the division must be transformed "so that we are capable of tackling the civil rights challenges of the 21st century," include issues not historically addressed by the department.
"We must fight for fairness and basic equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters who so frequently are being left in the shadows," he said, and to "ensure that there's a level playing field in which our LGBT brothers and sisters are judged by the content of their character."
Perez's goal of greater government action on gay rights speech can only come if Congress changes civil rights law.
Conservative activists argued that such moves could come at the expense of people of religious faith.
"Too often it's religious liberty that's at stake when homosexuality is promoted in our society. The rights of people of faith who adhere to a biblical view of sexuality should not be crushed under the Obama administration's political promises to homosexual activists," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Focus on the Family Action.
To read this entire article, CLICK HERE.
Fed. Judge Puts Marriage on Trial in Calif.
A federal judge in San Francisco refused Wednesday to dismiss a lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, and ordered a trial on whether the measure denies fundamental rights to gays and lesbians.
-- From "Judge refuses to toss suit challenging Prop. 8" by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer 10/15/09
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has said repeatedly that a trial is needed to resolve disputes that may determine the measure's constitutionality, so Wednesday's ruling did not surprise either side.
But the breadth of his decision was a boost for gay rights advocates, who argue that Prop. 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against gays, is rooted in anti-homosexual bias and violates the right to marry the partner of one's choice.
Walker left all those issues on the table, rejecting arguments by Prop. 8's sponsors that higher courts had already resolved them. Among the questions to be answered, he said from the bench, is "whether Prop. 8 was passed with discriminatory intent."
Even if it's rational for the state to promote marriage among opposite-sex couples, the judge asked . . . how would that goal be impeded by allowing same-sex couples to wed?
To read this entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Judge refuses to toss suit challenging Prop. 8" by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer 10/15/09
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has said repeatedly that a trial is needed to resolve disputes that may determine the measure's constitutionality, so Wednesday's ruling did not surprise either side.
But the breadth of his decision was a boost for gay rights advocates, who argue that Prop. 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against gays, is rooted in anti-homosexual bias and violates the right to marry the partner of one's choice.
Walker left all those issues on the table, rejecting arguments by Prop. 8's sponsors that higher courts had already resolved them. Among the questions to be answered, he said from the bench, is "whether Prop. 8 was passed with discriminatory intent."
Even if it's rational for the state to promote marriage among opposite-sex couples, the judge asked . . . how would that goal be impeded by allowing same-sex couples to wed?
To read this entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Calif. Governor Edicts Same-sex Marriages
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed two gay rights bills, one honoring late activist Harvey Milk and another recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
-- From "Schwarzenegger signs gay rights bills" by Dan Smith, Sacramento Bee 10/12/09
In the last of hundreds of bill actions taken before midnight Sunday, Schwarzenegger approved the two bills by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.
The governor last year vetoed the measure declaring May 22 a state day of recognition for [homosexual hero] Milk, suggesting that the former San Francisco supervisor be honored locally. But he subsequently named him to the California Hall of Fame.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "California bill to recognize some same-sex marriages" CNN 10/12/09
Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere between June 16, 2008, and November 5, 2008, are to be legally recognized, as are in-state marriages performed during that time.
The end date represents when a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, added a ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution.
Proposition 8 bars the state from recognizing any marriage performed outside the state outside those dates. The state Supreme Court ruled after the proposition passed that marriages performed before the ban would remain on the books.
But Senate Bill 54 splits a legal hair and requires the state to recognize such marriages as "unions," providing "the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state," the governor said.
"The governor's signing of SB 54 illustrates his disregard for the sovereign authority of California's voting citizens," said Everett Rice, a spokesman for the California Family Council.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Schwarzenegger signs gay rights bills" by Dan Smith, Sacramento Bee 10/12/09
In the last of hundreds of bill actions taken before midnight Sunday, Schwarzenegger approved the two bills by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.
The governor last year vetoed the measure declaring May 22 a state day of recognition for [homosexual hero] Milk, suggesting that the former San Francisco supervisor be honored locally. But he subsequently named him to the California Hall of Fame.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "California bill to recognize some same-sex marriages" CNN 10/12/09
Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere between June 16, 2008, and November 5, 2008, are to be legally recognized, as are in-state marriages performed during that time.
The end date represents when a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, added a ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution.
Proposition 8 bars the state from recognizing any marriage performed outside the state outside those dates. The state Supreme Court ruled after the proposition passed that marriages performed before the ban would remain on the books.
But Senate Bill 54 splits a legal hair and requires the state to recognize such marriages as "unions," providing "the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state," the governor said.
"The governor's signing of SB 54 illustrates his disregard for the sovereign authority of California's voting citizens," said Everett Rice, a spokesman for the California Family Council.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Obama Pushes Gay Agenda, but Doesn't Want Us to Know It
In President Obama's placating speech Saturday night to 3,000 homosexualists at a black-tie gathering sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, he promised to normalize homosexuality and thus further polarize America, by destroying marriage (DOMA), freedom of employment (ENDA), and the military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell).
. . . and Hate Crimes legislation will be ready for Obama's signature in just days.
UPDATE 10/27/09: Obama signing ceremony for "hate crimes" law spotlights homosexualists, but kept in shadows away from American's eyes
Introducing Mr. Obama, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese told the crowd, "We have never had a stronger ally in the White House. Never."
Mr. Obama, who spoke for about 25 minutes, told the crowd that he came to the gay community with a simple message: "I'm here with you in that fight….My commitment to you is unwavering."
[President] Obama vowed to end the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military, as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.
Mr. Obama also appealed to Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state and federal bodies can recognize domestic partnerships in providing government benefits. He also vowed to press for legislation that would extend health and other employment benefits to domestic partners of workers. But he again didn't provide a timetable.
Any attempt to change government policy concerning gay people could further divide an already polarized Congress. The administration needs lawmakers' cooperation to pass legislation to overhaul the nation's health-care system, a top priority for Mr. Obama. The administration is also trying to secure passage of new financial-industry regulations and could turn to Congress to request more troops in Afghanistan.
The president also referenced the House's move this week to widen hate-crimes legislation and make it a federal crime to assault people based on their sexual orientation.
He offered a tribute to Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was tortured and killed 11 years ago in Wyoming because of his sexual orientation, igniting a nation-wide drive for expanded hate-crimes legislation.
Yes, President Obama gave credence to the misconception of the horrific murder of Matthew Shepard; ABC News “20/20” reported in 2004 that the killers were actually drug-using thugs intent on robbery, not hatred of homosexuals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Rights March" by Janie Lorber, The New York Times 10/11/09
The morning after President Obama’s “big gay speech” . . . gay rights advocates are preparing to march from the White House to the Capitol building this afternoon.
The demonstration, set to begin at noon, is intended to pressure Mr. Obama to make good on his campaign promises to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” There was plenty of speculation from gays and politicos alike that he might start one, or both, of these efforts from the podium Saturday night–neither happened.
“President Obama gets an “F” for his speech tonight on gay rights,” wrote Kevin Naff, the editor of The Washington Blade, a gay issues newspaper in Washington D.C., as he bemoaned the absence of a timetable for Mr. Obama’s pledges. “This wasn’t so much a policy speech as a recitation of old campaign promises reheated for a breathless audience on its feet.”
“He’s the President, and so he ought to do much more,” wrote Nathanial Frank of the Palm Center, a research center that focuses on gays in the military at the University of California at Santa Barbara. “But until he does, he should be sharing our stories with the world, to help make it clear why equal rights matter–to gays and non-gays alike.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The White House apparently knows that the vast majority of America does NOT support the Gay Agenda, and so . . .
From "Why Didn't White House Put Out Obama Gay Rights Speech?" by Steve Clemons, Publisher of "The Washington Note" 10/11/09
The White House, thus far, has nothing about the President's speech on its main [web]site. Nothing at "Speeches and Remarks."
And even on the official White House Blog, there is a suspicious gap between an entry yesterday titled "Happy Birthday Bo!" and a one-minute-past-midnight posting on the President's weekly address on health care.
What's the issue here? Why is this Obama public statement being treated differently from other major statements he makes?
This is meant to be a friendly critique -- but while the gay community at the HRC dinner was enormously enthusiastic that Barack Obama was the first President since Bill Clinton in 1997 to speak at its annual event, we don't want the important remarks the President gave hidden so as not to make the weekend news cycle.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
These liberals just don't "get it." They're out of touch with Americans.
. . . and Hate Crimes legislation will be ready for Obama's signature in just days.
UPDATE 10/27/09: Obama signing ceremony for "hate crimes" law spotlights homosexualists, but kept in shadows away from American's eyes
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
-- From "Obama to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Military Policy" by Elizabeth Williamson, The Wall Street Journal 10/11/09Introducing Mr. Obama, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese told the crowd, "We have never had a stronger ally in the White House. Never."
Mr. Obama, who spoke for about 25 minutes, told the crowd that he came to the gay community with a simple message: "I'm here with you in that fight….My commitment to you is unwavering."
[President] Obama vowed to end the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military, as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.
Mr. Obama also appealed to Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state and federal bodies can recognize domestic partnerships in providing government benefits. He also vowed to press for legislation that would extend health and other employment benefits to domestic partners of workers. But he again didn't provide a timetable.
Any attempt to change government policy concerning gay people could further divide an already polarized Congress. The administration needs lawmakers' cooperation to pass legislation to overhaul the nation's health-care system, a top priority for Mr. Obama. The administration is also trying to secure passage of new financial-industry regulations and could turn to Congress to request more troops in Afghanistan.
The president also referenced the House's move this week to widen hate-crimes legislation and make it a federal crime to assault people based on their sexual orientation.
He offered a tribute to Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was tortured and killed 11 years ago in Wyoming because of his sexual orientation, igniting a nation-wide drive for expanded hate-crimes legislation.
Yes, President Obama gave credence to the misconception of the horrific murder of Matthew Shepard; ABC News “20/20” reported in 2004 that the killers were actually drug-using thugs intent on robbery, not hatred of homosexuals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Rights March" by Janie Lorber, The New York Times 10/11/09
The morning after President Obama’s “big gay speech” . . . gay rights advocates are preparing to march from the White House to the Capitol building this afternoon.
The demonstration, set to begin at noon, is intended to pressure Mr. Obama to make good on his campaign promises to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” There was plenty of speculation from gays and politicos alike that he might start one, or both, of these efforts from the podium Saturday night–neither happened.
“President Obama gets an “F” for his speech tonight on gay rights,” wrote Kevin Naff, the editor of The Washington Blade, a gay issues newspaper in Washington D.C., as he bemoaned the absence of a timetable for Mr. Obama’s pledges. “This wasn’t so much a policy speech as a recitation of old campaign promises reheated for a breathless audience on its feet.”
“He’s the President, and so he ought to do much more,” wrote Nathanial Frank of the Palm Center, a research center that focuses on gays in the military at the University of California at Santa Barbara. “But until he does, he should be sharing our stories with the world, to help make it clear why equal rights matter–to gays and non-gays alike.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The White House apparently knows that the vast majority of America does NOT support the Gay Agenda, and so . . .
From "Why Didn't White House Put Out Obama Gay Rights Speech?" by Steve Clemons, Publisher of "The Washington Note" 10/11/09
The White House, thus far, has nothing about the President's speech on its main [web]site. Nothing at "Speeches and Remarks."
And even on the official White House Blog, there is a suspicious gap between an entry yesterday titled "Happy Birthday Bo!" and a one-minute-past-midnight posting on the President's weekly address on health care.
What's the issue here? Why is this Obama public statement being treated differently from other major statements he makes?
This is meant to be a friendly critique -- but while the gay community at the HRC dinner was enormously enthusiastic that Barack Obama was the first President since Bill Clinton in 1997 to speak at its annual event, we don't want the important remarks the President gave hidden so as not to make the weekend news cycle.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
These liberals just don't "get it." They're out of touch with Americans.